|
quote:And c'mon, please tell me by not jumping on Assad two years ago is some magical excuse to ignore a chemical weapons attack? It's not an excuse, I'm just saying that we can't fix anything now. Not without taking actions we don't have the political will to support.
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's not an excuse, I'm just saying that we can't fix anything now. Not without taking actions we don't have the political will to support. We can't fix the Syria situation period. The only thing we can do is attempt to modulate the use of chemical weapons. Any talk of removing Assad or installing our own government is doomed to failure. That's why there won't be any invasion and the bare bones minimum amount of help to select rebel groups.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
If Obama cannot justify some sort of attack now, after chemical weapons have almost certainly been used, how would he ever been able to sell some sort of intervention two years ago?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:34
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted: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." But what if it was a Fake Assad ordering a Fake Renegade Attack Call, in an obvious False Flag Op to draw international attention AWAY from the return of the Military in Egypt, enabling their SECRET backing of the rebel forces through the "Rogue" Sinai area, through underground tunnels into Israel where the Zionist Mossad agent, also known as "Brown Moses", smuggles them into Syria by way of the Golan heights. All on the orders of a Single Mastermind. Gentlemen, what I am saying is, and I'm not yet 100% certain, but like 99.9% certain, is that the Supreme Commander behind the Rebel Forces is none other than... Caro. Occam's Razor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's not an excuse, I'm just saying that we can't fix anything now. Not without taking actions we don't have the political will to support. There is no clean, happy on all sides solution. No matter what we do, there will be large criticisms and big problems. Sanctions? Problems from the FSA and possibly more Jihadists Strikes? Problems with getting in the middle of the civil war. There is no win, only losses, but what has the best solution? Neither really does.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
Another solution would have been to remain silent and not set any red lines. It's worked for Bahrain, Yemen and the SCAF crackdown.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Another solution would have been to remain silent and not set any red lines. It's worked for Bahrain, Yemen and the SCAF crackdown. ...and what? The chemical attacks would have never happened without the red line?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Another solution would have been to remain silent and not set any red lines. It's worked for Bahrain, Yemen and the SCAF crackdown. Yeah, it's probably the best action from the realist perspective, and what I would have done. But on the other hand, some dudes just got gassed and died in convulsions and foaming at the mouth and nose, so there's that. There may also be an overarching long range strategic goal governing chemical warfare containment by the US that I'm not understanding at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:There is no clean, happy on all sides solution. No matter what we do, there will be large criticisms and big problems.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
Toplowtech posted:I am pretty sure the goal is to bomb Assad's bases/forces and weaken his ability to fight the rebels enough for him to realize he needs to run out of the country. That seems like it would be the goal, or at least weaken his forces enough that the rebels are on even terms again.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:...and what? The chemical attacks would have never happened without the red line? More like we pretend it never happened and carry on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:...and what? The chemical attacks would have never happened without the red line? It's a solution for Obama not being boxed in to have to take some kind of action, not a solution for preventing chemical agents from being used.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Gnoll Pie posted:What a surprise: Well, there actually isn't. No matter how many times you repeat the speculation, it doesn't make it true. Until inspectors release actual evidence, there simply isn't any point in dreaming up fantasy scenarios. There's a video of a rocket being launched which is the same design as a thermobaric. There is debris on the ground that matches quite nicely with how a thermobaric rocket works (cloud dispersed, small charge triggered, remains fall through more or less in tact, even more-so if it's a dud. And on the EtO side of it, propylene oxide is typically mixed in, and it's not uncommon for mistiming of the detonation charge to happen, which is why the US abandoned it in the first place. The only known nerve gas which even slightly resembles the claims is sarin, so, with all those tissue/blood samples, there should be fluoride ions present in significant amounts. The claims of miosis should also be fairly universal and last for quite some time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:53
|
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:Well, there actually isn't. No matter how many times you repeat the speculation, it doesn't make it true. Until inspectors release actual evidence, there simply isn't any point in dreaming up fantasy scenarios. Please, just stop. Not enough of the chemical to cause the casualties caused. Doesn't jive with the Doctors Without Border's report. It just doesn't fit. Also, its a thermobaric weapon, the entire point was to cause a massive explosion. I can see one dud, with maybe SOME people suffering the effects of exposure, but the numbers do not fit this idea. You are telling me 500+ people were in the immediate area of a failed thermobaric weapon, with 300+ suffering death due to exposure. In the middle of a shelling campaign. Unless they rigged SEVERAL of the weapons to not explode on purpose to cause these effects, and then guess what? Its a chemical weapon attack then! So what are you arguing for? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:More like we pretend it never happened and carry on. There is no conceivable world where Assad gasses civilians near Damascus, and the Western response is indifference. unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
Ofc. Sex Robot BPD posted:We'd bomb Syria regardless of the Red Line comment. The comment just makes Obama look extra-ineffectual if we do nothing. I dont think its a sure thing. The political winds seem to have shifted and were only begrudgingly throwing some cruise missiles because of the red line comment. Hell the brits seem to be losing a bit of their bluster already.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
QUILT_MONSTER_420 posted:Probably places like Korea and Vietnam would have had a more sunny late 20th century, in terms of economic, civic, and infrastructural development, and maybe would have had less paranoid and more flexible governments -- without the multimegatons of bombs, napalm, and chemical warfare via defoliants that the USA inflicted on them and followed up with decades relentless economic warfare. Just a guess. "Probably" and "maybe" would required a fundamental change in the kind of people running dictatorships. The reason they get where they are is a megalomaniacal need for power backed up with the brutality needed to maintain it. There are dictators who haven't fought wars with the US and still manage to be paranoid monsters. The US hasn't been skittles and kittens but without their influence the world would still have issues.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
I have enjoyed watching "centrists" everywhere fret about how we can't allow Iraq or Bush's legacy to make us drag our feet, as though it were a serious problem that this nation might be slightly more uneasy about engaging in another aggressive war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I have enjoyed watching "centrists" everywhere fret about how we can't allow Iraq or Bush's legacy to make us drag our feet, as though it were a serious problem that this nation might be slightly more uneasy about engaging in another aggressive war. The phrase "fighting the last war" doesn't just apply to the Pentagon. Personally, this whole situation reminds me of the relationship between Somalia and Rwanda. An over reaction to a previous gently caress up causes another gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:I have enjoyed watching "centrists" everywhere fret about how we can't allow Iraq or Bush's legacy to make us drag our feet, as though it were a serious problem that this nation might be slightly more uneasy about engaging in another aggressive war. If the US was considering actually going to war with Syria, you might be onto something. Saying the US might be in a war with Syria is I think actually offensive to the people living in a war zone, whether it's Syrians or NATO soldiers in Afghanistan. One of our destroyers/submarines lobbing some precision guided missiles and maybe some jets doing a few sorties does not constitute America being in a war. It will in no meaningful way affect Americans, either American service members or civilians.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
This stuff about laymen making authoritative claims about weapons design from blurry Youtubes and pictures of scattered debris is seriously reminiscent of the breathless analysis of Pentagon lawn wreckage or the Terry Schiavo videos. You can certainly have your suspicions but it seems a mite insufficient to demand a rush to war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:This stuff about laymen making authoritative claims about weapons design from blurry Youtubes and pictures of scattered debris is seriously reminiscent of the breathless analysis of Pentagon lawn wreckage or the Terry Schiavo videos. You can certainly have your suspicions but it seems a mite insufficient to demand a rush to war. This is actually nothing like that though?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:This stuff about laymen making authoritative claims about weapons design from blurry Youtubes and pictures of scattered debris is seriously reminiscent of the breathless analysis of Pentagon lawn wreckage or the Terry Schiavo videos. You can certainly have your suspicions but it seems a mite insufficient to demand a rush to war. Yeah instead you can be a guy smug about everything while offering nothing to refute said assertions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:If the US was considering actually going to war with Syria, you might be onto something. Saying the US might be in a war with Syria is I think actually offensive to the people living in a war zone, whether it's Syrians or NATO soldiers in Afghanistan. One of our destroyers/submarines lobbing some precision guided missiles and maybe some jets doing a few sorties does not constitute America being in a war. It will in no meaningful way affect Americans, either American service members or civilians. Oh. Well, your transparent pretense of offense aside, I wonder if we'd feel the same way about missiles and airstrikes to cripple a government and help violent rebel groups not constituting an act of war if it was Egypt doing it to Israel.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:This is actually nothing like that though? David Cameron disagrees with you. "Saving face" has to be about the dumbest reason to enter a war ever. At least Bush had a clear goal of deposing Saddam, even if he had no plan for what came after. We don't even have a goal, apart from "blow some of Assad's poo poo up and then pick up a pizza on the way home". Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:If the US was considering actually going to war with Syria, you might be onto something. Saying the US might be in a war with Syria is I think actually offensive to the people living in a war zone, whether it's Syrians or NATO soldiers in Afghanistan. One of our destroyers/submarines lobbing some precision guided missiles and maybe some jets doing a few sorties does not constitute America being in a war. It will in no meaningful way affect Americans, either American service members or civilians. Gotta say I disagree with you. We will be participating in the Syrian civil war and we will be intervening. Trying to distance yourself from the symbolic associations of 'war' with another country does not change the effects American military action in Syria may have. If we attack their government, that is nothing but an act of war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
Something rather interesting about those munitions I've been examining, it seems while they are both about 333mm wide, which fits with them being launched from the Falaq-2, the heavier high explosive model has a longer tail section, while the "other" warhead type has a shorter tail, about 2 meters to 1.5 meters. This suggests a larger rocket motor is being used for the high explosive model.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Oh. Well, your transparent pretense of offense aside, I wonder if we'd feel the same way about missiles and airstrikes to cripple a government and help violent rebel groups not constituting an act of war if it was Egypt doing it to Israel. Israel is not currently in the middle of a war that has already killed 100,000 people in 2 years with an authoritarian leader who used chemical agents, either by direct order or by a complete breakdown of authority in his chain of command. So yes, it would be a bit odd if Egypt wrong if Egypt started doing that.(and yes, yes, Israel does terrible things to Palestinians but don't even try to equate the Palestinian problem to the current Syrian problem) Michael Scott posted:Gotta say I disagree with you. We will be participating in the Syrian civil war and we will be intervening. Trying to distance yourself from the symbolic associations of 'war' with another country does not change the effects American military action in Syria may have. If we attack their government, that is nothing but an act of war. My problem isn't so much saying the US would be involved in a war, it's the constant portrayal that US is rushing off to war ala Iraq, as if we're starting a new war and putting on a massive campaign involving more than a few token elements of the navy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:42
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:If the US was considering actually going to war with Syria, you might be onto something. Saying the US might be in a war with Syria is I think actually offensive to the people living in a war zone, whether it's Syrians or NATO soldiers in Afghanistan. One of our destroyers/submarines lobbing some precision guided missiles and maybe some jets doing a few sorties does not constitute America being in a war. It will in no meaningful way affect Americans, either American service members or civilians. Last I checked dropping bombs on a soverign state is an act of war, ground troops or not. You don't have to agree with me but Russia just called an emergency UN security council meeting meeting over Syria. Non english source
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:If the US was considering actually going to war with Syria, you might be onto something. Saying the US might be in a war with Syria is I think actually offensive to the people living in a war zone, whether it's Syrians or NATO soldiers in Afghanistan. One of our destroyers/submarines lobbing some precision guided missiles and maybe some jets doing a few sorties does not constitute America being in a war. It will in no meaningful way affect Americans, either American service members or civilians. I wonder if the Syrians will see it that way. I'd imagine if a foreign naval vessel fired a few cruise missiles into US territory we'd be at war the second we found out who did it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Amused to Death posted:Israel is not currently in the middle of a war that has already killed 100,000 people in 2 years with an authoritarian leader who used chemical agents, either by direct order or by a complete breakdown of authority in his chain of command. The existence of an authoritarian leader is of course irrelevant in practice to the US, and the war in Iraq killed at least that many people, yet I do not recall any calls for the international community to bomb the US and topple its government as a result. If Assad or his generals did use chemical weapons, I agree that they should be bombed, but I have not yet seen evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, nor would I consider said action "not a war."
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:49
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Something rather interesting about those munitions I've been examining, it seems while they are both about 333mm wide, which fits with them being launched from the Falaq-2, the heavier high explosive model has a longer tail section, while the "other" warhead type has a shorter tail, about 2 meters to 1.5 meters. This suggests a larger rocket motor is being used for the high explosive model. Sarin is less dense than HE?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:"Saving face" has to be about the dumbest reason to enter a war ever. At least Bush had a clear goal of deposing Saddam, even if he had no plan for what came after. We don't even have a goal, apart from "blow some of Assad's poo poo up and then pick up a pizza on the way home".
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Sergg posted:Sarin is less dense than HE? Not to mention the warhead would likely be smaller as with HE they try to pack as much of that stuff in as they can, as gas warheads would only be limited in area rather than potency if smaller whereas HE would not have as much effect in a smaller round. LunarShadow fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Chemical Weapons experts say there are "no hard facts". It's baffling how certain some people are that the bombs need to start falling right now:quote:Alastair Hay, a chemical weapons expert who helped with the investigation at Halabja, said the report added little new information. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/29/mps-debate-syria-live-blog#block-521f7b90e4b01790173db521 Also, it makes me very suspicious that Cameron is accusing people of giving "succour" to Assad, why you'd think he was trying to whip up war hysteria or something: quote:A furious row between Downing Street and the Labour leadership has erupted after No 10 accused Ed Miliband of giving "succour" to the Assad regime after he moved to block an early Commons vote on military action. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/29/syria-ed-miliband-succour-assad Gnoll Pie fucked around with this message at 19:03 on Aug 29, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
quote:"Their report will be difficult to ignore by any party. And that is when, and only when, measures should be discussed both to deter the perpetrators and ultimately arrest and try them."  Sorry to be glib, but the idea that a UN report will change anything is laughable. Especially given their narrow mandate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:02
|
|
|
Grayly Squirrel posted:Sorry to be glib, but the idea that a UN report will change anything is laughable. Especially given their narrow mandate. It's a question of evidence, not of glib photographs and war hysteria!
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
R. Mute posted:fyi, my position is that there should be an intervention, but that it should have a lot more thought and planning behind it than what's currently being proposed. As long as there isn't a believable plan on the table, I think supporting an intervention is just dangerous and stupid. It's an impossible situation though. We've seen what Western nation-building is capable of this last decade and it is poo poo. We're not better at it now than in 2003 or 2004. No significant steps were taken in that direction where if there would be another Rwanda NATO or "the west" or the US could go in and fix poo poo in any meaningful way. The reason is obvious and you've pointed it out yourself: there's no interest in intervention genuinely for humanitarian reasons, nor has there ever been. So that whole perspective of "ok we'll intervene for humanitarian reasons, how do we do that and what's the plan after the initial fighting dies down?", especially that second part, just isn't there. That analysis isn't being done, those questions aren't being asked, let alone answered, let alone any significant quantities of resources spent on innovating and learning from the past to develop capabilities in this regard. So I think I'm with you. I'm leftist as gently caress and I'm for intervention in Syria on humanitarian grounds. I'm not a pacifist, armed forces and violence can be employed for good causes. In the liberal-dominated world we live in though, that's just simply not going to happen. And so, this whole intervention story mirrors the situation we've had in Syria the last few years. There are multiple options, all of them poo poo. Maybe some are slightly less poo poo, it's really hard to tell, but make no mistake, they're all still firmly in poo poo territory. Can we imagine non-poo poo options and paths? Yes, absolutely. They're achievable, within human means, not utopian, but tragically just not in the world we currently live in. Not with the power structures the way they are. In a better world, we'd invade Syria, restore peace, hold everyone accountable for their crimes and begin the arduous task of working together with the Syrians to fix their communities and their country. We wouldn't make things perfect, and it'd be a tough road with likely some ugly things going wrong along the way, but after a few decades we could look back and honestly say "we tried our very best to make things better". That's the intervention I support, but there's nobody out there offering that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
http://freebeacon.com/a-tour-of-syrias-chemical-weapons/ Here's a website that purportedly claims to have a video of Syria's underground chemical weapons bunkers, and they're listing the area around Mezzeh Military Airport, which is right where that video that Brown Moses got was reportedly filmed. And this website article was written in 2012, over a year ago.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 18:12 |
|
|
Gnoll Pie posted:It's a question of evidence, not of glib photographs and war hysteria! That is the thing though. What evidence? The UN report is just about whether or not an attack took place. We know that already. Yes, the argument could be made that the report will contain information that can be used by independent sources to assign blame, but in that case, why wait? Why not just assemble that information now?
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2013 19:06
|
|