|
Raneman posted:Precisely. This further adds to the suspicion as the US seems to be in a very opportunistic position that they weren't a few days ago. Now they have a somewhat flimsy Casus Belli that's good enough to sell to the American people. I'm not convinced there's a big upside to the US for this. Public approval of military intervention in this conflict is at an all-time low. The threat of radical islamists forming the vanguard of a takeover of the country if Assad falls, and subsequent ethnic cleansing, is also high. We're at a low-point of Russia-US relations. What's the real politik upside for the US right now? Far from rushing to war, Obama has been clearly regretting the "red-line" comment.
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
^^^We have friends saying 'this is unacceptable and we know Assad did it' too, mainly France but also, I believe the UK and someone else who's a big player in the region? We're going to have to stand with our allies on this after so long of blustering.Tuff Ghost posted:So all this posturing by the Obama administration stating that they have enough "proof" to hit Syria with cruise missiles is bogus? No they could have proof, we just haven't seen it. I don't know why people are making this sound like some plum position for Obama (or the other nations who also claim to have proof), after what, like, almost a year of going 'no no we're not doing this poo poo' and putting the (formerly) impossible bar of 'yea I guess if they fuckin gas people we'll do something' now they have to act or look like complete idiots. There's no 'win' here, what, Obama scores points with the hawks that never supported him to begin with?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:How is the US in a very opportunistic position? Don't you know that the Obama administration has been trying it's hardest not to get involved since this whole Syrian poo poo started? It's not in Obama's best interest to touch this thing with a 10 foot pole, and he loving knows it. Why in the world do you think the US wants to get involved here? How is it not in his interest? They have a justification for going to war with some Middle Eastern country, bordering Israel no less. One of the largest allies of Iran, and one of the only remaining places in the region where the government isn't outright loyal to the west. If we end up going to war over these chemical weapons attacks blamed on Assad, it's almost certain that when it's all done and through Assad will be dead and Syria will either not exist in its current form or be friendly to US interests. Raneman fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Aug 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Raneman posted:Can you source any of those claims? I'd be especially interested to hear the part where the rebels lack the capacity to use chemical weapons. BM has been very thoroughly covering those two aspects of the attack over the last few pages. I invite you to check his blog, which will answer your questions much better and more thoroughly than I possibly could. Raneman posted:How is it not in his interest? They have a justification for going to war with some Middle Eastern country, bordering Israel no less. One of the largest allies of Iran, and one of the only remaining places in the region where the government isn't outright loyal to the west. If we end up going to war over these alleged chemical weapons attacks, it's almost certain that when it's all done and through Assad will be dead and Syria will either not exist in its current form or be friendly to US interests. I don't know how you can come to the conclusion that a post-Assad Syria would be "friendly" to the US, but JAN and the associated Islamic radicals who make up the bulk of the hard-core rebels are not our friends.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:24
|
|
|
Raneman posted:How is it not in his interest? They have a justification for going to war with some Middle Eastern country, bordering Israel no less. One of the largest allies of Iran, and one of the only remaining places in the region where the government isn't outright loyal to the west. If we end up going to war over these alleged chemical weapons attacks, it's almost certain that when it's all done and through Assad will be dead and Syria will either not exist in its current form or be friendly to US interests. Huh. That's an odd stance to take. I'm sure all those people were just alleged to have been dying of a toxic nerve agent; They have Syrian child Crisis Actors or something. Edit: Are you ignoring BM's posts saying that the rebels have demonstrated that they don't have the capabilities to launch the munitions found at the attack site? You're making a pretty bold claim and are providing speculation at best for your evidence. PrinceRandom fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Aug 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:25
|
|
|
Raneman posted:How is it not in his interest? They have a justification for going to war with some Middle Eastern country, bordering Israel no less. One of the largest allies of Iran, and one of the only remaining places in the region where the government isn't outright loyal to the west. If we end up going to war over these alleged chemical weapons attacks, it's almost certain that when it's all done and through Assad will be dead and Syria will either not exist in its current form or be friendly to US interests. What? No seriously what? You think that despite the main rumbles seeming to be this being a Clinton style missile party we're going to destroy Syria and this all fits into Obama's master plan somehow?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
PrinceRandom posted:Huh. That's an odd stance to take. I'm sure all those people were just alleged to have been dying of a toxic nerve agent. That was a typo, I meant to imply that it's alleged that the Assad regime is responsible, I don't deny the attacks happened. I read BM's blog and it's pretty solid, but I don't see where he gets the idea that the rebels wouldn't have anything needed to launch this under any circumstances. I've seen plenty of videos of them using loads of old soviet Howitzers and I don't think it's possible to say for certain that they don't have access to whatever is needed to launch it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
Why would assad suddenly use chemical weapons? Le monde report http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2013/05/27/chemical-war-in-syria_3417708_3218.html quote:Reporters for Le Monde spent two months clandestinely in the Damascus area alongside Syrian rebels. They describe the extent of the Syrian tragedy, the intensity of the fighting, the humanitarian drama. On the scene during chemical weapons attacks, they bear witness to the use of toxic arms by the government of Bashar al-Assad. And it appears Italy is on board with military action. I expect we may see the Germans officially on board on or around the release of Obama's report with copious backchannel commitments to a limited action and protection for German crew son the Turkish border. Keep in mind as the international situation develops that these frequent comments about the limited intention of any military action are, among other things, intended to assure iffy allies this is not Iraq or even Libya. There are serious questions if Europe and the US can just go half way and stop, several people here and elsewhere have suggested it's all or nothing. It appears that regardless, we intend to try.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:39
|
|
|
This situation is still developing and we have nothing concrete as of yet, the only thing I'm scared of is the intervention doing more harm than good, with the whole "It is certain Assad used chemical weapons" used to justify it before there is evidence. I'm pretty non-interventionist but it seems nothing can stop us from bombing whoever we like. If Ron Paul was president none of this would have happened. You can assume it's going to be another relatively quiet bombing like Libya but with Iran and Russia posturing around this I don't think there's going to be no retaliation at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Italy said that it will intervene with an UN mandate, which we all know it won't happen. It's just a way to politely say that there is no interest. The public opinion in Italy is largely in favor of Assad, especially at right.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
And not to forget the munitions recovered at this attack have also been linked to at least 2 other alleged chemical weapon attacks, and I spoke to a doctor in Damascus who treated the patients of the August 5th and August 21st attacks and he claimed they had the same symptoms. I think the main difference with this attack is they landed in areas packed with refugees this time, when before they've landed on frontlines where the civilian population has fled. Overcrowded apartments buildings with all their resident fleeing to the basement when shells started falling, and the agent seeping into the basement is probably why their were such a huge number of casualties.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Italy said that it will intervene with an UN mandate, which we all know it won't happen. It's just a way to politely say that there is no interest. They said they would take an active roll with a UN mandate. Read the PMs remarks. quote:Later in the day, Premier Enrico Letta laid out Italy's position in a telephone conversation with British Prime Minister David Cameron, the Italian leader's office said. As I said yesterday it's unlikely they'll be asked for anything other than perhaps allowing logistical basing so active roll isn't an issue.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
Raneman posted:This situation is still developing and we have nothing concrete as of yet, the only thing I'm scared of is the intervention doing more harm than good, I'm sympathetic to this position, but if you look at the likely extent of US actions and the already staggering body count of this insanely complicated civil and religious war, how much worse could it possibly make it? Honestly whatever Obama does is going to be tiny bump in the road for the rolling clusterfuck that is Syria. quote:with the whole "It is certain Assad used chemical weapons" used to justify it before there is evidence. I'm pretty non-interventionist but it seems nothing can stop us from bombing whoever we like. If Ron Paul was president none of this would have happened. You can assume it's going to be another relatively quiet bombing like Libya but with Iran and Russia posturing around this I don't think there's going to be no retaliation at all. There will be no meaningful retaliation at all. Iran will still impotently hate us, Obama and Putin will trade tit for tat bullshit political insults. And if Ron Paul was president tens of thousands of Syrians would still be dead and millions more displaced with the promise of worse to come. 'None of this would have happened' is pretty loving callous seeing how it reframes everything away from the people undergoing a metric gently caress ton of suffering completely towards hand wringing about how it involves America.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
cafel posted:And if Ron Paul was president tens of thousands of Syrians would still be dead and millions more displaced with the promise of worse to come. 'None of this would have happened' is pretty loving callous seeing how it reframes everything away from the people undergoing a metric gently caress ton of suffering completely towards hand wringing about how it involves America. It is shaping up to appear that a strike is going to happen, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Raneman posted:This situation is still developing and we have nothing concrete as of yet, the only thing I'm scared of is the intervention doing more harm than good, with the whole "It is certain Assad used chemical weapons" used to justify it before there is evidence. There is plenty of evidence. Just because it isn't evidence you like doesnt mean tests and eyewitness reports dont count. And what evidence would be 'certain' for you? Admission by reigime officials? You wont get that. Spy satellite photos? Those arent better than eyewitnesses and testing.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
Raneman posted:Now they have a somewhat flimsy Casus Belli that's good enough to sell to the American people. Raneman posted:They have a justification for going to war with some Middle Eastern country, If you honestly think the US is going to full on war with Syria, I have a bridge to sell you Raneman posted:This situation is still developing and we have nothing concrete What is your definition of concrete in this context?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Raneman posted:How is it not in his interest? They have a justification for going to war with some Middle Eastern country, bordering Israel no less. One of the largest allies of Iran, and one of the only remaining places in the region where the government isn't outright loyal to the west. If we end up going to war over these chemical weapons attacks blamed on Assad, it's almost certain that when it's all done and through Assad will be dead and Syria will either not exist in its current form or be friendly to US interests. Where in the world do you get the idea that a rebel formed government would be friendly to the US? The high chance that a subsequent government would be hostile to the US is one of he reasons Obama has been trying his hardest to stay out of Syria.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Emanuel Collective posted:There is plenty of evidence. Just because it isn't evidence you like doesnt mean tests and eyewitness reports dont count. And what evidence would be 'certain' for you? Admission by reigime officials? You wont get that. Spy satellite photos? Those arent better than eyewitnesses and testing. Actual experts without a conflict of interest would be a start. If the UN concluded that Assad was behind the attack it'd be virtually certain to many.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
1913 posted:Actual experts without a conflict of interest would be a start. If the UN concluded that Assad was behind the attack it'd be virtually certain to many. Deciding who is behind the attacks is specifically outside their mandate, so you're asking for a conclusion they will never provide.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Sergg posted:http://raseef22.com/News-Detail/234/Regarding-The-Strike-on-Syria%E2%80%A6#.UhzXnxusiVY I appreciate the irony that using chemical weapons may now have become one of the best strategic moves the regime ever made.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
EDIT: Please delete this post, accidentally linked an old article
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Raneman posted:http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/ I feel like this thread is trapped in some kind of time loop, because I swear these are all talking points that were covered yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
Apparently a literal time loop because I somehow managed to not read the date before I linked the article.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
Also The Washington Times is in no way a legit paper.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
Normally not a fan, but I have to give it to the President/his staff on not aiming for regime change if we do attack. Fire a few missiles, show Assad NATO can get right through any air defense network he has to give him reason to not try another chemical attack. That's if we do something, I'd rather stay out of this whole mess.i poo poo trains posted:I appreciate the irony that using chemical weapons may now have become one of the best strategic moves the regime ever made. Still, hitting AQ targets while there would be nice.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:50
|
|
|
Just The Facts posted:Normally not a fan, but I have to give it to the President/his staff on not aiming for regime change if we do attack. Fire a few missiles, show Assad NATO can get right through any air defense network he has to give him reason to not try another chemical attack. That's if we do something, I'd rather stay out of this whole mess. I think the plan would be to completely disable his air force, which we can actually do with the assets in the region right now. He supposedly has less than a 100 functional fixed-wing aircraft, so getting rid of those would force him to attack with helicopters, which are now easy pickings for the rebels' AAA, let alone the advanced MANPADs they've been receiving. Just The Facts posted:Still, hitting AQ targets while there would be nice. No kidding, but to do so, there would have be some real slickness involved to get away with it. Having the U.S. conduct airstrikes is already causing them to freak out, so there's a good chance they might leave the region before then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:I think the plan would be to completely disable his air force, which we can actually do with the assets in the region right now. He supposedly has less than a 100 functional fixed-wing aircraft, so getting rid of those would force him to attack with helicopters, which are now easy pickings for the rebels' AAA, let alone the advanced MANPADs they've been receiving. I think grounding his entire fixed wing air force would both take too long and give the rebels more of a hand than I'd like to see. As for striking AQ, I understand they and the "secular rebels" really don't get along, so I'd imagine they would be separated. Still I really doubt they have a base of operations anywhere away from civilians meaning hitting them would be risky.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:No kidding, but to do so, there would have be some real slickness involved to get away with it. Having the U.S. conduct airstrikes is already causing them to freak out, so there's a good chance they might leave the region before then.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
CeeJee posted:Why is the presence of UN inspectors only used as an argument against the regime using chemical weapons ? The rebels knew the guys who could prove who used the weapons are in the country, would they also not be kind of dumb to use nerve gas not only on their own territory but also while the chance of being exposed by the UN is highest ? Agreed, if the rebels had used nerve gas then Assad would have cordoned off the area and not dropped a single shell on it until the inspectors got there to verify it was an improvised weapon and not one of his. It makes absolutely no sense to shell the gently caress out of an area to cover up the fact that your opposition broke international conventions and are trying to blame it on you. Specific counterpoints against the 'rational actor wouldn't escalate' theory: * US political divison is very much public knowledge. Unless you attack the US directly, it's very unlikely there will be any sort of unanimous push to significant action. * He's already in a win-or-die situation, if he feels like control is slipping away he can either double down or let them come and sodomize him with a knife before putting a bullet in his head. * It's 100% certain that nothing stronger than "Stop, please" will make it through the UNSC, and unilateral/NATO action is likely to result in more support from Putin. * The history of US retaliation for these sorts of provocation strongly indicates limited retaliation, not a full-scale invasion. * The time to back down and get out was before the civil war started. If you don't take that while you can still retire to a Russian resort town you're committing yourself to do whatever it takes to keep power. I'm not even going to try to comment on the capability evidence that Brown Moses has put together, since that's completely out of my league. I just wanted to attack the non-evidence underpinnings of the false-flag theory. The one thing I don't understand is why Assad's media keeps trying to claim Israel and Al-Quaeda conspiring against him. I heard that pairing five or six times on the news today, and it's just ludicrous - nobody believes that, and it makes everything else you say look even more suspect.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
i poo poo trains posted:The entire US military couldn't defeat them in Iraq, and you think they're going to give up all of Syria over a dozen Tomahawks? I agree entirely. Extensive missle atatcks and ground support in Yemen has been unable to drive AQAP out, a few short lived attacks in Syria wouldn't accomplish anything. Harik posted:Agreed, if the rebels had used nerve gas then Assad would have cordoned off the area and not dropped a single shell on it until the inspectors got there to verify it was an improvised weapon and not one of his. It makes absolutely no sense to shell the gently caress out of an area to cover up the fact that your opposition broke international conventions and are trying to blame it on you. The UN mandate as negotiated by Syria specifically does not cover how chemical weapons are being deployed, the agreement is they're simply there to verify if chemical weapons were used or not. This is one of the reasons the US thinks it's a waste of time after the attacks last week.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:15
|
|
|
quote:— President Obama is considering a range of limited military actions against Syria that are designed to “deter and degrade” the ability of President Bashar al-Assad’s regime to launch chemical weapons, Pentagon officials said Tuesday. http://news.nytco.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/obama-syria-strike.html?from=homepage
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
That rumbling sound you heard was Assad's artillery and rocket forces running for the hills.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Looks like stuff's about to get real in this conflict. Something I've been thinking about, and if this has already been brought up then totally sorry for not catching it and just tell me what page it's discussed on and I'll head over there, but The Guardian back in 2005 reported that, at that time, Syria and Iran formed a mutual defence pact. If that pact still stands (and I don't see anything that says it doesn't), and in the event of an anti-Syrian bombing campaign (which looks inevitable), should Iran honour their treaty commitments (and they very well may), the US and her allies would be at war not just with Syria but with Iran. I recall back from the Bush years when people were scared Bush would try to spark a war with Iran (the fears were silly and baseless, but that's beside the point for this post), reading a number of analyses (some on this very forum) detailing how bloody and costly a US-Iran conflict would be. SO, long story short: how likely is it that Iran will get involved in this conflict once the Tomahawks start raining down on Syria? And if they get involved, just how bloody and destructive will the ensuing conflict likely be?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
Iran's already involved. I don't think they're stupid enough to overtly declare war or directly attack Israel, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:39
|
|
|
Iran's already involved, but I see no reason why they'd move in conventional forces. They'll probably just up their clandestine support and groups of "advisers". There's no benefit for them from sending in large formations of soldiers. The US probably can't completely interdict the supplies and men, and Iraq has proven unwilling to do anything to prevent Iran from moving men and material to Syria through their airspace. If the US is just going to do a sprinkle of missiles the best thing to do is ignore it and press on if you're Iran. New Division fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Aug 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
New Division posted:Iran's already involved, but I see no reason why they'd move in conventional forces. They'll probably just up their clandestine support and groups of "advisers". There's no benefit for them from sending in large formations of soldiers. The US probably can't completely interdict the supplies, and Iraq has proven unwilling to do anything to prevent Iran from moving men and material to Syria through their airspace. Iran is crazy, but they aren't stupid. I can't see them making any ACTUAL moves towards full out war. Even they know that would just be madness.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
Blergh. I really hope this doesn't turn into yet another mideast war. It certainly is looking like that right now though. Here's to hoping that Obama can have a bit of restraint and wait and see what these investigators turn up. Until then, we don't really have any hard proof. For all we know, the rebels took some chemical weapons and set them off in order to provoke this exact kind of situation. It might sound implausible, but those rebels aligned with Al-Qaeda probably share that organization's disregard for innocent lives in order to press on with their agenda. I just don't think it's Assad. He may be an rear end in a top hat, but he's not a suicidal maniac.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:51
|
|
|
Yureina posted:Blergh. I really hope this doesn't turn into yet another mideast war. It certainly is looking like that right now though. Here's to hoping that Obama can have a bit of restraint and wait and see what these investigators turn up. Until then, we don't really have any hard proof. For all we know, the rebels took some chemical weapons and set them off in order to provoke this exact kind of situation. It might sound implausible, but those rebels aligned with Al-Qaeda probably share that organization's disregard for innocent lives in order to press on with their agenda. How exactly will the investigators get proof that it was the regime and not the rebels? The most they'll be able to tell is if an attack occurred, and even that's not something they can say definitively. quote:U.N. inspectors have not finished their investigation, but U.S. officials say they have their own intelligence. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57600357/how-would-a-u.s-strike-on-syria-play-out/
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
I'm going to listen to the White Stripes and pack a lunch for secondary school tomorrow because apparently it's 2003 again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:48 |
|
|
2003, except there's already a war going on and there's 100k+ dead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2013 00:58
|
|