|
Main Paineframe posted:The point of intervention isn't to stop the mass killings, it's to reinforce the taboo that the West has declared on NBC weapons. We don't care how many unarmed civilians they kill as long as they only do so using Western-approved weapons like guns and bombs and artillery. Tragically, yes. It'd be nice if we could plan some sort of intervention to stop the conventional bloodshed of the civil war, but everyone's pretty leery about getting that involved in the quagmire and obstruction on the UN SC has basically made it impossible. As a separate goal, though, deterring the use of chemical weapons can still be achieved even without international cooperation.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:37 |
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Then the better question would be: Those who are against strikes, how would you send the message that the US and other western countries frown ipon the use of chemixal weapons? Sanctions? Blockade? No-Fly zone? Fire cruise missiles at Israel next time they use WP on civilians.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I've collected all the media and links relating to the chemical linked munitions in this blog posts. Hah! I recognize her. She's showed up in my Facebook feed before. She gets posted by the same guy who thinks that Bush did 9/11, Fluoride is poison, and that Bigfoot is real. Nice guy otherwise, makes a great chili, just can't talk to him about politics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:11
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Then the better question would be: Those who are against strikes, how would you send the message that the US and other western countries frown ipon the use of chemixal weapons? Sanctions? Blockade? No-Fly zone? As to preventing proliferation of chemical weapons, a nice first step would be to be consistent in your actions and your condemnation. I've seen people complain that people keep talking about Saddam's CW, but the West's actions there are still remembered by nations like Syria. Not that they believe that CW are okay, they believe that the West thinks CW are okay when the right people use them. It's the same with nukes. Condemn Pakistan and Iran, ignore Israel and help India in their programs. That's the message that's being sent out and it's easy to fit an intervention in Syria into that framework. They'll just see it as another case of Western imperialism. Regardless of whether or not that's true, it becomes harder to justify an intervention purely to prevent CW usage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
Sorry if this was already posted. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-russia-navy-idUSBRE97S0AK20130829 quote:Russia is sending two warships to the east Mediterranean, Interfax news agency said on Thursday, but Moscow denied this meant it was beefing up its naval force there as Western powers prepare for military action against Syria. Lawman 0 fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
I've got a few friends who are saying that involvement in Syria will start World War 3. I know Russia has its hands in this issue,but is this likely at all?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:I've got a few friends who are saying that involvement in Syria will start World War 3. I know Russia has its hands in this issue,but is this likely at all? No. They're simply not invested enough. If we didn't go to war over Pristina airport, we won't over Syria.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:I've got a few friends who are saying that involvement in Syria will start World War 3. I know Russia has its hands in this issue,but is this likely at all?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:23
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Then the better question would be: Those who are against strikes, how would you send the message that the US and other western countries frown ipon the use of chemixal weapons? Sanctions? Blockade? No-Fly zone? But then, the question would be, why send such a message at all? I mean: - Everybody knows that the taboo is a guideline, anyway - if the US (Russia, China, Iran,...) used chemical weapons today, no one could, or would, do jackshit about it. "Might makes right," and so on. - The majority of casualties in this conflict were due to conventional weapons, anyway. Do you honestly think that a message of 'kill your citizens however you like, but don't use chemical weapons' is in any way beneficial? To anyone? To anyone's PR? To the West's PR among the citizens of Middle Eastern nations, in particular? I still think that the optimal solution Obama and so on should be/are looking for would be for Assad to produce a scapegoat right now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
nm
QUILT_MONSTER_420 fucked around with this message at 19:19 on Nov 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:25
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:I've got a few friends who are saying that involvement in Syria will start World War 3. I know Russia has its hands in this issue,but is this likely at all? Nah, Russia has been beating its chest as always but there's no one involved enough to make this a major engagement. There was a pretty shoddy 'report' sent out a bit ago that Russia totally said they'd bomb Mecca or something if we did something in Syria but that makes as much sense as me telling a guy I'll put a nuke in his house if he doesn't get out of my friend's face.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:No. They're simply not invested enough. If we didn't go to war over Pristina airport, we won't over Syria. Plus, China isn't really doing anything right? I'm not that frightened of Russia. Where did Syria get chemical weapons anyways?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:I'm not expecting a full on war plan. Just something more than 'we're going to blow some poo poo up'. There was that report posted earlier on how the US could destroy Syria's ability to run and operate planes. I would imagine any attack would be similar to that though from the number of ships being sent over there the number of targets would seem to be wider.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:28
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:Plus, China isn't really doing anything right? I'm not that frightened of Russia. Where did Syria get chemical weapons anyways? China is just generally opposed to intervention in state affairs by outside states, and pretty much abstains or vetoes anything that might suggest that in the UNSC, ever. I think most of Syria's CW have been made in-house, I think mostly in the '80s when its second-most powerful neighbor was manufacturing and using CW. So, perhaps not an entirely poor rationale for developing such awful weaponry. MothraAttack fucked around with this message at 16:34 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:Plus, China isn't really doing anything right? I'm not that frightened of Russia. Where did Syria get chemical weapons anyways? Iraq 2003 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:31
|
|
|
AllanGordon posted:There was that report posted earlier on how the US could destroy Syria's ability to run and operate planes. I would imagine any attack would be similar to that though from the number of ships being sent over there the number of targets would seem to be wider.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:32
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I've collected all the media and links relating to the chemical linked munitions in this blog posts. I like how she 'debunks' you for not being a trained munitions expert by pretending to be a munition expert herself.  edit: hollllllllllllllyyyyy poo poo is she being Whiteknight'd hard cochise fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:Plus, China isn't really doing anything right? I'm not that frightened of Russia. Where did Syria get chemical weapons anyways? Most Chinese foreign policy is basically "if it doesn't involve China or Chinese borders, we don't care". Their one sticking point is recognizing break away provinces which they will never, ever do due to Taiwan and Tibet, see their refusal to recognize Kosovo like Russia did and their refusal to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia unlike Russia, both in 2008. WaterIsPoison posted:Iraq 2003 Never proven ever
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Doublepost
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:34
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:I think that still qualifies as 'blowing poo poo up'. What I want is something resembling a plan to remove Assad from power or at the very least how to follow up on the destruction bit of the plan. It doesn't really seem what you're asking for is realistic at all. A plan to blow up targets and then win the civil war in Syria without committing boots to the ground. You're really just completely ignoring Syrian agency when you ask for such a plan. All the west can really do is bomb SNA hardware and buildings and provide as much support as they can to the FSA. I don't really see how that could be flawed versus the much much worse leaving the SNA to gas it's own populace.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
So, just for those watching the diplomacy of all this, the inspection team is slated to address the UNSC on Sunday or Monday. Looks like the UK is pretty adamant about approaching the Security Council over all this. If they still want to do it legally and it's vetoed in the Security Council, I believe the General Assembly could sanction it by invoking Chapter VII with the Right to Protect mandate (same criteria for the Security Council, I think), but who knows what the chances of that are. We might be looking at a good week of diplomatic wrangling still before action or inaction.
MothraAttack fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Fire cruise missiles at Israel next time they use WP on civilians. Look, I agree with you here, but we both know why that won't happen
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:38
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Look, I agree with you here, but we both know why that won't happen Well, that's my point. If their aim is to demonstrate consistency with regard to use of chemical weapons, that horse is out of the barn, down the street, into the glue factory and currently being used by a kindergartner to affix macaroni to construction paper.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
WaterIsPoison posted:Iraq 2003 I've been told told Iraq gave its weapons to Syria in 2003 by two different people in the military, one of whom was in a position to know. I didn't believe that might be true at all until the past few weeks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
What a surprise:quote:A British military attack on Syria will have to be a "judgment call" as there is no "single smoking piece of intelligence" that the regime used chemical weapons, David Cameron said at the beginning of the emergency Commons debate on Syria. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/syria-strikes-cameron-debate-chemical-weapons
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Hah! I recognize her. She's showed up in my Facebook feed before. She gets posted by the same guy who thinks that Bush did 9/11, Fluoride is poison, and that Bigfoot is real. Woah, woah, nothing wrong with liking Bigfoot stuff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Well, that's my point. If their aim is to demonstrate consistency with regard to use of chemical weapons, that horse is out of the barn, down the street, into the glue factory and currently being used by a kindergartner to affix macaroni to construction paper. The problem I have there is we honestly cannot expect the fact that its political suicide in the US to oppose anything Israel, but that doesn't mean we have to take one extreme or the other. I mean, you might as well say 'Well, we killed the Native American's in droves, so I guess we really cannot criticize Nazis.' CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 16:54 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:I've been told told Iraq gave its weapons to Syria in 2003 by two different people in the military, one of whom was in a position to know. It isn't. The Baath parties in Iraq and Syria never got along, and a paranoiac like Saddam Hussein would never have trusted Iran's ally to hold on to his poison gas. The whole, "Iraq gave it to Syria!" idiocy is perpetuated by credulous right-wing idiots who just can't admit to themselves that they, and George W. Bush, were totally wrong about Iraq having Chem/Nuke/Germ weapons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:51
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:Woah, woah, nothing wrong with liking Bigfoot stuff. He was so excited when this Las Vegas entertainer came out and claimed to have a dead Bigfoot in his freezer. Guy was just about beside himself when it turned out to be yet another hoax.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:Woah, woah, nothing wrong with liking Bigfoot stuff. Yeah man, people with big feet aren't a myth. Don't believe what the man tells you. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:54
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:Woah, woah, nothing wrong with liking Bigfoot stuff. Bigfoot is a part of the Jew-lluminati conspiracy to keep people from discovering Zionist gold buried in the wilderness by the Rothschilds and the Bilderberg Group Seriously, BM, looking at your mentions on Twitter is enough to make my eyes bleed. I don't know how you can handle looking at videos of dead/dying kids AND that kind of crap every day.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 16:55
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:He was so excited when this Las Vegas entertainer came out and claimed to have a dead Bigfoot in his freezer. Guy was just about beside himself when it turned out to be yet another hoax. Bahaha. I remember the two cops who tried that a few years ago. I mean I'd love for Bigfoot to exist, but eh I just don't consider the evidence strong enough to support it. I do love reading all the books and and watching stuff on it (well not that lovely Animal Planet one). At least I consider it to be different than the other things that woman believes. suboptimal posted:
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
suboptimal posted:
Oh god dammit, now we have to move our gold stockpile again which sucks since it takes 2 days to get there and everyone knows we don't roll on shabbos... and I hate working sundays. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Oh god dammit, now we have to move our gold stockpile again which sucks since it takes 2 days to get there and everyone knows we don't roll on shabbos... and I hate working sundays. Its okay, just do another tour of 'Fiddler on the Roof' as cover, it'll work out fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
Gnoll Pie posted:What a surprise: Right, the guys who were doing the study can't say who did it because the guy in charge of the military said they can't investigate it. There's no single smoking gun but there's a lot of shell casings sitting around here with Assad's name on them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:The problem I have there is we honestly cannot expect the fact that its political suicide in the US to oppose anything Israel, but that doesn't mean we have to take one extreme or the other. I like the implication that our endorsement of Israeli policy is, like, ancient history man. But this massive contradiction is staring us in the face. It forces us to ask, who is supposed to benefit from this demonstration of Western disapproval of certain regimes using certain CWs under certain circumstances? Other Middle Eastern nations? They'll just take away the message "don't embarrass the United States" which they already knew. "Rogue" regimes? Sure I guess, but they've already taken the lesson that they can drag their own people into hell as long as it doesn't interfere with strategic objectives. Obama made his mistake two years ago by not driving out Assad when Syria was still a country.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:I think that still qualifies as 'blowing poo poo up'. What I want is something resembling a plan to remove Assad from power or at the very least how to follow up on the destruction bit of the plan. The US removing Assad from power would be a disaster. The plan is easy, but you kind of just ignore it. We bomb to erase Assad's assets that previously couldn't be touched by the rebels. Hopefully he gets the message and doesn't use chemical weapons again lest he incur further damage that he previously didn't have to risk from the rebels. At that point, the civil war continues, but we're not involved again until CW is used again. I'm doubtful CW will be used again, because intelligence intercepts suggest it was a regional commander who did it, and wasn't sanctioned by the higher ups. So it's likely that Assad didn't want to use CW on this scale to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I like the implication that our endorsement of Israeli policy is, like, ancient history man. To be fair, the Israeli policy is kind of ancient history in that the Zionist policies date back to prior to World War 1 with the British and the Ottoman Empire. And c'mon, please tell me by not jumping on Assad two years ago is some magical excuse to ignore a chemical weapons attack?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:The US removing Assad from power would be a disaster. The plan is easy, but you kind of just ignore it. We bomb to erase Assad's assets that previously couldn't be touched by the rebels. Hopefully he gets the message and doesn't use chemical weapons again lest he incur further damage that he previously didn't have to risk from the rebels. At that point, the civil war continues, but we're not involved again until CW is used again. Have you ever considered that was exactly what Assad would want someone to hear after ordering the attack? A False Renegade Attack
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:37 |
|
|
Pimpmust posted:Have you ever considered that was exactly what Assad would want someone to hear after ordering the attack? Sure, but that would mean he wants to use the chemical weapons, but does not want to suffer the consequences. That would suggest that he would respond to actions that disincentivise his use of chemical weapons. If he really didn't care about consequences, he would just be like "I did it so what, gently caress y'all deal with it."
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:26
|
|