Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »

iCe-CuBe.: Jun 9, 2011

Tezzor posted:

Can we get people to stop claiming that Obama has done everything he possibly can to stop a war? It's a valueless nationalistic statement, pure propaganda invoked in every single war, and happens to be totally inaccurate in this case.

He's being forced by the hand of fate to send cruise missiles into a country. Things have taken on a course of their own. He's helpless, if he doesn't show the world that his red line means business then they might decide not to invite America to the next international tea party.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 13:01

Darkman Fanpage: Jul 4, 2012

Dolash posted:

If someone, somewhere doesn't reinforce the prohibition against chemical weapons such that the international community at large backslides into using them again, that'd be much more terrible than mere cynical framing of the situation.

Nobody punished Italy when it used chemical weapons against the Ethiopians in 1935 and 36. Nobody punished Japan when it used chemical and biological weapons against the Chinese National forces in the late 1930s, that is other than for a condemnation from the League of Nations. Nobody punished Egypt when it used chemical weapons against North Yemen and Saudi Arabian forces in 1963. Nobody punished Iraq when it used chemical weapons against the Iranians and its own Kurdish civilians.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:04

Vernii: Dec 7, 2006

Nckdictator posted:

With the Syrian security forces supposedly hiding in mosques and schools there's not a large chance that those locations would be bombed , right?

Well....I imagine the mosques won't get bombed but I wouldn't be entirely sure about the others. They do present an interesting problem of being located in the midst of Damascus instead of being spendidly isolated like their regular facilities are, which means any attacks are probably going to have to be smart bombs and such rather than cruise missiles.

IIRC it wouldn't necessarily be an illegal act; the Hague Conventions assign responsibility for the violation of protected areas to the party that commits it first (ie, fortifying a school). The adverse party is permitted to take military actions against the newly militarized target after providing a warning of intent to do so. This is of course, if I recall correctly, so I may be wrong.

Though regardless of legality, Syrian propaganda would howl about it. It wouldn't surprise me if they used prisoners as human shields for the targets so they can wave around 'civilian' dead after some command center gets nailed.

EDIT: Chances are good they won't get hit though, since like others have mentioned, other than being command facilities they're kind of useless. If we want regime change, then they might be hosed, but if we go with a punitive campaign then no.

They can disperse their leadership as much as they want, it doesn't change the fact that their air force has nowhere to hide, nor do their motor pools.

Vernii fucked around with this message at 01:09 on Sep 3, 2013

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:05

iCe-CuBe.: Jun 9, 2011

Crasscrab posted:

Nobody punished Italy when it used chemical weapons against the Ethiopians in 1935 and 36. Nobody punished Japan when it used chemical and biological weapons against the Chinese National forces in the late 1930s, that is other than for a condemnation from the League of Nations. Nobody punished Egypt when it used chemical weapons against North Yemen and Saudi Arabian forces in 1963. Nobody punished Iraq when it used chemical weapons against the Iranians and its own Kurdish civilians.

Further, through all of these incidents, the trend has been continually towards an end to chemical weapons use, not the reverse. The idea that one dictator using chemical weapons will somehow cause a domino effect sounds an awful lot like our rationale for moving into Vietnam, and it's blatantly false.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:05

Dolash: Oct 23, 2008; aNYWAY,
tHAT'S REALLY ALL THERE IS,
tO REPORT ON THE SUBJECT,
oF ME GETTING HURT,

iCe-CuBe. posted:

Yeah, that's totally going to happen and isn't a steaming pile of bullshit. You do get that virtually no one has chemical weapons, right, and the US not bombing a country when they use chemical weapons isn't going to make every dictator perk their heads up and say "Hey, time to spend a shitload of money on weapons that aren't even that useful" - just like that didn't happen when Saddam used chemical weapons.

Is your point that the chemical weapon ban is pointless, and that gas attacks should be allowed inasmuch as conventional warfare is tolerated? If Assad sees inaction and decides to use gas to terrorize rebellious population centers into submission, that's okay? If the rebels decide they have to get their hands on chemical weapons of their own, and the death toll becomes even more indiscriminate and undirected?

I'd be careful before so casually dismissing a ban on a weapon found to be so frightening to the international community that they actually banned it after World War 1, and many nuclear war policies see as justification for a nuclear retaliation. Of all the arguments against some kind of response or intervention, "Chemical weapons aren't really a big deal" isn't the best.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:07

Dolash: Oct 23, 2008; aNYWAY,
tHAT'S REALLY ALL THERE IS,
tO REPORT ON THE SUBJECT,
oF ME GETTING HURT,

Crasscrab posted:

Nobody punished Italy when it used chemical weapons against the Ethiopians in 1935 and 36. Nobody punished Japan when it used chemical and biological weapons against the Chinese National forces in the late 1930s, that is other than for a condemnation from the League of Nations. Nobody punished Egypt when it used chemical weapons against North Yemen and Saudi Arabian forces in 1963. Nobody punished Iraq when it used chemical weapons against the Iranians and its own Kurdish civilians.

Does that mean they shouldn't have been punished? They're certainly listed as crimes of those regimes when people talk about them, and in pretty much all of those cases were listed among the crimes of said regimes when they were toppled.

Edit: drat, double-post. Was sure someone would've posted by now.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:09

more friedman units: Jul 7, 2010; The next six months will be critical.

Dolash posted:

Does that mean they shouldn't have been punished? They're certainly listed as crimes of those regimes when people talk about them, and in pretty much all of those cases were listed among the crimes of said regimes when they were toppled.

Edit: drat, double-post. Was sure someone would've posted by now.

Why is this particular instance of chemical warfare going to be the tipping point that encourages all countries to begin gassing each other unless the U.S. starts launching cruise missiles? It didn't happen with those other instances, did it?

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:12

The Newman: Oct 17, 2003; unconstructive critic

Well Dolash I suppose the obvious point which needs to be drilled back into your brain despite being explicitly stated already is that no collective international responsibility to attack the user of chemical weapons exists, that the usage of chemical weapons does not create a global slide into increased usage, and that you're an easy sell on Excuses to Attack.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:13

Gygaxian: May 29, 2013

This may be a dumb question, but could an intervention "inspire" any Alawite/Christian/Druze/etc military leaders (and their troops) to defect? I haven't been following this quite as closely as Brown Moses has, but from what I understand, there's been a thin trickle of non-Sunni Syrian leaders defecting throughout the whole civil war, right? Could this intervention get a credible Alawite military leader to skedaddle, or possibly even join up with the rebels?

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:27

Golbez: Oct 9, 2002; 1 2 3!
If you want to take a shot at me get in line, line
1 2 3!
Baby, I've had all my shots and I'm fine

How much of this is Obama's own fault for the red line rhetoric? It seems to me that if he hadn't made the red line statements, that he'd have much more leeway in how to act here, instead of people hounding him for seeming weak now.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:37

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

It's Obama's fault if we accept that chemical weapons usage against civilians doesn't in fact demand a response.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:38

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Xandu posted:

It's Obama's fault if we accept that chemical weapons usage against civilians doesn't in fact demand a response.

I don't disagree in principle Xandu, but what is an appropriate response at this juncture? Take out the airports and Assad is hosed, no matter what anyone says. And by and large that's where they're storing their chemical arsenal at this junction. Target anywhere else and you're either hitting Alawite villages or downtown Damascus. Assad is going to fall, I really don't have any doubt about that. But what is a "measured" response to genocide? And I mean for the whole war, realpolitik included.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:45

Willa Rogers: Mar 11, 2005

nm; misread.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:46

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Good thing that's not what he said.

quote:

�We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized,� the president said a year ago last week. �That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.�

Although he hasn't tried to stop the recent interpretation of it as meaning military action

edit: You could also argue that it was a clear attempt at deterring the use of chemical weapons, which seems like a noble goal regardless of if he follows through.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:48

Space Monster: Mar 13, 2009

Xandu posted:

Good thing that's not what he said.

Although he hasn't tried to stop the recent interpretation of it as meaning military action

Probably because he obviously meant that in the first place. What else could he have meant? Are you implying that he has been holding back diplomatically?

quote:

edit: You could also argue that it was a clear attempt at deterring the use of chemical weapons, which seems like a noble goal regardless of if he follows through.

As opposed to a commitment to act which paints him into a corner politically? No, I think his red line statement was pretty stupid. I think he assumed that Assad is somehow in a less desperate situation or is less insane than Qaddafi was, and that was a very poor misread. Or else that he had more control over his forces than is actually the case. Regardless, as a powerful politician you have to know when your words will have to be translated into action, and he dropped the ball pretty hard.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 01:59

Pegged Lamb: Nov 5, 2007; Can't post for 3 years!

All the talk about strikes revolves around airports or infrastructure. Does he have no tank depots? I imagine the US has spy planes operating right this moment, is that fair to assume?

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:00

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Is he still using tanks? Most reports I see now are about artillery, aircrafts, or close quarters fighting.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:01

Main Paineframe: Oct 27, 2010

iCe-CuBe. posted:

Yeah, that's totally going to happen and isn't a steaming pile of bullshit. You do get that virtually no one has chemical weapons, right, and the US not bombing a country when they use chemical weapons isn't going to make every dictator perk their heads up and say "Hey, time to spend a shitload of money on weapons that aren't even that useful" - just like that didn't happen when Saddam used chemical weapons.

It will, however, encourage other countries to break other international prohibitions, such as the one against nuclear weapons! It will also encourage such countries to ignore Western warnings, threats, and ultimatums. This is not, at all, about chemical weapons - it's so Iran is a little less likely to call Obama's bluff when he feeds them a "red line" about nuclear weapons.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:06

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

That's a terrible reason.

The Iran part specifically.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:07

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

quote:

Another issue of concern with respect to the future of the chemical disarmament regime is the fact that Russia, the United States, the Czech Republic, and possibly China are developing chemical incapacitating agents for use in counterterrorism operations, as well as hostage-rescue situations in which terrorists and innocent civilians are intermingled. Although chemical incapacitants are often termed �non-lethal agents,� that term is a misnomer because such chemicals may cause death or permanent injury at high doses.

Russia has already made use of a powerful incapacitating agent, with disturbing results. On October 23, 2002, a band of Chechen separatists took about eight hundred people hostage during a performance of the popular musical Nord-Ost at the Dubrovka Theater in Moscow and threatened to set off explosives unless their demands were met. Russian special forces surrounded the theater, and a standoff with the rebels ensued that lasted for the next fifty-seven hours. Finally, at 5:15 a.m. on October 26, the Russian commandos pumped a vaporized narcotic drug (reportedly, a mixture of derivatives of the synthetic opiate fentanyl) into the theater�s air-conditioning system and stormed the building about forty-five minutes later. The drug knocked out the female Chechens guarding the hostages, allowing the commandos to shoot them at point-blank range; the male Chechens had moved into the lobby and did not succumb to the gas as quickly, but they were killed in the ensuing firefight. Although all forty-one militants died, exposure to the powerful narcotic also claimed the lives of 129 of the hostages, demonstrating that its �non-lethal� character was a myth. In fact, no known chemical agent can incapacitate people quickly and without risk of death when employed under realistic field conditions in a military or law enforcement operation. Furthermore, the refusal of the Russian special forces to disclose the identity of the incapacitating agent prevented emergency medical personnel from administering antidotes in a timely manner. Even today, the exact composition of the narcotic gas remains a mystery. Despite the heavy loss of innocent life, the Russian government declared the hostage-rescue operation a success and is likely to employ chemical incapacitants again in future incidents of this type.

Surprisingly, the use of a potent chemical agent in the Dubrovka Theater incident was not considered a violation of the CWC, to which Russia is a party. Although the treaty bans the military use of toxic chemicals, including harassing agents such as tear gas, paragraph 9(d) of Article II allows member states to possess and employ toxic chemicals for �law enforcement including domestic riot control,� as long as the types and quantities of such chemicals are consistent with law enforcement purposes. The negotiators of the CWC included this exemption to permit capital punishment by lethal injection (at the request of the United States), as well as domestic riot control using CS tear gas and similar agents that have temporary irritant effects on the eyes and skin. Because the law enforcement exemption in Article II.9 (d) is so vague, however, it does not explicitly rule out the use of more potent chemicals such as fentanyl, which unlike tear gas has depressant effects on the central nervous system that persist for several hours after exposure. For this reason, fentanyl-like chemicals are not considered riot-control agents but are more properly termed incapacitants, a category that is not defined in the CWC. It is also unclear whether or not the law enforcement exemption extends beyond domestic police use of toxic chemicals to cover counterterrorism operations conducted by paramilitary forces or U.N.-authorized peacekeeping missions overseas.

Given these ambiguities in the CWC, arms control advocates worry that some member states will interpret the law enforcement exemption too broadly, creating a major loophole that allows the development, production, and use of a new generation of potent incapacitating agents and specialized delivery systems, such as airburst munitions and mortars. If the acquisition of chemical weapons under the law enforcement exemption of the CWC continues unchecked, it could seriously undermine the treaty. In 2008, an IUPAC technical expert group warned,

Activities to develop �non-lethal� weapons based on incapacitating agents would not easily be distinguishable from aspects of an offensive CW program: The agents would actually be weaponized, and the considerations with regard to the time between the discovery of a new toxic chemical that might be a candidate novel CW agent and its emergence as a CW may no longer apply.

Of particular concern is the possible development of a new generation of biochemical �calmative� agents that would act on the central nervous system in highly specific ways. Pharmaceutical companies are currently developing new therapeutic drugs modeled on natural body chemicals called �bioregulators,� many of them peptides, that control vital homeostatic systems such as temperature, sleep, water balance, and blood pressure. In the brain, a large class of bioregulators act on neural circuits to modulate awareness, cognition, and mood. Based on this research, it may eventually become possible to develop modified bioregulator molecules called analogues that can cross the blood-brain barrier and induce a state of sleep, confusion, or placidity, with potential applications in law enforcement, counterterrorism, and urban warfare. Such chemicals are often referred to as �mid-spectrum agents� because they exist in a gray area between chemical and biological weapons. As Neil Davison of the British Royal Society has observed, even if future technical advances permit the development of safer incapacitants that are rarely lethal under operational conditions, the broader issue is �whether the police and militaries of the future (not to mention the criminals, terrorists, torturers, and dictators) should have access to chemical weapons to manipulate human cognition, perception, emotion, motivation, performance, and consciousness.� Such agents could easily be misused for the repression of legitimate dissent, coercive interrogation, and other violations of human rights.

Ironically, even as the successful implementation of the CWC has helped to solidify a global norm against the use of chemical weapons, an entire category of toxic chemicals appears to be regaining legitimacy. To minimize the potential threat that an overly broad interpretation of the law enforcement exemption poses to the integrity of the chemical disarmament regime, there is an urgent need for greater transparency. As a first step, CWC member states should agree to declare the types and quantities of incapacitating agents they have produced and stockpiled, as the treaty already requires for riot-control agents. Restrictions on the types and quantities of incapacitating agents that may be employed for law enforcement purposes (including counterterrorism operations) should also be considered, along with rules of engagement for their use. As Julian Perry Robinson has argued, �If one form of toxicity suddenly becomes acceptable, the norm against weaponizing toxicity in all its forms, which is the norm that underpins the CWC regime, will be weakened and the floodgates perhaps opened.�

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:10

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Space Monster posted:

As opposed to a commitment to act which paints him into a corner politically? No, I think his red line statement was pretty stupid. I think he assumed that Assad is somehow in a less desperate situation or is less insane than Qaddafi was, and that was a very poor misread. Or else that he had more control over his forces than is actually the case. Regardless, as a powerful politician you have to know when your words will have to be translated into action, and he dropped the ball pretty hard.

Or he had serious problems with the idea of casual chemical weapons use by a regime that had already been murdering its people for a year straight. You're implying that he didn't want to be in this situation, but I think the Obama administration isn't, and wasn't, going to take an attack like Ghouta lightly. It looks like Congress has the votes to approve action, so they're probably in the same boat. I think he's handled Syria fairly well, if not a bit self-serving in regards to limiting support for the opposition at times to keep from getting too involved, but now it's time to act.

Volkerball fucked around with this message at 02:23 on Sep 3, 2013

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:20

Vernii: Dec 7, 2006

Xandu posted:

Is he still using tanks? Most reports I see now are about artillery, aircrafts, or close quarters fighting.

Definitely. The Syrian Army has a hell of a lot of armored vehicles, and they've seen heavy action throughout the war. The weird thing is they've been schizophrenic about their usage; lots of videos of rebel units taking out isolated T-72s sitting out in the open without any support, versus a few videos of the Army doing block by block urban warfare with mechanized infantry supporting a tank column.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:22

Bacarruda: Mar 30, 2011; Mutiny!?! More like "reinterpreted orders"

wikipe tama posted:

All the talk about strikes revolves around airports or infrastructure. Does he have no tank depots? I imagine the US has spy planes operating right this moment, is that fair to assume?

U-2s have been deployed to the region. Last I heard they were in Cyprus, but they may have moved since. There's also satellites.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:23

Blackbird Fly: Mar 8, 2011; by toby

A good article on why Obama is acting the way he is, particularly on his transparency in targets and preparing strikes:

quote:

Military thinkers from Sun Tzu to Napoleon Bonaparte have long emphasized the element of surprise. So it might seem strange that the Obama administration is not just clearly telegraphing that it likely plans to launch limited strikes against Syria, but also when it�s going to strike and what with. Even the likely target list is starting to come out. This is the opposite of how military tactics are supposed to work, right?
Actually, publicly revealing when, how and where the United States (and some allies) will likely strike makes sense, given what Obama wants to accomplish. If his goal were to fully enter the Syrian civil war and decisively end it, then, yes, secrecy would be the way to go. But the administration has been very clear that it has a much more modest goal: to punish Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad for his suspected use of chemical weapons so that he, and future military leaders, won�t do it again.
What�s about to happen, if the United States and allies do go through with the strikes, is less of a war and more of a ritual. This isn�t about defeating Assad, it�s about punishing him. And that calls for being really precise about how much punishment the United States imposes.
If the U.S. military just fired off a bunch of missiles, it would probably cause more civilian causalities than with its current approach, and the amount of damage it caused would be tougher to predict. Maybe it causes less damage than the United States wants, and then Assad is not sufficiently deterred from future chemical weapons use. Maybe it causes more damage, and then Assad might feel compelled to respond, perhaps by striking Israel, and that�s how things spiral out of control.
No, what the Obama administration appears to want is a limited, finite series of strikes that will be carefully calibrated to send a message and cause the just-right amount of pain. It wants to set Assad back but it doesn�t want to cause death and mayhem. So the most likely option is probably to destroy a bunch of government or military infrastructure � much of which will probably be empty.
This is what the Clinton administration did in 1998 with Operation Desert Fox, when it and the United Kingdom bombed Iraq as punishment for cheating on weapons of mass destruction disarmament. The strikes were also intended to degrade Iraq�s WMD production capacity. The 100 or so targets were, as now with Syria, telegraphed ahead of time. Many of them were empty. Iraq knew it was coming and was mostly unsurprised, which meant that it didn�t escalate. The campaign was limited in scope and, although the history of Iraq and WMDs is obviously a thorny one, appeared to be largely successful at least at punishing Saddam Hussein.
President Obama has long made clear that he worries that any involvement in Syria could lead the United States to get sucked into a long and intractable conflict that it would hurt more than help. But his administration also clearly believes that Assad�s suspected chemical weapons use could set a potentially dangerous enough precedent that it demands some military response. A Desert Fox-style limited, telegraphed, calibrated series of offshore strikes appears to be the balance that the administration is striking.

A good article outlining and answering much of the common discourse on Syria recently:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:34

more friedman units: Jul 7, 2010; The next six months will be critical.

farraday posted:

Well consider the argument that attacking was going to lead to a sudden rush by everyone to go get nuclear weapons. The problem isn't simply Sarin or any of the V series never gasses, the problem is the "less than lethal" incapacitating gases which aren't really all that so. The use of tear gas is already commonplace but then you have the more extensively toxic gases like the Moscow Theater concoction. As the development of incapacitating gases continues the loophole in the cWc regarding supposed "police use" becomes more apparent. Pretending chemical weapons are some out of date relic is simply the method by which you are normalizing their police use. Given we have all sorts of people telling us this is purely an internal Syrian matter and we shouldn't interfere with their sovereignty, the combination is frightening

The United States has to attack Syria to send ourselves the message that we shouldn't use less than lethal gases for domestic policing.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:34

Space Monster: Mar 13, 2009

Volkerball posted:

Or he had serious problems with the idea of casual chemical weapons use by a regime that had already been murdering its people for a year straight. You're implying that he didn't want to be in this situation, but I think the Obama administration isn't, and wasn't, going to take an attack like Ghouta lightly. It looks like Congress has the votes to approve action, so they're probably in the same boat. I think he's handled Syria fairly well, if not a bit self-serving in regards to limiting support for the opposition at times to keep from getting too involved, but now it's time to act.

Oh? Which faction do YOU back? And how do we back them so that we're sure our interests (and those of the Syrian people) are achieved? How can you hurt any of the factions (including the government) without indirectly assisting the others?

Certainly whatever we do won't hurt our reputation in the area. Certainly whatever we do won't have negative repercussions later (like finding our own weapons used against us....)

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:36

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

quote:

THE 1 PARAGRAPH TO READ � WHITE HOUSE INVOKING IRAN IN PITCH TO LAWMAKERS:
With morning news coverage reporting that President Obama could lose his Syria vote, White House officials are embarking on a massive, member-by-member lobbying surge. �The strategy will be to flood the zone,� a White House official told Playbook. �We want every member to feel briefed, to have everything they need, to have every question answered. In-person visits, one-on-one phone calls, conference calls, classified briefings, unclassified briefings � everything is on the menu.� Yesterday, in addition to a classified briefing by administration officials at the Capitol, Obama, Vice President Biden and White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough made individual calls to House and Senate members. Obama meets today with Sen. John McCain and White House officials plan more individual calls, on top of a conference call for House Democrats.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:40

Blackbird Fly: Mar 8, 2011; by toby

farraday posted:

Well consider the argument that attacking was going to lead to a sudden rush by everyone to go get nuclear weapons. The problem isn't simply Sarin or any of the V series never gasses, the problem is the "less than lethal" incapacitating gases which aren't really all that so. The use of tear gas is already commonplace but then you have the more extensively toxic gases like the Moscow Theater concoction. As the development of incapacitating gases continues the loophole in the cWc regarding supposed "police use" becomes more apparent. Pretending chemical weapons are some out of date relic is simply the method by which you are normalizing their police use. Given we have all sorts of people telling us this is purely an internal Syrian matter and we shouldn't interfere with their sovereignty, the combination is frightening

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-future-of-chemical-weapons

I don't see why this strike would deter other countries from using mind-altering chemicals for riot control. As long as the other two major world powers are ruthless dictatorships that back up other dictatorships, and as long as the United States continues its sink into police militarization and OKs Israel's apartheid, this problem will be very prominent. There needs to be strong international effort to prevent the use of not-so nonlethal and mind-altering CW, far beyond dropping some bombs on Assad.

Blackbird Fly fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Sep 3, 2013

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:43

more friedman units: Jul 7, 2010; The next six months will be critical.

farraday posted:

Yes that's exactly what I said and what the report I posted said, good job reading it and posting a coherent and intelligent response.

I read the report. How does it make any sense to argue that the U.S. must halt the slide towards ITS OWN USE of chemical agents for domestic crowd control by attacking Syria for using chemical weapons? The report is saying that the normalization of chemical use for policing will lead to normalization of chemical weapons use, not the other way around.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:44

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

quote:

In June, the White House authorized the Central Intelligence Agency to help arm moderate fighters battling the Assad regime, a signal to Syrian rebels that the cavalry was coming. Three months later, they are still waiting.

The delay, in part, reflects a broader U.S. approach rarely discussed publicly but that underpins its decision-making, according to former and current U.S. officials: The Obama administration doesn't want to tip the balance in favor of the opposition for fear the outcome may be even worse for U.S. interests than the current stalemate.
...
The administration's view can also be seen in White House planning for limited airstrikes�now awaiting congressional review�to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons.

Pentagon planners were instructed not to offer strike options that could help drive Mr. Assad from power: "The big concern is the wrong groups in the opposition would be able to take advantage of it," a senior military officer said. The CIA declined to comment.

The White House wants to strengthen the opposition but doesn't want it to prevail, according to people who attended closed-door briefings by top administration officials over the past week. The administration doesn't want U.S. airstrikes, for example, tipping the balance of the conflict because it fears Islamists will fill the void if the Assad regime falls, according to briefing participants, which included lawmakers and their aides.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100..._medium=twitter

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:45

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Xandu posted:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100..._medium=twitter

Ok now THIS seems like Obama being weak to me. Arm them, don't arm them. It's a better reason than holding off the air strikes, truth be told, but why make such a public stink about it if you're just not going to do it in the first place?

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:51

Blackbird Fly: Mar 8, 2011; by toby

Aurubin posted:

Ah the time tested it'll help us pander to AIPAC and help kill all those ~~sand nigg~~...er, extremists in Iran strategy, because bombing the poo poo out of a country of 80 million is the best way to ensure stability in the region. But keep em the gently caress out of Israel, that's for sure:

http://www.politico.com/playbook/#.UiUuUJbiPHs.twitter

In what way is Iran being invoked? Invoking Iran could be as diverse as saying "Iran has strong interests in Assad" to "NUKE 'EM ALL!".

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:52

Vladimir Putin: Mar 17, 2007; by R. Guyovich

Xandu posted:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100..._medium=twitter

So Obama wants to bomb Assad but doesn't want him to lose the war. Not intuitive but it makes a lot of sense if you think of it. It sounds pretty well thought out.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:52

more friedman units: Jul 7, 2010; The next six months will be critical.

farraday posted:

The report was talking solely about US police use? That's amazing considering the section I quoted starts with reference toward the Moscow theater incident. OH wait you're just being disingenuous because you used a question like a rhetorical hammer without expecting a serious response and are now dismissing any response other than what you already believed with one liners.

I'm so happy you finally found out about Syria two days ago so you could contribute.

The summary of the article that you chose:

quote:

Another issue of concern with respect to the future of the chemical disarmament regime is the fact that Russia, the United States, the Czech Republic, and possibly China are developing chemical incapacitating agents for use in counterterrorism operations, as well as hostage-rescue situations in which terrorists and innocent civilians are intermingled. Although chemical incapacitants are often termed �non-lethal agents,� that term is a misnomer because such chemicals may cause death or permanent injury at high doses.

...prominently mentions the U.S. Yes, the second paragraph is about the Moscow theater incident. How does this relate to attacking Syria again?

I've been following Syria since the civil war began 2 years ago. What were you saying about disingenuous rhetorical hammers?

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:54

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

^^^Oh yeah? POP QUIZ. Who's Manaf Tlass? Don't google.

Aurubin posted:

Ok now THIS seems like Obama being weak to me. Arm them, don't arm them. It's a better reason than holding off the air strikes, truth be told, but why make such a public stink about it if you're just not going to do it in the first place?

I think Obama used "Guys, we're going to give you weapons now, just got some things to take care of first" as a way to keep the SNC and FSA somewhat functioning a while back, but it's hurting our reputation with them now. They aren't stupid.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:54

Space Monster: Mar 13, 2009

Blackbird Fly posted:

In what way is Iran being invoked? Invoking Iran could be as diverse as saying "Iran has strong interests in Assad" to "NUKE 'EM ALL!".

Disclaimer: I don't want the U.S. to get involved in Syria.

That said, I will be interested to see what Iran's response will be if we do. They have a defensive military alliance with Syria, which they claim means that an attack on Syria will result in a declaration of war from them. They've said this to their own people and on the international stage, so what will they do? Go through with it and be forced to fight the US or lose a boatload of face?

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:55

Plafop: Oct 11, 2012; by Ralp

Does anyone know if the bombings will be televised like the iraq war shock and awe campaign was? If so will we know sometime in advance when they will show it?

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 17, 2024 13:01

Blackbird Fly: Mar 8, 2011; by toby

farraday posted:

The report was talking solely about US police use? That's amazing considering the section I quoted starts with reference toward the Moscow theater incident. OH wait you're just being disingenuous because you used a question like a rhetorical hammer without expecting a serious response and are now dismissing any response other than what you already believed with one liners.

I'm so happy you finally found out about Syria two days ago so you could contribute.

Yes, but when Russia is already using not-so non-lethal CW on its citizens action on Syria won't deter Putin because Russia is on the Security Council and the US would attack Russia probably right before Jesus returns.

# ? Sep 3, 2013 02:57

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »

Tezzor posted:

Dolash posted:

Nckdictator posted:

Crasscrab posted:

iCe-CuBe. posted:

Crasscrab posted:

Dolash posted:

Xandu posted:

quote:

Xandu posted:

quote:

iCe-CuBe. posted:

more friedman units posted:

quote:

Space Monster posted:

Xandu posted:

wikipe tama posted:

quote:

farraday posted:

Volkerball posted:

more friedman units posted:

quote:

farraday posted:

farraday posted:

quote:

more friedman units posted:

Xandu posted:

Aurubin posted:

Xandu posted:

farraday posted:

quote:

Aurubin posted:

Blackbird Fly posted:

farraday posted: