The hellhole that is Syria keeps on delivering. On my phone, so can't post it here for the work-blocked ATM.
Chemical weapons attacks have killed hundreds on the outskirts of Damascus, Syrian opposition activists say.
Rockets with toxic agents were launched at the suburbs of the Ghouta region early on Wednesday as part of a major bombardment on rebel forces, they say.
The Syrian army says the accusations have been fabricated to cover up rebel losses.
The main opposition alliance said that more than 1,000 people were killed by the attacks.
Activist networks also reported death tolls in the hundreds, but these could not be independently confirmed.
It is also not clear how many died in the bombardment of the sites and how many deaths were due to any exposure to toxic substances.
Video footage showed dozens of bodies with no visible signs of injuries, including small children, laid out on the floor of a clinic.
Ghazwan Bwidany, a doctor treating the injured, told the BBC the main symptom, especially among children, was suffocation, as well as salivating and blurred vision.
"We don't have the capability to treat all this number of people," he said.
"We're putting them in mosques, in schools. We are lacking medical supplies now, especially atropine, which is the antidote for chemical weapons."
In a statement, the army described the accusations of chemical weapons use as grave, and stressed the military's right to fight what it described as terrorism in Syria.
It accused the opposition of fabricating the accusations to divert attention from the huge losses its forces had suffered recently.
United Nations chemical weapons inspectors arrived in Syria on Sunday with a mandate to investigate three locations where chemical weapons were allegedly used, including the northern town of Khan al-Assal, where some 26 people were killed in March.
The US, UK and France have all called for the inspectors to examine this latest incident, and an emergency United Nations Security Council meeting is under way.
"The United States is deeply concerned by reports that hundreds of Syrian civilians have been killed in an attack by Syrian government forces, including by the use of chemical weapons, near Damascus earlier today," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in a statement.
"We are formally requesting that the United Nations urgently investigate this new allegation. The UN investigative team, which is currently in Syria, is prepared to do so, and that is consistent with its purpose and mandate."
The alleged attack comes a year after US President Barack Obama warned the Syrian government that using chemical weapons would cross a "red line".
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague said that if confirmed the attacks would mark a "shocking escalation in the use of chemical weapons in Syria".
The Arab League and European Union have echoed the call for the inspectors to go to the site.
"The EU reiterates that any use of chemical weapons, by any side in Syria, would be totally unacceptable," said a spokesperson for EU foreign affairs head Catherine Ashton.
But the Russian foreign ministry noted that the reports had emerged just as the UN chemical weapons inspection team had arrived in Syria, saying that "this makes us think that we are once again dealing with a premeditated provocation".
'Convulsions'
The attack took place as part of a heavy government bombardment of the region surrounding Damascus, where government forces have been trying to drive out rebel forces.
Casualties were reported in the areas of Irbin, Duma and Muadhamiya among others, activists said.
Footage uploaded to YouTube from the scene by activists shows many people being treated in makeshift hospitals.
The videos show victims, including many children, having convulsions. Others are apparently immobile and have difficulty breathing.
The number of casualties is much higher than in previous allegations of chemical weapons attacks
The official Syrian Sana news agency said the reports of the attack were "baseless", quoting a "media source".
The reports were "an attempt to divert the UN chemical weapons investigation commission away from carrying out its duties", Sana said.
'Horrific' footage
The BBC's Middle East Editor Jeremy Bowen says many will ask why the government would want to use such weapons at a time when inspectors are in the country and the military has been doing well militarily in the area around Damascus.
Some will suspect that the footage has been fabricated, but the videos that have been emerged would be difficult to fake, he adds.
Prof Alexander Kekule, of the Institute for Medical Microbiology at Halle University in Germany, told the BBC that one of the videos - although of poor quality - was consistent with the aftermath of an attack with a chemical agent.
But he added that none of the patients showed typical signs of sarin or other organophosphorous nerve agents, or signs of blistering agents.
"It also cannot be totally excluded that the whole video is a political staging. In this case, however, it would be a very good one," he said.
"Taken together, the best guess is that this is an authentic video of the aftermath of an attack with some incapacitating chemical agent."
Both the rebels and government forces have accused each other of using chemical weapons during the conflict.
It has not been possible to independently verify the claims.
In July 2012, the Syrian government implicitly admitted what had long been suspected - that Syria had stocks of chemical weapons.
Experts believe the country has large undeclared stockpiles of mustard gas and sarin nerve agent.
Damascus said the weapons, stored and secured by the armed forces, would never be used "inside Syria", but could be used against an external attack.
Chemical weapons claims Khan al-Assal, 19 March 2013 - Syrian state media accuse rebels of killing 31 people with rockets containing "chemical materials". Rebels blame the army for the attack.
Al-Otaybeh, 19 March 2013 - Opposition activists allege an attack in which six people are reported dead, apparently in reprisal for gains made by rebel forces.
Adra, 24 March 2013 - The LCC activist network say two people are killed in an attack.
Sheikh Maqsoud, Aleppo, 13 April 2013 - At least three people are killed in an attack; internet footage of the victims shows symptoms consistent with exposure to nerve gas.
Saraqeb, 29 April 2013 - Eyewitnesses say canisters containing a poisonous gas are dropped from a helicopter above the town. Eight people are injured, one of whom later dies.
whembly wrote: So when will the UN bring the can-o-whoopass? Isn't that what they're there for?
They won't. The US's waffling on everything has the worlds response in a tizzy. We threw in with Libya, but then ignored Syria. We cheered when a pro-US administration was overthrown in Egypt, and then condemned Egypt when they tossed out the totalitarian regime that all but endorsed attacking religious minorities among other things. Our policy in the middle east over the last few years has been insane, and the UN won't take action as long as it's largest member continues to act insane.
The West should stay out of it. Seeing as both sides have just devolved into plain murdering people who dont share their views. The time for intervention was 1 or 2 months after the fighting started, now its way too late. It doesnt matter who wins anymore, if we get involved we get the short end. Helping Assad? No way thats going down well. Helping the rebels? Few months later fundamentalists will have taken over, as is already happening. Libya should be the example. We helped and they were gratefull for about a few weeks, before turning against the West again.
Also this chemical attack can make a man paranoid. Did the government really do it, because why would anyone think the would ever do such a thing with UN observers so close by, who is going to believe that, right? Or the government didnt do it and the rebels faked it to get Western support. Or they didnt fake it and used it on people that they viewed as Assad supporters or didnt share their views. To many random factors, why at 3 in the night, why not follow up with a miitary offensive (if its goverment work), why does it seem so random (tide seems to be turning against the rebels, so why start using chemicals now)?
Obama is not making anymore waves about Syria and Egypt. I hope he stays away from both. I will though say nail Assad Syrian forces to be nailed to the cross if they out right went ahead in full fledge chemical attacks. Once started where/when will it end if it is not stopped by NATO (Turkey being next door) or UN Peace Keeping troops.
As for Egypt I'm in favor of the Egyptian military to handle their internal government issue. I wouldn't say a word if the US starts supplying them with rubber bullets and tear gas rounds at a outstanding discount.
Jihadin wrote: Putin insane? No way. He invented insanity so sayeth the KGB
He will no doubt ride shirtless on a white horse to the forfront of battle.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Disciple of Fate wrote: The West should stay out of it. Seeing as both sides have just devolved into plain murdering people who dont share their views. The time for intervention was 1 or 2 months after the fighting started, now its way too late. It doesnt matter who wins anymore, if we get involved we get the short end. Helping Assad? No way thats going down well. Helping the rebels? Few months later fundamentalists will have taken over, as is already happening. Libya should be the example. We helped and they were gratefull for about a few weeks, before turning against the West again.
Also this chemical attack can make a man paranoid. Did the government really do it, because why would anyone think the would ever do such a thing with UN observers so close by, who is going to believe that, right? Or the government didnt do it and the rebels faked it to get Western support. Or they didnt fake it and used it on people that they viewed as Assad supporters or didnt share their views. To many random factors, why at 3 in the night, why not follow up with a miitary offensive (if its goverment work), why does it seem so random (tide seems to be turning against the rebels, so why start using chemicals now)?
I saw something like this on my twitter feed that's pretty good.
Going to war (you know, blowing things up and killing people) is an act of extremely serious moral dimension. We should not even consider this engagement unless we are satisfied that one of the two is true:
1) That such action is so manifestly in our own selfish interests that we can be forgiven for taking the violent action.
2) That the action is so manifestly in the interests of general altruistic good we would scarcely forgive ourselves if we didn't take the violent action.
I'm not quite seeing it right now for either 1 or 2.
whembly wrote: So when will the UN bring the can-o-whoopass? Isn't that what they're there for?
Not really. The UN was conceived in the end days of WWII, and was designed by two world leaders who could see that unless something was done, their two countries would likely end up in a war that was just as bloody. As such, the priority of the organisation was really about protecting sovereign borders, ensuring that the wars of expansion and aggression such as those of Germany, Japan and (to a much lesser extent) Italy would never happen again.
Things evolved over time, of course, as over time the fear of global war lessened, and the idea of forcible intervention in other countries to prevent human rights abuses became stronger. But the basic foundations set up all that long ago means that, basically, it isn't what the UN is there for, and they don't really have the set up to do it (no standing army, formation of a taskforce dependant on general consent of member nations instead of being automatic under some code etc).
whembly wrote: So when will the UN bring the can-o-whoopass? Isn't that what they're there for?
Once they can get past the veto power of Russia on the Security Council. Oh wait, there is no way to do that unless Russia decides to abstain, walk out, or changes their vote.
whembly wrote: So when will the UN bring the can-o-whoopass? Isn't that what they're there for?
Once they can get past the veto power of Russia on the Security Council. Oh wait, there is no way to do that unless Russia decides to abstain, walk out, or changes their vote.
Its China, Iran and Russia that are the ones vetoing any intervention. =/
The situation right now seems to be the UN saying, "if you're innocent then you've got nothing to hide". However, as the Syrian government is obviously up to something by not allowing the UN to confirm who deployed the weapons its the case that those who've drawn red lines can't prove that they've been crossed. Hey maybe someone will slip up, but any military support right now from outside Syria would have to be done separately from the UN at the moment, which isn't going to happen.
Honestly I don't get the outcry for some other country to handle this whole nasty business. That whole section of the planet has been filled with hate and destruction for how long now? The only signs of change in that area has been increased violence and now, something as nasty as chemical warfare.
Is there a time line on when the chemical attack occur and when Assad forces moved in to occupy the area? From what I read it seems Assad forces moved in right after a "chemical" attack. I do not think Assad forces have full MOPP gear but maybe pro masks.
After Mali and Libya it seems the French have a taste for foreign intervention. Seeing as Syria was once under French mandate maybe they could take point on any intervention
Well since France is not part of NATO any longer....seeing how their French Foreign Legion works....I say let them have a go at it 8) We lead two major conflicts in the Middle East. Third time is not the charm for us
Jihadin wrote: Is there a time line on when the chemical attack occur and when Assad forces moved in to occupy the area? From what I read it seems Assad forces moved in right after a "chemical" attack. I do not think Assad forces have full MOPP gear but maybe pro masks.
Or they just don't care.
Although IIRC the gas in question dissipates fairly quickly but I could be wrong on that.
whembly wrote: So when will the UN bring the can-o-whoopass? Isn't that what they're there for?
Once they can get past the veto power of Russia on the Security Council. Oh wait, there is no way to do that unless Russia decides to abstain, walk out, or changes their vote.
Those countries are countries outside of the UN. They can always form up the First Pan Galactic Alliance and get caught up in the Syrian quagmire. But hey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are already doing their parts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Have at it France... we're not stopping ya.
They need our transport. Evidently no one on the planet ever built freight hauling aircraft but the US....ever... Awfully convenient. Hey Jean Luc...buy some freaking Airbus's already.
Syria is significantly dependent upon outside assistance for all of its WMD programs. There have been reports over the life of the Syria program that Syria has obtained significant assistance from various states, significantly Russia and France.
Russian General Anatoly Kuntsevich was suspected of smuggling VX precursors to nerve gas for research purposes. The materials shipped to Syria were intended for the production of the Soviet/Russian version of the VX nerve agent - code-named Substance 33 or V-gas. Such a deal might have been made in the early '90s or late '80s during a visit to Syria by the then-commander of the Russian Chemical Corps, General Pikalov.
French support came in the form of pharmaceutical imports. In the early eighties, French companies provided an significant portion of pharmaceuticals imported by Syria. By the middle of the decade France provided nearly 1 quarter of pharmaceuticals coming into Syria. Certainly some of the imports were legitimate, but many were "dual use" items that could be directed to clandestine programs. In 1992 following French acceptance of the Australia Group, all exports became to be monitored for chemicals and equipment that could be directed to chemical and biological weapons programs.
Sounds like an excellent reason for France to take point on any action in Syria because of the use of chemical weapons
Jihadin wrote: Is there a time line on when the chemical attack occur and when Assad forces moved in to occupy the area? From what I read it seems Assad forces moved in right after a "chemical" attack. I do not think Assad forces have full MOPP gear but maybe pro masks.
Pretty sure they have standard Russian issue type MOPP and decon gear (which is actually pretty decent stuff). Also, they used a non-persistent agent, and in that environment it breaks down relatively quickly. Probably wasn't used in too high a quantity/concentration either.
Yeah, Sarin is a very weak agent, doesn't stand up to the environment very well. It needs a cold, dry environment to stick around the longest. The heat of the region means that it's effectiveness would have only had a short window.
This week's violence in Syria was a “mass casualty incident” that would threaten U.S. national security if it's confirmed to have involved chemical weapons, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Friday.
Earnest said the administration is weighing retaliatory options following reports that Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces killed more than 1,000 people with poison gas on Wednesday. He told reporters before the Obama's town hall at Binghamton University that such an attack would change the president's “calculus” on whether to get more involved in the conflict that has been raging since March 2011.
“In this situation, when there are weapons of mass destruction involved — or when there is evidence that weapons of mass destruction may be involved — that would have an impact on the calculus about the impact that this has on our national security,” Earnest said. “Ultimately, that is the criteria that the president will use as he evaluates the best course of action in this situation, that is the best interests of national security.”
“The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and in this case there’s some evidence for that, it’s certainly something that the president is very concerned about. And it does have significant implications for our national security,” Earnest said.
Earnest declined to give more details about the steps being considered. Defense and intelligence officials met at the White House for three-and-a-half hours on Thursday to consider options, including missile strikes or a prolonged air campaign.
“We have said that the assistance that we provide to the opposition is on an upward trajectory. We’ve described it as expanding in scope and in scale. And we have long said that all options remain on the table when it comes to Syria,” Earnest said. “At the same time, the president has also indicated very clearly that he did not foresee a situation in which American boots on the ground would be in the best interests of American national security.”
President Obama, during an interview with CNN that ran Friday, called the latest allegations “a big event of grave concern.” But he warned about the limits of U.S. influence in a “complex sectarian” situation.
“Sometimes what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region,” Obama said.
I hope they do some checking first. There has been some speculation that the rebels have taken a page from the Pallywood book of media influence. See video below for an example.
In this particular case, there are a few things that are not looking right.
This week's violence in Syria was a “mass casualty incident” that would threaten U.S. national security if it's confirmed to have involved chemical weapons, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Friday.
Earnest said the administration is weighing retaliatory options following reports that Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces killed more than 1,000 people with poison gas on Wednesday. He told reporters before the Obama's town hall at Binghamton University that such an attack would change the president's “calculus” on whether to get more involved in the conflict that has been raging since March 2011.
“In this situation, when there are weapons of mass destruction involved — or when there is evidence that weapons of mass destruction may be involved — that would have an impact on the calculus about the impact that this has on our national security,” Earnest said. “Ultimately, that is the criteria that the president will use as he evaluates the best course of action in this situation, that is the best interests of national security.”
“The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and in this case there’s some evidence for that, it’s certainly something that the president is very concerned about. And it does have significant implications for our national security,” Earnest said.
Earnest declined to give more details about the steps being considered. Defense and intelligence officials met at the White House for three-and-a-half hours on Thursday to consider options, including missile strikes or a prolonged air campaign.
“We have said that the assistance that we provide to the opposition is on an upward trajectory. We’ve described it as expanding in scope and in scale. And we have long said that all options remain on the table when it comes to Syria,” Earnest said. “At the same time, the president has also indicated very clearly that he did not foresee a situation in which American boots on the ground would be in the best interests of American national security.”
President Obama, during an interview with CNN that ran Friday, called the latest allegations “a big event of grave concern.” But he warned about the limits of U.S. influence in a “complex sectarian” situation.
“Sometimes what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region,” Obama said.
I bet someone is regretting his previous statements.
After the last couple of decades, I could see it being very difficult to weigh an ongoing humanitarian nightmare and 'guys, we seriously do NOT have a quota of wars, police actions or other conflicts to be participating in'.
Forar wrote: After the last couple of decades, I could see it being very difficult to weigh an ongoing humanitarian nightmare and 'guys, we seriously do NOT have a quota of wars, police actions or other conflicts to be participating in'.
This week's violence in Syria was a “mass casualty incident” that would threaten U.S. national security if it's confirmed to have involved chemical weapons, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Friday.
Earnest said the administration is weighing retaliatory options following reports that Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces killed more than 1,000 people with poison gas on Wednesday. He told reporters before the Obama's town hall at Binghamton University that such an attack would change the president's “calculus” on whether to get more involved in the conflict that has been raging since March 2011.
“In this situation, when there are weapons of mass destruction involved — or when there is evidence that weapons of mass destruction may be involved — that would have an impact on the calculus about the impact that this has on our national security,” Earnest said. “Ultimately, that is the criteria that the president will use as he evaluates the best course of action in this situation, that is the best interests of national security.”
“The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and in this case there’s some evidence for that, it’s certainly something that the president is very concerned about. And it does have significant implications for our national security,” Earnest said.
Earnest declined to give more details about the steps being considered. Defense and intelligence officials met at the White House for three-and-a-half hours on Thursday to consider options, including missile strikes or a prolonged air campaign.
“We have said that the assistance that we provide to the opposition is on an upward trajectory. We’ve described it as expanding in scope and in scale. And we have long said that all options remain on the table when it comes to Syria,” Earnest said. “At the same time, the president has also indicated very clearly that he did not foresee a situation in which American boots on the ground would be in the best interests of American national security.”
President Obama, during an interview with CNN that ran Friday, called the latest allegations “a big event of grave concern.” But he warned about the limits of U.S. influence in a “complex sectarian” situation.
“Sometimes what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region,” Obama said.
I really, really hate it when a headline is deliberately constructed to be provocative despite the existence of direct quote which would draw just as much attention. In this case the headline should have read: "White House: Poison gas attack in Syria has "significant implications" for US national security"
On topic, that doesn't sound much like a case for war. It is basically just the reiteration of the Administration's current position.
This week's violence in Syria was a “mass casualty incident” that would threaten U.S. national security if it's confirmed to have involved chemical weapons, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Friday.
Earnest said the administration is weighing retaliatory options following reports that Syrian President Bashar Assad's forces killed more than 1,000 people with poison gas on Wednesday. He told reporters before the Obama's town hall at Binghamton University that such an attack would change the president's “calculus” on whether to get more involved in the conflict that has been raging since March 2011.
“In this situation, when there are weapons of mass destruction involved — or when there is evidence that weapons of mass destruction may be involved — that would have an impact on the calculus about the impact that this has on our national security,” Earnest said. “Ultimately, that is the criteria that the president will use as he evaluates the best course of action in this situation, that is the best interests of national security.”
“The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and in this case there’s some evidence for that, it’s certainly something that the president is very concerned about. And it does have significant implications for our national security,” Earnest said.
Earnest declined to give more details about the steps being considered. Defense and intelligence officials met at the White House for three-and-a-half hours on Thursday to consider options, including missile strikes or a prolonged air campaign.
“We have said that the assistance that we provide to the opposition is on an upward trajectory. We’ve described it as expanding in scope and in scale. And we have long said that all options remain on the table when it comes to Syria,” Earnest said. “At the same time, the president has also indicated very clearly that he did not foresee a situation in which American boots on the ground would be in the best interests of American national security.”
President Obama, during an interview with CNN that ran Friday, called the latest allegations “a big event of grave concern.” But he warned about the limits of U.S. influence in a “complex sectarian” situation.
“Sometimes what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region,” Obama said.
I really, really hate it when a headline is deliberately constructed to be provocative despite the existence of direct quote which would draw just as much attention. In this case the headline should have read: "White House: Poison gas attack in Syria has "significant implications" for US national security"
On topic, that doesn't sound much like a case for war. It is basically just the reiteration of the Administration's current position.
I should've clarified...
It seems like they're "tipping their toes" in that direction... especially the "administration is weighing retaliatory options" line.
The evidence points to the rebels doing the attack on civilians.
The agent used was chlorine gas by eyewitness accounts and the symptoms on the bodies.
The rebels have several YouTube videos showing them making it and testing it on rabbits. The videos claim they are making Sarin but the chemicals shown in the videos and the effects on the rabbits clearly shown a locally produced chlorine gas agent.
Sarin gas kills by causing all the muscles in a body to relax. No inhalation for breathing, no inward pulse of the heart, etc....Think of an insect hit with a can of Raid.
This means that bodies of people killed by sarin gas will ALWAYS exhibit the following:
a. Eyes are open and can not be closed.
b. Fingers are extended and do not curl.
c. Arms are at the sides unless pinned by the body.
d. Those who die ALWAYS release urine and feces.
e. Mouths are open and stay that way.
Last, in a heated environment if you collect up a large group of bodies in the cloths they were exposed and died in then anyone that enters that room for a few days is going to fall down and die right next to them.
Now look at the clothes, underwear, hands, faces , eyes and all the people standing around a room full of people who were supposed to have been killed by Sarin gas......who are still breathing and not dying..
This is another manufactured excuse to try and get America involved on the side of the rebels.
If those are all dead bodies then why have none of them pissed or shat their pants?
It would not be the first time this month that the rebels have created terrible Syrian atrocities that turned out to be fake.
The agent used was chlorine gas by eyewitness accounts and the symptoms on the bodies.
The rebels have several YouTube videos showing them making it and testing it on rabbits. The videos claim they are making Sarin but the chemicals shown in the videos and the effects on the rabbits clearly shown a locally produced chlorine gas agent.
Sarin gas kills by causing all the muscles in a body to relax. No inhalation for breathing, no inward pulse of the heart, etc....Think of an insect hit with a can of Raid.
This means that bodies of people killed by sarin gas will ALWAYS exhibit the following:
a. Eyes are open and can not be closed.
b. Fingers are extended and do not curl.
c. Arms are at the sides unless pinned by the body.
d. Those who die ALWAYS release urine and feces.
e. Mouths are open and stay that way.
Last, in a heated environment if you collect up a large group of bodies in the cloths they were exposed and died in then anyone that enters that room for a few days is going to fall down and die right next to them.
Now look at the clothes, underwear, hands, faces , eyes and all the people standing around a room full of people who were supposed to have been killed by Sarin gas......who are still breathing and not dying..
This is another manufactured excuse to try and get America involved on the side of the rebels.
If those are all dead bodies then why have none of them pissed or shat their pants?
It would not be the first time this month that the rebels have created terrible Syrian atrocities that turned out to be fake.
Citations for all these claims that are being made in the quote? I think it is hard to definitively tell without verification by some manner of technical body.
The agent used was chlorine gas by eyewitness accounts and the symptoms on the bodies.
The rebels have several YouTube videos showing them making it and testing it on rabbits. The videos claim they are making Sarin but the chemicals shown in the videos and the effects on the rabbits clearly shown a locally produced chlorine gas agent.
Sarin gas kills by causing all the muscles in a body to relax. No inhalation for breathing, no inward pulse of the heart, etc....Think of an insect hit with a can of Raid.
This means that bodies of people killed by sarin gas will ALWAYS exhibit the following:
a. Eyes are open and can not be closed.
b. Fingers are extended and do not curl.
c. Arms are at the sides unless pinned by the body.
d. Those who die ALWAYS release urine and feces.
e. Mouths are open and stay that way.
Last, in a heated environment if you collect up a large group of bodies in the cloths they were exposed and died in then anyone that enters that room for a few days is going to fall down and die right next to them.
Now look at the clothes, underwear, hands, faces , eyes and all the people standing around a room full of people who were supposed to have been killed by Sarin gas......who are still breathing and not dying..
This is another manufactured excuse to try and get America involved on the side of the rebels.
If those are all dead bodies then why have none of them pissed or shat their pants?
It would not be the first time this month that the rebels have created terrible Syrian atrocities that turned out to be fake.
Citations for all these claims that are being made in the quote? I think it is hard to definitively tell without verification by some manner of technical body.
Your first citation is common sense.
Which makes the most sense.
A Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Stuff Obama, gas the children.
general: Sir, Shouldnt we use it on enemy troop positions.
Assad: Nah, little ones grow up to be big ones, target the schools.
B Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Generals, stick to using bullets, if you must use gas use it on positions you quickly overrun.
Rebel commander: If Syria uses gas the US will intervene.
Rebel aide: Where hall we drop our gas, on a platoon.
Rebel commander: No, drop it on some kids, the troops are useful and if we show gassed kids the west will be far easier to manipulate.
A Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Stuff Obama, gas the children.
general: Sir, Shouldnt we use it on enemy troop positions.
Assad: Nah, little ones grow up to be big ones, target the schools.
B Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Generals, stick to using bullets, if you must use gas use it on positions you quickly overrun.
Rebel commander: If Syria uses gas the US will intervene.
Rebel aide: Where hall we drop our gas, on a platoon.
Rebel commander: No, drop it on some kids, the troops are useful and if we show gassed kids the west will be far easier to manipulate.
The most sensible thing would be to not drop the gas. But apparently that's not what happened. Neither of those make sense to me but then again I'm not a dictator(yet).
Honestly I don't get the outcry for some other country to handle this whole nasty business. That whole section of the planet has been filled with hate and destruction for how long now? The only signs of change in that area has been increased violence and now, something as nasty as chemical warfare.
I say the civilized world stays out of this.
Seeing as Syria was created by Britain and France in the first place, you could argue that there is a 'historical' debt to sort out the place. I've said this before, but when it comes to empire building, the Americans are amateurs compared to Britain. Unfortunately, some of the world's problems are as a result of people standing around a room in London drawing lines on a map. It's not always America's fault!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: Have at it France... we're not stopping ya.
France's military record is pretty good. Is it just me, but in recent years, Britain and France seem to be gung-ho pushing for military action (Libya, Syria) and the US military ends up being at the beck and call of Britain and France! Are you, as an American taxpayer, happy with this?
The agent used was chlorine gas by eyewitness accounts and the symptoms on the bodies.
The rebels have several YouTube videos showing them making it and testing it on rabbits. The videos claim they are making Sarin but the chemicals shown in the videos and the effects on the rabbits clearly shown a locally produced chlorine gas agent.
Sarin gas kills by causing all the muscles in a body to relax. No inhalation for breathing, no inward pulse of the heart, etc....Think of an insect hit with a can of Raid.
This means that bodies of people killed by sarin gas will ALWAYS exhibit the following:
a. Eyes are open and can not be closed.
b. Fingers are extended and do not curl.
c. Arms are at the sides unless pinned by the body.
d. Those who die ALWAYS release urine and feces.
e. Mouths are open and stay that way.
Last, in a heated environment if you collect up a large group of bodies in the cloths they were exposed and died in then anyone that enters that room for a few days is going to fall down and die right next to them.
Now look at the clothes, underwear, hands, faces , eyes and all the people standing around a room full of people who were supposed to have been killed by Sarin gas......who are still breathing and not dying..
This is another manufactured excuse to try and get America involved on the side of the rebels.
If those are all dead bodies then why have none of them pissed or shat their pants?
It would not be the first time this month that the rebels have created terrible Syrian atrocities that turned out to be fake.
I agree with this. It makes no sense for Assad to gas the rebels, he's winning the war. Assad's regime have been pretty keen to keep the west out (see border incidents with Israel) intervention is the only thing that can stop him. From his point of view, all he has to do is win the war, and unfortunately, when the war is won, his death squads could easily eliminate the rebels or 'enemies' of the regime. Very harsh, very tragic, but that's how it's likely to play out. The rebels could be desperate enough to gas their own people in order to force the US to send in the marines.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: France's military record is pretty good. Is it just me, but in recent years, Britain and France seem to be gung-ho pushing for military action (Libya, Syria) and the US military ends up being at the beck and call of Britain and France! Are you, as an American taxpayer, happy with this?
Gung ho in the way little brothers with badass older brothers are, yeah.
The rebels could be desperate enough to gas their own people in order to force the US to send in the marines.
Allah help them if that really was their calculus, as it depends on having someone with a spine in the Oval.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: France's military record is pretty good. Is it just me, but in recent years, Britain and France seem to be gung-ho pushing for military action (Libya, Syria) and the US military ends up being at the beck and call of Britain and France! Are you, as an American taxpayer, happy with this?
Gung ho in the way little brothers with badass older brothers are, yeah.
The rebels could be desperate enough to gas their own people in order to force the US to send in the marines.
Allah help them if that really was their calculus, as it depends on having someone with a spine in the Oval.
I was going to take the moral high ground and mention French fleet Yorktown, but you lot evened the score with D-day
The agent used was chlorine gas by eyewitness accounts and the symptoms on the bodies.
The rebels have several YouTube videos showing them making it and testing it on rabbits. The videos claim they are making Sarin but the chemicals shown in the videos and the effects on the rabbits clearly shown a locally produced chlorine gas agent.
Sarin gas kills by causing all the muscles in a body to relax. No inhalation for breathing, no inward pulse of the heart, etc....Think of an insect hit with a can of Raid.
This means that bodies of people killed by sarin gas will ALWAYS exhibit the following:
a. Eyes are open and can not be closed.
b. Fingers are extended and do not curl.
c. Arms are at the sides unless pinned by the body.
d. Those who die ALWAYS release urine and feces.
e. Mouths are open and stay that way.
Last, in a heated environment if you collect up a large group of bodies in the cloths they were exposed and died in then anyone that enters that room for a few days is going to fall down and die right next to them.
Now look at the clothes, underwear, hands, faces , eyes and all the people standing around a room full of people who were supposed to have been killed by Sarin gas......who are still breathing and not dying..
This is another manufactured excuse to try and get America involved on the side of the rebels.
If those are all dead bodies then why have none of them pissed or shat their pants?
It would not be the first time this month that the rebels have created terrible Syrian atrocities that turned out to be fake.
You may be right about it being the rebels, you are very wrong about what you say Sarin effects are.
Initial symptoms following exposure to sarin are a runny nose, tightness in the chest and constriction of the pupils. Soon after, the victim has difficulty breathing and experiences nausea and drooling. As the victim continues to lose control of bodily functions, the victim vomits, defecates and urinates. This phase is followed by twitching and jerking. Ultimately, the victim becomes comatose and suffocates in a series of convulsive spasms.
In fact, some of the contractions and twitching are so powerful it will break a person's ribs. One of the key elements pictures of the corpses is NOT showing are the constricted pupils. Sarin victims pupils slam shut, some of the pictures I have seem show wide/normal dilation. Coupled with the lack of bodies looking like they went through the violent muscle spasms/twitching make Sarin seem unlikely.
A Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Stuff Obama, gas the children.
general: Sir, Shouldnt we use it on enemy troop positions.
Assad: Nah, little ones grow up to be big ones, target the schools.
B Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Generals, stick to using bullets, if you must use gas use it on positions you quickly overrun.
Rebel commander: If Syria uses gas the US will intervene.
Rebel aide: Where hall we drop our gas, on a platoon.
Rebel commander: No, drop it on some kids, the troops are useful and if we show gassed kids the west will be far easier to manipulate.
The most sensible thing would be to not drop the gas. But apparently that's not what happened. Neither of those make sense to me but then again I'm not a dictator(yet).
Well according to reporting from the last 2 months the rebels are being driven back. That makes option B the most sensible thing for some rebels, maybe its some fundamentalist group who used it on Shia muslims. Which makes perfect sense in their eyes, because no matter what, you kill some unbelievers and maybe the West will start supporting the rebels more, which will also help out the fundamentalists (some of the aid you send will most likely end up in their hands, be it guns, money etc.). To us it seems awfully unsensible, but Iraq has shown what lengths fundamentalists are willing to go to for their views.
Will western nations now have to rip up their play books on support and intervention given that democracy in the middle east and beyond is so muddled an enterprise.
Syria appears to be split between a bad ruling faction and bad rebels. Both sides alleged to have used Gas and have committed atrocities in the name of peace and security.
Egypt is at its core a state where the military has the last word, democracy or not. Democracy means banning a former ruling party.
Iran is doing nothing but supporting its brothers in arms in freedom.
Israel does what it wants because western hand wringing leaves them to their own devices.
Saudi Arabia spends upteen billions on supporting a sect of Islam that makes others seem positively enlightened.
Mr. Burning wrote: Will western nations now have to rip up their play books on support and intervention given that democracy in the middle east and beyond is so muddled an enterprise.
Syria appears to be split between a bad ruling faction and bad rebels. Both sides alleged to have used Gas and have committed atrocities in the name of peace and security.
Egypt is at its core a state where the military has the last word, democracy or not. Democracy means banning a former ruling party.
Iran is doing nothing but supporting its brothers in arms in freedom.
Israel does what it wants because western hand wringing leaves them to their own devices.
Saudi Arabia spends upteen billions on supporting a sect of Islam that makes others seem positively enlightened.
Your review is extremely simplistic, and mostly wrong.
Syrian troops find chemical agents in tunnels used by rebels: state TV BEIRUT (Reuters) - Syrian state television said soldiers found chemical materials on Saturday in tunnels that had been used by rebels, rejecting blame for a nerve gas attack that killed hundreds this week and heightened Western calls for foreign intervention.
The United States said it was realigning naval forces in the Mediterranean to give President Barack Obama the option for an armed strike on Syria and a senior U.N. official arrived in Damascus to seek access for inspectors to the gas attack site.
Syrian opposition accounts that between 500 and well over 1,000 civilians were killed by gas in munitions fired by pro-government forces, and video footage of victims' bodies, have stoked demands abroad for a robust, U.S.-led response after 2-1/2 years of international inaction on Syria's conflict.
In an attempt to strengthen the government's denials of responsibility for the chemical assault in Damascus's embattled suburbs, Syrian TV said soldiers came across chemical agents in rebel tunnels during an advance into the Jobar district.
"Army heroes are entering the tunnels of the terrorists and saw chemical agents," it quoted a "news source" as saying. "In some cases, soldiers are suffocating while entering Jobar. Ambulances came to rescue the people suffocating."
Soldiers discovered a cache of gas masks and imported pills used to ward off exposure to chemical attacks, it said, promising to air footage of "material and drums" later. The report could not be independently confirmed.
State television further accused the rebels of using poison gas "as a last resort after (government forces) achieved big gains during the last few days in Jobar".
Syrian opposition activists say President Bashar al-Assad's forces fired nerve gas projectiles into Jobar and other rebellious suburbs before dawn on Wednesday. Later in the week, activists crossed front lines around Damascus to smuggle out tissue samples from victims of the attack.
The Syrian government and the rebels blamed one another for several previous reported cases of poison gas attacks, both denying responsibility. No independent verification of details has been possible due to a lack of access to battle zones.
Damascus has said it would never deploy chemical weapons against its own citizens, and has suggested rebels may have carried out the latest attack themselves to provoke foreign intervention.
Obama has long been hesitant to intervene in Syria, wary of its position straddling fault lines of wider sectarian conflict in the Middle East, and he reiterated such reluctance on Friday.
INTELLIGENCE EVIDENCE
But, in a development that could raise pressure on Obama to act, American and European security sources said U.S. and allied intelligence agencies had made a preliminary assessment that chemical weapons were used by pro-Assad forces this week.
Major world powers - including Russia, Assad's main ally which has long blocked U.N.-sponsored intervention against him - have urged the Syrian leader to cooperate with a U.N. inspection team that arrived on Sunday to pursue earlier allegations of chemical weapons assaults in the civil war.
U.N. High Representative for Disarmament Affairs Angela Kane arrived to Damascus on Saturday to press for a Syrian government green light for inspectors to examine areas of Damascus suburbs said to have been targeted on Wednesday.
Assad's government has not said whether it will grant such access despite increasing pressure from the United Nations, Western and Gulf Arab countries and Russia. If confirmed, it would be the world's deadliest chemical attack in decades.
"The solution is obvious. There is a United Nations team on the ground, just a few kilometers away. It must very quickly be allowed to go to the site to carry out the necessary tests without hindrance," French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on Saturday during a visit to the Palestinian territories.
Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle of Germany said it expected Russia to "raise the pressure on Damascus so that the inspectors can independently investigate".
President Hassan Rouhani of Iran, Assad's most powerful Middle East ally, acknowledged on Saturday for the first time chemical weapons had killed people in Syria and called for the international community to prevent their use.
Washington said on Friday it was repositioning warships in the Mediterranean, although officials cautioned that Obama had made no decision on any military move. A U.S. defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the navy would expand its presence there to four destroyers from three.
U.S. MILITARY OPTIONS
Among the military options under consideration are targeted missile strikes on Syrian units believed responsible for chemical attacks or on Assad's air force and ballistic missile sites, U.S. officials said. Such strikes could be launched from U.S. ships or combat aircraft capable of firing missiles from outside Syrian airspace, thereby avoiding Syrian air defenses.
But the defense official stressed the Navy had received no orders to prepare for any military operations regarding Syria.
Obama called the apparent chemical attack a "big event of grave concern" and one that demanded U.S. attention, but said he was in no rush to get war-weary Americans "mired" in another Middle East conflict.
"If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it," he said on Friday. "The notion that the U.S. can somehow solve what is a sectarian complex problem inside of Syria sometimes is overstated."
Obama's caution contrasted with calls for action from NATO allies, including France, Britain and Turkey, where leaders saw little doubt Assad's forces were behind the chemical attack.
While the West accused Assad of a cover-up by preventing the U.N. team from heading out to Damascus suburbs, Russia said the rebels were impeding an inquiry and that Assad would have no interest in using poison gas for fear of foreign intervention.
Igor Morozov, another senior pro-Kremlin lawmaker, told Interfax news agency: "Assad does not look suicidal. He well understands that in this (chemical attack) case, allies would turn away from him and ...opponents would rise. All moral constraints would be discarded regarding outside interference."
Alexei Pushkov, pro-Kremlin chairman of the international affairs committee in Russia's lower house of parliament, said: "In London they are ‘convinced' that Assad used chemical weapons, and earlier they were ‘convinced' that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It's the same old story."
Russia said last month that its analysis indicated a deadly projectile that hit a suburb of the Syrian city of Aleppo on March 19 contained the nerve agent sarin and was most likely fired by rebels.
More than two years into a civil war that has divided the Middle East along sectarian lines, the contrasting lines taken by Western governments and Russia on this week's chemical attack highlighted once again the international deadlock that has foiled effective outside efforts to stop the bloodshed
All indications Syria behind chemical attack: France French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said on Saturday that all indications show that Syria's government was behind a "chemical massacre" near Damascus that the opposition claims killed hundreds.
"All the information at our disposal converges to indicate that there was a chemical massacre near Damascus and that the Bashar regime is responsible," Fabius said on a visit to Ramallah in the West Bank.
Opponents of Bashar al-Assad said the president's forces killed 1,300 people when they unleased chemical weapons east and southwest of Damascus in the attacks on Wednesday.
UN Under Secretary General Angela Kane arrived in the Syrian capital on Saturday for talks aimed at establishing the terms of an enquiry into the alleged attacks, an AFP journalist said.
"We ask that the UN team that is there can be deployed very quickly and make the necessary inspections," Fabius said.
"The information which we have shows that this chemical massacre is of such gravity that it obviously cannot pass without a strong reaction," he added.
The Syrian government has strongly denied accusations it carried out the attacks, but so far it has not said whether it will let UN inspectors visit the sites.
Fabius arrived early Saturday on a visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories aimed at encouraging recently resumed peace talks, his office said.
He met Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas and prime minister Rami Hamdallah at their headquarters in the West Bank city of Ramallah on Saturday.
In Israel on Sunday, he will meet with President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, Israel's negotiator in the talks.
"This visit will be an opportunity for the minister to encourage these Palestinian and Israeli negotiators to continue direct negotiations in favour of peace," French foreign ministry deputy spokesman Vincent Floreani said.
The French side would also express "determination to support these efforts," he added.
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators formally resumed direct peace talks earlier this month after a hiatus of nearly three years, thanks to an intense bout of shuttle diplomacy by US Secretary of State John Kerry.
The Palestinians said Friday they have "serious doubts" about Israel's commitment to the peace talks, but they remain committed to taking part in the negotiations.
"We do not have high expectations of the negotiations so far because we know in advance the official position of the Israeli government," foreign minister Riyad al-Malki said on visit to Quito, Ecuador.
A Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Stuff Obama, gas the children.
general: Sir, Shouldnt we use it on enemy troop positions.
Assad: Nah, little ones grow up to be big ones, target the schools.
B Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Generals, stick to using bullets, if you must use gas use it on positions you quickly overrun.
Rebel commander: If Syria uses gas the US will intervene.
Rebel aide: Where hall we drop our gas, on a platoon.
Rebel commander: No, drop it on some kids, the troops are useful and if we show gassed kids the west will be far easier to manipulate.
The most sensible thing would be to not drop the gas. But apparently that's not what happened. Neither of those make sense to me but then again I'm not a dictator(yet).
You misread this.
t makes little sense for Assad to drop gas, the solitary exception is if an enclosed rebel position is discovered, like a cave hideout, it makes perfect sense for rebels to drop gas on kids and blame Assad.
Seeing as Syria was created by Britain and France in the first place, you could argue that there is a 'historical' debt to sort out the place. I've said this before, but when it comes to empire building, the Americans are amateurs compared to Britain. Unfortunately, some of the world's problems are as a result of people standing around a room in London drawing lines on a map. It's not always America's fault!
Its not necessarily the UK's fault either.
There was a plan to partition the Ottoman empire on tribal grounds, this was backed by a number of Brtiish civil servants and fronted by T.E. Lawrence. The French insisted things were done differently, with arbitrary borders, so the Sykes Picot agreement was signed instead.
Most of the border feth ups caused by the British were in Africa, and again in conjunction with other European powers.
whembly wrote: So when will the UN bring the can-o-whoopass? Isn't that what they're there for?
They won't. The US's waffling on everything has the worlds response in a tizzy. We threw in with Libya, but then ignored Syria. We cheered when a pro-US administration was overthrown in Egypt, and then condemned Egypt when they tossed out the totalitarian regime that all but endorsed attacking religious minorities among other things. Our policy in the middle east over the last few years has been insane, and the UN won't take action as long as it's largest member continues to act insane.
The US is waffling on every front, including internal politics. This is just the outward display of whats going on inside our country.
A Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Stuff Obama, gas the children.
general: Sir, Shouldnt we use it on enemy troop positions.
Assad: Nah, little ones grow up to be big ones, target the schools.
B Obama: Using chemical weapons crosses a red line.
Assad: Generals, stick to using bullets, if you must use gas use it on positions you quickly overrun.
Rebel commander: If Syria uses gas the US will intervene.
Rebel aide: Where hall we drop our gas, on a platoon.
Rebel commander: No, drop it on some kids, the troops are useful and if we show gassed kids the west will be far easier to manipulate.
The most sensible thing would be to not drop the gas. But apparently that's not what happened. Neither of those make sense to me but then again I'm not a dictator(yet).
You misread this.
t makes little sense for Assad to drop gas, the solitary exception is if an enclosed rebel position is discovered, like a cave hideout, it makes perfect sense for rebels to drop gas on kids and blame Assad.
Seeing as Syria was created by Britain and France in the first place, you could argue that there is a 'historical' debt to sort out the place. I've said this before, but when it comes to empire building, the Americans are amateurs compared to Britain. Unfortunately, some of the world's problems are as a result of people standing around a room in London drawing lines on a map. It's not always America's fault!
Its not necessarily the UK's fault either.
There was a plan to partition the Ottoman empire on tribal grounds, this was backed by a number of Brtiish civil servants and fronted by T.E. Lawrence. The French insisted things were done differently, with arbitrary borders, so the Sykes Picot agreement was signed instead.
Most of the border feth ups caused by the British were in Africa, and again in conjunction with other European powers.
So, you're saying it's not the UK's fault, and there's a bonus opportunity to blame the French? High five, my friend!
As regards US military options, since when did the US care about UN resolutions/illegality. Plenty of American posters on this site have said meh to the UN.
A) as far as using chemical attacks on civilian making sense to Assad: Yes, it does, if he's trying to create fear amid suspected rebel sympathizers or families of rebels. Saddam did the same thing. Assad thinks (possibly correctly) that Russia will keep anyone from intervening. So far there have been several small attacks that could be laid directly at his door, and the idea that he's escalating is not so far fetched.
I'd also say that I trust Syrian state TV about as far as I can throw Náströnd. If you have all the correct ingredients, it's not hard to put them someplace and then 'discover' them and blame the opposition.
As far as the rebels go: there are so many factions at this point it's hard to say who thinks what is sane.
The simple realities are that this is destabilizing an already unstable region. That Bad men are playing with real WMDs that actually exist (Unlike certain other US led wars) and given the involvement of several terrorist organizations on every side at this point, the odds of terrorists getting their hands on chemical weapons in this conflict is approaching a mathematical certainty. The sad part is that it's France, not the US, who's standing up to call for action. And it's nice to see the US centric view oozing around this thread, but the Legion did a good job in Operation Serval in Mali. I think in a Syrian intervention they're going to have more than just the Legion to successfully bring this to a halt, though, unless the US wants to push the Security Council to lift the ban on mercenaries.
Mr. Burning wrote: Will western nations now have to rip up their play books on support and intervention given that democracy in the middle east and beyond is so muddled an enterprise.
Syria appears to be split between a bad ruling faction and bad rebels. Both sides alleged to have used Gas and have committed atrocities in the name of peace and security.
Egypt is at its core a state where the military has the last word, democracy or not. Democracy means banning a former ruling party.
Iran is doing nothing but supporting its brothers in arms in freedom.
Israel does what it wants because western hand wringing leaves them to their own devices.
Saudi Arabia spends upteen billions on supporting a sect of Islam that makes others seem positively enlightened.
Your review is extremely simplistic, and mostly wrong.
It is simplistic but based on some general perceptions (some that I do not hold) what is wrong with the above - out of curiosity?
MSF-backed hospitals treated Syria 'chemical victims'
Breaking news
Medecins Sans Frontieres says hospitals it supports in Syria treated about 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms", of whom 355 have died.
It said the patients had arrived in three hospitals in the Damascus governorate on 21 August - when opposition activists say chemical attacks were launched against rebels.
It appears to provide more evidence of chemical weapons use.
Western countries have accused the government. Damascus accuses rebels.
MSF says staff at the hospitals described a large number of patients arriving with symptoms including convulsions, extreme salivation, contracted pupils and sight and respiratory problems.
The charity said many were treated with atropine, a drug administered to those with "neurotoxic symptoms".
MSF says that while it cannot scientifically confirm the cause of the symptoms, they "strongly suggest" the use of a nerve agent.
Please quote whole article if you're going to quote.
BBC wrote:
Medecins Sans Frontieres says hospitals it supports in Syria treated about 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms", of whom 355 have died.
It said the patients had arrived in three hospitals in the Damascus governorate on 21 August - when opposition activists say chemical attacks were launched against rebels.
But MSF says it cannot "scientifically confirm" the use of chemical weapons.
Both sides in the conflict accuse each other of using chemical weapons.
MSF says staff at the hospitals described a large number of patients arriving in the space of less than three hours with symptoms including convulsions, extreme salivation, contracted pupils and sight and respiratory problems.
The charity said many were treated with atropine, a drug administered to those with "neurotoxic symptoms".
"MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack," said MSF Director of Operations Bart Janssens.
"However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events, characterised by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers, strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent.
"This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons."
MSF's disclosure came hours after the UN disarmament chief Angela Kane arrived in Damascus to press the Syrian government to allow access to the site of the alleged chemical weapons attack.
France has joined the UK in accusing Bashar al-Assad's forces of carrying out the attack in the capital's eastern suburbs on Wednesday.
US President Obama has said he is weighing his options and described it as a "big event of grave concern".
Based on the described symptoms, that sounds a lot like Sarin.
"MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack," said MSF Director of Operations Bart Janssens.
frazzled wrote:
They need our transport. Evidently no one on the planet ever built freight hauling aircraft but the US....ever...
Awfully convenient. Hey Jean Luc...buy some freaking Airbus's already.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: France's military record is pretty good. Is it just me, but in recent years, Britain and France seem to be gung-ho pushing for military action (Libya, Syria) and the US military ends up being at the beck and call of Britain and France! Are you, as an American taxpayer, happy with this?
Gung ho in the way little brothers with badass older brothers are, yeah.
Should Britain and France decide to collectively take action, we are currently capable of launching a sustained action in the Middle-East completely independent of the US.
The last time we did that though, the US got a bit stroppy about anyone but them having an independent foreign policy in the West, and threatened to crash our economies unless we toed Washington's line.
Ketara wrote: Should Britain and France decide to collectively take action, we are currently capable of launching a sustained action in the Middle-East completely independent of the US.
The last time we did that though, the US got a bit stroppy about anyone but them having an independent foreign policy in the West, and threatened to crash our economies unless we toed Washington's line.
Ketara wrote: Should Britain and France decide to collectively take action, we are currently capable of launching a sustained action in the Middle-East completely independent of the US.
The last time we did that though, the US got a bit stroppy about anyone but them having an independent foreign policy in the West, and threatened to crash our economies unless we toed Washington's line.
That doesn't sound terribly independent.
Which is kind of the point. The US likes saying that nobody else does anything but them, but the US has actively encouraged the rest of the West to do nothing that isn't allied with them. It's not in the interest of the US to have other militarily strong countries throwing their weight around.
I didn't see this article posted in here yet, so here it goes.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. naval forces are moving closer to Syria as President Barack Obama considers military options for responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad government. The president emphasized that a quick intervention in the Syrian civil war was problematic, given the international considerations that should precede a military strike
Should Britain and France decide to collectively take action, we are currently capable of launching a sustained action in the Middle-East completely independent of the US.
The last time we did that though, the US got a bit stroppy about anyone but them having an independent foreign policy in the West, and threatened to crash our economies unless we toed Washington's line.
What, the US get pissy because someone else had a different agenda in a war they supposedly wanted no involvement in? NEVER! (Iran Contra, Belgian Congo, Operation Place Dog...)
Brussels/New York, August 24, 2013 -- Three hospitals in Syria's Damascus governorate that are supported by the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) have reported to MSF that they received approximately 3,600 patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms in less than three hours on the morning of Wednesday, August 21, 2013. Of those patients, 355 reportedly died.
Since 2012, MSF has built a strong and reliable collaboration with medical networks, hospitals and medical points in the Damascus governorate, and has been providing them with drugs, medical equipment and technical support. Due to significant security risks, MSF staff members have not been able to access the facilities.
“Medical staff working in these facilities provided detailed information to MSF doctors regarding large numbers of patients arriving with symptoms including convulsions, excess saliva, pinpoint pupils, blurred vision and respiratory distress,” said Dr. Bart Janssens, MSF director of operations.
Patients were treated using MSF-supplied atropine, a drug used to treat neurotoxic symptoms. MSF is now trying to replenish the facilities’ empty stocks and provide additional medical supplies and guidance.
“MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack,” said Dr. Janssens. “However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events—characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers—strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent. This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons.”
In addition to 1,600 vials of atropine supplied over recent months, MSF has now dispatched 7,000 additional vials to facilities in the area. Treatment of neurotoxic patients is now being fully integrated into MSF’s medical strategies in all its programs in Syria.
“MSF hopes that independent investigators will be given immediate access to shed light on what happened,” said Christopher Stokes, MSF general director. “This latest attack and subsequent massive medical need come on top of an already catastrophic humanitarian situation, characterised by extreme violence, displacement, and deliberate destruction of medical facilities. In the case of such extreme violations of humanitarian law, humanitarian assistance cannot respond effectively and becomes meaningless itself.”
MSF provides medical assistance in Syria through two different approaches. MSF international and national staff operate six hospitals and four health centers in structures fully under the organization’s direct control in the north of Syria. In areas where MSF cannot send its own teams because of insecurity or lack of access, the organization has expanded a program begun two years ago of supporting Syrian medical networks, hospitals and medical posts, by providing drugs, medical equipment, and technical advice and support. Through the latter program, MSF has been supporting 27 hospitals and 56 medical posts throughout Syria.
From June 2012 through the end of June 2013, MSF teams carried out more than 55,000 medical consultations, 2,800 surgical procedures, and assisted in 1,000 births inside Syria. MSF teams have also provided more than 140,000 consultations for Syrian refugees in neighboring countries.
Jihadin wrote: Not sure how many Tomahawk cruise missiles a destroyer can carry
Well... if it's the Arleigh Burke Class Aegis destroyers, it's about 56 missiles per. (give or take I'm sure).
So... that's about 224 missiles... not much, eh?
I may be wrong, but does it not cost $2 million to fire each missle for a grand total of $448 million dollars to fire 224 missles?
I can't be the only one who think that $448 million dollars worth of arms and ammo would probably be more cost effective in the long run.
Just been watching Al Jazeera news. One guy reckons the fatalities may have resulted from a botched rebel attempt to use chemical weapons against the government...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I can't be the only one who think that $448 million dollars worth of arms and ammo would probably be more cost effective in the long run.
I certainly don't. We could give 'em F-22s if we really wanted, wouldn't make a difference.
Jihadin wrote: Not sure how many Tomahawk cruise missiles a destroyer can carry
Well... if it's the Arleigh Burke Class Aegis destroyers, it's about 56 missiles per. (give or take I'm sure).
So... that's about 224 missiles... not much, eh?
I may be wrong, but does it not cost $2 million to fire each missle for a grand total of $448 million dollars to fire 224 missles?
I can't be the only one who think that $448 million dollars worth of arms and ammo would probably be more cost effective in the long run.
Just been watching Al Jazeera news. One guy reckons the fatalities may have resulted from a botched rebel attempt to use chemical weapons against the government...
It's just one man's opinion, but if it's true...
A couple of things. Once launched, the odds of those missiles being used by someone else against targets we didn't choose are pretty slim. Any arms we send may or may not be used by who we hope would use them for what we intend they use them for. Additionally, assuming our guys target the right stuff, the damage those missiles do as in the capabilities they will destroy) are potentially a LOT more beneficial to our interests and the interests of whomever we are trying to help. And I guess a third point, smacking some specific targets as a response does not commit us to they type of long term engagement supporting some rebel faction(s) with small arms does.
Plus the value of targets that a cruise missile can take out rank up there in value. Much more then what a ton of AK-47's could get.
That $2 million cruise missile will destroy a power plant, C2 facility, arms factory in one go, while the smalls arms that your buying with them simply won't.
A cynical person might think the President was ordering them in so they could be attacked by a Syrian chemical weapon thus injecting the United States into a war he wants but America does not. All it would cost would be a few dead American soldiers, something this president has never had a problem with. He just has to wait for the rebels to get something to deliver their home grown weapons with...
The rabbits are dying from chlorine gas, not nerve gas. It it was nerve gas every one in the room would have dies since none of them are in MOPP level 4. The trashing you see is because they are drowning internally.
A cynical person might think the President was ordering them in so they could be attacked by a Syrian chemical weapon thus injecting the United States into a war he wants but America does not. All it would cost would be a few dead American soldiers, something this president has never had a problem with. He just has to wait for the rebels to get something to deliver their home grown weapons with...
Your cynical person would only have to do the simplest research to realize attacking a destroyer at sea with chemical weapons and actually achieving even the tiniest effect is well beyond the Syrian military's capability.
A cynical person might think the President was ordering them in so they could be attacked by a Syrian chemical weapon thus injecting the United States into a war he wants but America does not. All it would cost would be a few dead American soldiers, something this president has never had a problem with. He just has to wait for the rebels to get something to deliver their home grown weapons with...
Your cynical person would only have to do the simplest research to realize attacking a destroyer at sea with chemical weapons and actually achieving even the tiniest effect is well beyond the Syrian military's capability.
More importantly Assads regime isn't bat gak crazy enough to try.
"Your cynical person would only have to do the simplest research to realize attacking a destroyer at sea with chemical weapons and actually achieving even the tiniest effect is well beyond the Syrian military's capability. "
Having done over 20 years at the sharp end which included the 2 month course at Little Rock with the Navy and the 3 month course at the Chemical Warfare school I think I know what can and can not get around the rubber and silicon seals of a protective mask and a hatch seal and chlorine gas can get thru any seal that is rubber or silicon.
In any case all that would be needed is the detection on the meters for the President to have what he needs.
I keep using the term chlorine gas attack for a reason. There is much evidence the rebels have used it several times. I did not say the Syrian military might try it. I said the rebels the President is backing might try it.
Take a look at the picture below:
That is a picture of a chemical weapons launcher and yes those are the rebels showing it off.
There has been NO evidence of Sarin being used at all.
The American press has been strangely quiet about what the real experts are saying...
“At the moment, I am not totally convinced because the people that are helping them are without any protective clothing and without any respirators,” said Paula Vanninen, director of Verifin, the Finnish Institute for Verification of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
“In a real case, they would also be contaminated and would also be having symptoms.”
John Hart, head of the Chemical and Biological Security Project at Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said he had not seen the telltale evidence in the eyes of the victims that would be compelling evidence of chemical weapons use.
“Of the videos that I’ve seen for the last few hours, none of them show pinpoint pupils… this would indicate exposure to organophosphorus nerve agents,” he said.
Western experts on chemical warfare who have examined at least part of the footage are skeptical that weapons-grade chemical substances were used, although they all emphasize that serious conclusions cannot be reached without thorough on-site examination.
Dan Kaszeta, a former officer of the U.S. Army’s Chemical Corps and a leading private consultant, pointed out a number of details absent from the footage so far: “None of the people treating the casualties or photographing them are wearing any sort of chemical-warfare protective gear,” he says, “and despite that, none of them seem to be harmed.” This would seem to rule out most types of military-grade chemical weapons, including the vast majority of nerve gases, since these substances would not evaporate immediately, especially if they were used in sufficient quantities to kill hundreds of people, but rather leave a level of contamination on clothes and bodies which would harm anyone coming in unprotected contact with them in the hours after an attack. In addition, he says that “there are none of the other signs you would expect to see in the aftermath of a chemical attack, such as intermediate levels of casualties, severe visual problems, vomiting and loss of bowel control.”
Steve Johnson, a leading researcher on the effects of hazardous material exposure at England’s Cranfield University who has worked with Britain’s Ministry of Defense on chemical warfare issues, agrees that “from the details we have seen so far, a large number of casualties over a wide area would mean quite a pervasive dispersal. With that level of chemical agent, you would expect to see a lot of contamination on the casualties coming in, and it would affect those treating them who are not properly protected. We are not seeing that here.”
Stephen Johnson, an expert in weapons and chemical explosives at Cranfield Forensic Institute, said that the video footage looked suspect:
There are, within some of the videos, examples which seem a little hyper-real, and almost as if they’ve been set up. Which is not to say that they are fake but it does cause some concern. Some of the people with foaming, the foam seems to be too white, too pure, and not consistent with the sort of internal injury you might expect to see, which you’d expect to be bloodier or yellower.
Chemical and biological weapons researcher Jean Pascal Zanders said that the footage appears to show victims of asphyxiation, which is not consistent with the use of mustard gas or the nerve agents VX or sarin:
I’m deliberately not using the term chemical weapons here,” he said, adding that the use of “industrial toxicants” was a more likely explanation.
Like Chlorine gas...
Another problem is 3 videos of victims of the attack were posted on youtube before the attack took place....and yes the time difference was taken into account...
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: A cynical person might think the President was ordering them in so they could be attacked by a Syrian chemical weapon thus injecting the United States into a war he wants but America does not.
I'm gonna stop you right there. The notion that The Great Conciliator wants to get involved in any sort of armed conflict is hysterical.
NeedleOfInquiry wrote: "Your cynical person would only have to do the simplest research to realize attacking a destroyer at sea with chemical weapons and actually achieving even the tiniest effect is well beyond the Syrian military's capability. "
Having done over 20 years at the sharp end which included the 2 month course at Little Rock with the Navy and the 3 month course at the Chemical Warfare school I think I know what can and can not get around the rubber and silicon seals of a protective mask and a hatch seal and chlorine gas can get thru any seal that is rubber or silicon.
In any case all that would be needed is the detection on the meters for the President to have what he needs.
I keep using the term chlorine gas attack for a reason. There is much evidence the rebels have used it several times. I did not say the Syrian military might try it. I said the rebels the President is backing might try it.
Take a look at the picture below: That is a picture of a chemical weapons launcher and yes those are the rebels showing it off.
The Syrian military does NOT have the capability to deliver chemical munitions and hit a destroyer at sea. They just don't. The rebels have even less capability to deliver ANY munitions and hit a destroyer at sea, chem or conventional. It is asinine to think they do. The seals on the ship or promasks have nothing to do with what I said. All the delivery means are only good against large area targets, not mobile small targets (like a destroyer). Add in the ranges from shore our destroyers will operate at and you have to realize your premise is silly.
Totally ignorant of the tactical situation, you've managed to get out a bit of snerk. Good for you!
However, a battleship would be able to hit around Homs (which is out of range for destroyer guns) and port at Tartus, freeing up that 'half the cost of a battleship' in cruise missiles to plaster targets further inland such as airfields and C&C around Damascus, where they'd be more useful.
Second: are we sure those are the rebels in that pic? Reports are that the Syrian army has been abandoning their uniforms. It's how they launched a massive sneak attack earlier in the year, by posing as other rebels until they closed.
There has been NO evidence of Sarin being used at all.
Except the samples recovered by England and France and the symptoms of the victims in the most recent attack. Chlorine I can say from personal experience attacks your respiratory system and eyes. The symptoms of the victims brought in by Doctors without Boarders suggests a neurotoxin, with victims responding to atropine treatment, which rules out chlorine entirely.
Also, as Baron said, Atropine only works on nerve agents. Chlorine gas is what? Not a nerve agent. Since Atropine was effective in combating the symptoms of the victims, that pretty much negates all possibility that it was Chlorine gas. A nerve agent was used.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Furthermore Israeli, Turkish, US, British, and I believe French intelligence have all said this was Syria's doing.
Iran pinned the blame on the rebels, so to anyone sane, that should further support that the Syrian government greenlighted this.
I mean, I know he's opposed to the current regime, but that doesn't mean he necessarily supports the rebels.
There are elements of the Syrian Rebels who have been receiving US aid. However, the problem is that people have been referring to a blanket 'the rebels' which is wildly misleading, as there are dozens of factions involved. The United States favors certain factions but not others.
A lot of you on previous occasions have challenged my view on the necessity of intervention as being based off my gut feeling about this. I would say that (if true) my gut instinct was not wrong and the current escalation is a direct result of outside powers to act.
I know many of you feel that, and this is a quote from one marine I talked to about intervention in Syria: 'Who gives a feth? Let the sand kill each other'. (I had to remove the word he used as Dakka does not permit that particular n-word) While I doubt many of you would put it in such.... blatant terms, the fact that there is a certain 'subhuman' tone to the view that the US should not be concerned that particularly horrific WMDs are being used on civilian targets has crept into these discussions before sort of exposes the real issue.
They can practice horrors not seen in a century on everyone else all the livelong day, but the moment it happens to an American (as an example) it's time to rain righteous flaming death down on them for their barbarity.
I say let em fight it out and then back the winners
as does the US gov
seriously, these kids over there need to just fight it out. they have been fighting since like, the birth of humanity, what can stop them? death is all that ever has
if they can't get along then funk it, what is the point of trying anymore, just fight it out, the winners win and the losers are written about by the winners, such is the way history has always went
options are
A: Let them fight it out
B: ???????????????????????????????????????????????
C: yea, we are all out of options
D: Nuke it
They can practice horrors not seen in a century on everyone else all the livelong day, but the moment it happens to an American (as an example) it's time to rain righteous flaming death down on them for their barbarity.
I mean, I know he's opposed to the current regime, but that doesn't mean he necessarily supports the rebels.
There are elements of the Syrian Rebels who have been receiving US aid. However, the problem is that people have been referring to a blanket 'the rebels' which is wildly misleading, as there are dozens of factions involved. The United States favors certain factions but not others.
A lot of you on previous occasions have challenged my view on the necessity of intervention as being based off my gut feeling about this. I would say that (if true) my gut instinct was not wrong and the current escalation is a direct result of outside powers to act.
I know many of you feel that, and this is a quote from one marine I talked to about intervention in Syria: 'Who gives a feth? Let the sand kill each other'. (I had to remove the word he used as Dakka does not permit that particular n-word) While I doubt many of you would put it in such.... blatant terms, the fact that there is a certain 'subhuman' tone to the view that the US should not be concerned that particularly horrific WMDs are being used on civilian targets has crept into these discussions before sort of exposes the real issue.
They can practice horrors not seen in a century on everyone else all the livelong day, but the moment it happens to an American (as an example) it's time to rain righteous flaming death down on them for their barbarity.
The reason most people dont want to see an intervention in Syria is because there is absolutly no certainty in the outcome. We know that the 'rebels' are already fighting amongst themselves, which makes it even more difficult to pick out the good ones from, as you say the US does, the dozens of bad ones. Every side has commited warcrimes, although the latest attack is the worst so far. But in the big picture we are talking about a couple of hunderds of dead to over 100.000 on the whole. It is severe, but the only sulotion would be for a Western military intervention going in, getting those chemical weapons out and leave. Helping the 'rebels' win wont help at all, they are so fractured that it would only be a matter of time before one of the bad factions got their hands on them. This isnt our fight, there is no side to choose which will not end badly. Iraq is the example of Western intervention removing a government and sectarian violence running rampant. This is already happening in Syria right now, without the fall of the government. If the government would fall it would be even worse, with only hezbollah protecting the religious shia minority. the Kurds and christians standing alone between the sunni and shia extremists. We would just have the most extreme of both groups fighting on, hezbollah and the sunni extremist factions. This is already happening in Lebanon too, the only thing Western intervention might change is that we will also lose people in such violence. We cant stop the violence, only one of them winning can and (I cant believe Im saying this) Assad appears to be the choice that isnt the worst as time progresses. The rebels as you said are to splintered to achieve lasting peace and will just fall to infighting and further religious violence. Assad might get rid of the rebels, but after that the civil war might be largely at an end, treating the religious minorities with a bit of decency (except the extremists, that genie is out of the bottle).
We know that the 'rebels' are already fighting amongst themselves, which makes it even more difficult to pick out the good ones from, as you say the US does, the dozens of bad ones. Every side has commited warcrimes, although the latest attack is the worst so far. But in the big picture we are talking about a couple of hunderds of dead to over 100.000 on the whole. It is severe, but the only sulotion would be for a Western military intervention going in, getting those chemical weapons out and leave. Helping the 'rebels' win wont help at all, they are so fractured that it would only be a matter of time before one of the bad factions got their hands on them.
Because, yes, warring factions will give up their chemical weapons willingly in the middle of the war and the US military will be able to locate and extract said chemical weapons in the middle of war without getting plastered by every side while they do it. Frankly, that sort of RoE is suicidal and will get more men killed than suppressing the war and then extracting the chemical weapons afterward would. We're looking at a huge amount of chemicals stored around an entire country by several warring factions looking to hide them.
The US has already picked what factions (in theory) most closely match it's national interests and have already been funding and supporting them.
This isnt our fight, there is no side to choose which will not end badly. Iraq is the example of Western intervention removing a government and sectarian violence running rampant.... This is already happening in Lebanon too, the only thing Western intervention might change is that we will also lose people in such violence.
I'm trying hard not to Godwin the thread, but you came very close to paraphrasing an argument made by Charles Lindbergh against the US becoming involved in World War II, on April 23rd 1941.
Wars are like that. People like to imagine wars are fought in little bubbles off to the side of the everyday world, and that they don't have any impact on their lives. It's not your fight until it is, that sort of thing. I'm actually trying very hard not to Godwin this thread, but your statement above came so close to a speech from April of 1941 about how the US should not become involved because they could never beat the Axis and shouldn't become involved. After all, look waht getting involved did to England and France.
I suppose my point is that eventually every war comes knocking at everyone's door, eventually. And the longer you let it burn, the worse it gets, and the worse it is when it finally starts dragging you in.
"We must remember that so long as war exists on earth there will be some danger that even the Nation that most ardently desires peace may be drawn into war"
Jihadin: That may be true, but how much more so trying to deal with a more general regional war which this might become?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Frazz on the German invasion of Poland: "that sucks. Hope you get that fixed soon, but it aint our fight."
Frazz, you seem to have as short memory on how things that are other people's problems eventually become the US' problems. After all, Al Qaeda wasn't the US problem either. Until it was.
Seaward wrote: The British in this very thread have told us that they, along with the French, could handle Syria. I propose we let them take point on this one.
And we'll send 9.500 Americans as part of the coalition.
Ever since the Falklands, the main strategy of our makeup of military force has been to make ourselves capable of instant deployment anywhere on the globe. Out of the entire EU, we're more or less the only ones who maintain any serious fighting capability. The only reason the British would even need the French along, is because we currently have no carrier capability, and they do.
Make no mistake. Britain could throw an army of thirty thousand men with full supporting tanks, helicopters, and light vehicles into Syria by this time next week if we really wanted to.
But that's really the crux of the matter. Why should we want to?
Ketara wrote: Make no mistake. Britain could throw an army of thirty thousand men with full supporting tanks, helicopters, and light vehicles into Syria by this time next week if we really wanted to.
I don't think that's true.
But that's really the crux of the matter. Why should we want to?
Dunno. Some of your compatriots want us to go, and I reckon if it's really that important, y'all might want to handle it yourselves.
Ketara wrote: Make no mistake. Britain could throw an army of thirty thousand men with full supporting tanks, helicopters, and light vehicles into Syria by this time next week if we really wanted to.
I don't think that's true.
I do. Compared to the days of the BEF's hundred thousand, thirty thousand is relatively small potatoes. But I'll go into some detail for you on the logistics if you need persuading.
We have the HMS Illustrious, which is a mini-carrier capable of holding 22 helicopters. We have two Albion class amphibious landing docks, each of which is capable of carrying two helicopters, seven hundred soldiers, and sixty seven light vehicles. We have the HMS Ocean, an amphibious assault ship which carries a thousand men, eighteen helicopters, forty light vehicles, and amphibious assault craft. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary maintains four Bay Class landing ships, each of which can carry either a hundred and fifty light trucks or twenty four Challenger 2 tanks. There are six Point class sealift ships, each of which can carry four helicopters, 130 armoured vehicles and sixty light trucks.
In terms of pure troop carrying capacity, the British Merchant Navy is to hand, as it was during the Falklands. The RMS Queen Mary 2 alone is capable of hauling close to four thousand men, and there are some eleven other passenger ships maintained on the list. That is of course, alongside over a hundred other larger craft capable of ferrying supplies and men about the place.
I repeat, thirty thousand men plus supplies and vehicle/helicopter support could be organised by next week if we really wanted to do it.
Ketara wrote: Make no mistake. Britain could throw an army of thirty thousand men with full supporting tanks, helicopters, and light vehicles into Syria by this time next week if we really wanted to.
I don't think that's true.
I do. Compared to the days of the BEF's hundred thousand, thirty thousand is relatively small potatoes. But I'll go into some detail for you on the logistics if you need persuading.
We have the HMS Illustrious, which is a mini-carrier capable of holding 22 helicopters. We have two Albion class amphibious landing docks, each of which is capable of carrying two helicopters, seven hundred soldiers, and sixty seven light vehicles. We have the HMS Ocean, an amphibious assault ship which carries a thousand men, eighteen helicopters, forty light vehicles, and amphibious assault craft. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary maintains four Bay Class landing ships, each of which can carry either a hundred and fifty light trucks or twenty four Challenger 2 tanks. There are six Point class sealift ships, each of which can carry four helicopters, 130 armoured vehicles and sixty light trucks.
In terms of pure troop carrying capacity, the British Merchant Navy is to hand, as it was during the Falklands. The RMS Queen Mary 2 alone is capable of hauling close to four thousand men, and there are some eleven other passenger ships maintained on the list. That is of course, alongside over a hundred other larger craft capable of ferrying supplies and men about the place.
I repeat, thirty thousand men plus supplies could be organised by next week if we really wanted to do it.
Yeah. Having some experience with deployments, I'm gonna say no. Pulling the trigger right now, you won't get 30,000 guys in Syria - not to mention tanks and all the other ground-pounder accoutrements - by this time next Monday. Balls-out sailing time alone would be (at a very, very rough estimate) four/five days. Think you can get all that embarked in two/three?
Yeah. Having some experience with deployments, I'm gonna say no. Pulling the trigger right now, you won't get 30,000 guys in Syria - not to mention tanks and all the other ground-pounder accoutrements - by this time next Monday. Balls-out sailing time alone would be (at a very, very rough estimate) four/five days. Think you can get all that embarked in two/three?
Ah, I see. I thought you were questioning the transport logistics side of things (as that's what was raised earlier on in this thread). In that case, yes, I was mildly flippant on the timescale (I wasn't aware that particular aspect was seriously being raised).
But not by that much. It would probably take about a week and a half for the initial first wave of ten thousand or so to arrive, with the other twenty thousand arriving in second/third waves over the course of the following fortnight.
My main point though, was that if you add in a French Carrier for localised air support, we more or less have all bases covered, and enough shipping capacity to go it solo, if we so desired.
And I say go for it. Surely you're not indifferent to the humanitarian crisis, nor the notion that failing to intervene costs you your credibility in asking the US to do so in any future similar situations.
If the last 12 years have taught us anything, it's that getting involved doesn't really achieve very much and no one thanks us for our "assistance" afterwards.
By all means send aid to the refugees, but otherwise stay well away from this mess.
The reason most people dont want to see an intervention in Syria is because there is absolutly no certainty in the outcome.
Welcome to the reality that is war.
I might have been a bit short. I meant that there is no side which the West can really stand behind. No long term goal or party that can take over. We dont know what to do down there and how long that will take. We cant just intervene for a couple of months and leave. That wont work.
We know that the 'rebels' are already fighting amongst themselves, which makes it even more difficult to pick out the good ones from, as you say the US does, the dozens of bad ones. Every side has commited warcrimes, although the latest attack is the worst so far. But in the big picture we are talking about a couple of hunderds of dead to over 100.000 on the whole. It is severe, but the only sulotion would be for a Western military intervention going in, getting those chemical weapons out and leave. Helping the 'rebels' win wont help at all, they are so fractured that it would only be a matter of time before one of the bad factions got their hands on them.
Because, yes, warring factions will give up their chemical weapons willingly in the middle of the war and the US military will be able to locate and extract said chemical weapons in the middle of war without getting plastered by every side while they do it. Frankly, that sort of RoE is suicidal and will get more men killed than suppressing the war and then extracting the chemical weapons afterward would. We're looking at a huge amount of chemicals stored around an entire country by several warring factions looking to hide them.
The US has already picked what factions (in theory) most closely match it's national interests and have already been funding and supporting them.
Suppressing the war wont help. We go in there and were in for a fight, no matter what. No matter the RoE we will get plastered, by one side or the other, but more likely both sides. We cant suppress the war, it would be Iraq all over again, its basicly some of the same people on both sides that were there for Iraq too. Off course you have to temporarily supress the war to get those weapons out, but most likely almost all factions will fight you every step of the way.
But that the US has picked (in theory) doesnt prove anything. They have made enough bad choiches in the not so distant past. Like the tribal allies in Afghanistan during the invasion or the Taliban during the Soviet one. They are only using us to get what they want, they put up a good face (Libya, the muslim brotherhood in Egypt) and when you have helped they dont care anymore.
This isnt our fight, there is no side to choose which will not end badly. Iraq is the example of Western intervention removing a government and sectarian violence running rampant.... This is already happening in Lebanon too, the only thing Western intervention might change is that we will also lose people in such violence.
I'm trying hard not to Godwin the thread, but you came very close to paraphrasing an argument made by Charles Lindbergh against the US becoming involved in World War II, on April 23rd 1941.
Wars are like that. People like to imagine wars are fought in little bubbles off to the side of the everyday world, and that they don't have any impact on their lives. It's not your fight until it is, that sort of thing. I'm actually trying very hard not to Godwin this thread, but your statement above came so close to a speech from April of 1941 about how the US should not become involved because they could never beat the Axis and shouldn't become involved. After all, look waht getting involved did to England and France.
I suppose my point is that eventually every war comes knocking at everyone's door, eventually. And the longer you let it burn, the worse it gets, and the worse it is when it finally starts dragging you in.
"We must remember that so long as war exists on earth there will be some danger that even the Nation that most ardently desires peace may be drawn into war"
If you Godwin the thread it wouldnt make any sense. The situation in Syria is much less clear and badly fractured. Intervention in these kinds of conflicts is extremely difficult and has already proven to be no guarantee, like Lebanon. There 299 American and French military personnel lost their lives to islamic extremists, prompting the retreat out of Lebanon. Now the use of suicide attacks and bombings is much higher, due to the rise in extremism.
On your point of it getting worse. The only thing that is going to make it worse is Western intervention. Iran will not just stand by and see on of its only shia allies lose. It will worsen the conflict by sending more arms or even personnel (volunteers). China and Russia have already proven that they will send weapons to help against Western intervention. Helping the rebel factions win will most likely be only viable if we protect every single chemical bunker or storage. Because the most likely thing the sunni extremists will do is try to arm them to a missile and aim for Isreal, they only see Syria as a platform, they are not even Syrians themselves.
The West has no clear plan or strategy to solve the situation there. If they did, it would probably already have been over. But on the political and dimplomatic level this is a nightmare. Even if you only go in to protect the people and stop aid to certain factions, it will stil be treated as a breach of sovereignty by Russia and China. Again Iraq is the example of Western intervention not knowing the situation on the ground and no goverment that does, because you cant support both sides of the war. That is what Western intervention will end up with in Syria, a second Iraq or Afghanistan.
I wouldn't trust either faction as far as I could throw them. For me, that rules out sending weapons or supporting any of the parties currently vying for power. I also wouldn't trust any of the neighbours or factions to let aid shipments get to where they need to go.
In a hypothetical world where I was Prime Minister, I'd grab the US, the Germans, and the French, and have each of us contribute 2,500 men + support equipment. Then land at Latakia on the coast, and enforce a twenty mile safe zone. Followed by the setting up as many refugee camps as possible, and direct allocation of aid.
Once all that is achieved, I'd have a local police force set up within that zone to enforce law and order, have the troops man the perimeter/escort in refugee columns (none of that watching soldiers gunning down civilians twenty metres from the perimeter malarkey), and leave the dregs of humanity to fight it out over the rest of the country.
Frazzled wrote: Am I the only one who thinks "that sucks. Hope you get that fixed soon, but it aint our fight."
Nope... right there with ya.
Only way I can even think we'd intervene is if Israel begs us... not that they'd need our help there.
Alternatively nuke Damascus as a warning to others when they cross any "red line" a US President puts down.
That'd be way too much "cowboy" for the world to handle Frazzled.
I'm a cowboy. On a steel horse I ride...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Flashman wrote: If the last 12 years have taught us anything, it's that getting involved doesn't really achieve very much and no one thanks us for our "assistance" afterwards.
By all means send aid to the refugees, but otherwise stay well away from this mess.
Flashman has the way of it, and with fine pipe smoke!
Seaward wrote: The British in this very thread have told us that they, along with the French, could handle Syria. I propose we let them take point on this one.
And we'll send 9.500 Americans as part of the coalition.
The British and French were handling Syria when you guys were still chasing Geronimo around!
Jokes aside, it's a fair point. 9,500 thousand top quality American troops (with the usual overwhelming firepower response) added to the British and French forces, say, for a total of 30,000 boots on the ground, would be more than enough to settle this.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Flashman wrote: If the last 12 years have taught us anything, it's that getting involved doesn't really achieve very much and no one thanks us for our "assistance" afterwards.
By all means send aid to the refugees, but otherwise stay well away from this mess.
Ketara wrote: Make no mistake. Britain could throw an army of thirty thousand men with full supporting tanks, helicopters, and light vehicles into Syria by this time next week if we really wanted to.
I don't think that's true.
I do. Compared to the days of the BEF's hundred thousand, thirty thousand is relatively small potatoes. But I'll go into some detail for you on the logistics if you need persuading.
We have the HMS Illustrious, which is a mini-carrier capable of holding 22 helicopters. We have two Albion class amphibious landing docks, each of which is capable of carrying two helicopters, seven hundred soldiers, and sixty seven light vehicles. We have the HMS Ocean, an amphibious assault ship which carries a thousand men, eighteen helicopters, forty light vehicles, and amphibious assault craft. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary maintains four Bay Class landing ships, each of which can carry either a hundred and fifty light trucks or twenty four Challenger 2 tanks. There are six Point class sealift ships, each of which can carry four helicopters, 130 armoured vehicles and sixty light trucks.
In terms of pure troop carrying capacity, the British Merchant Navy is to hand, as it was during the Falklands. The RMS Queen Mary 2 alone is capable of hauling close to four thousand men, and there are some eleven other passenger ships maintained on the list. That is of course, alongside over a hundred other larger craft capable of ferrying supplies and men about the place.
I repeat, thirty thousand men plus supplies and vehicle/helicopter support could be organised by next week if we really wanted to do it.
Fact of the day: The BEF was the world's first fully mechanised force
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Am I the only one who thinks "that sucks. Hope you get that fixed soon, but it aint our fight."
Alternatively nuke Damascus as a warning to others when they cross any "red line" a US President puts down.
Fallout, Frazz, fallout! That red line is now a scarlet line!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let's talk numbers and logistics. Let's assume the West decides on military action.
How long will it take for:
1) American destroyers and/or British/French ships to reach the area to blast some missiles?
2) How long would it take for an allied force of say, 30,000 men (or women I'm liberal ) to be deployed there?
And what of Syria's response. Given that the military response is being aired 24/7 in the news, and given that the Russians gave the Syrians some anti- air defences, how effective could a Syrian defence be against allied airstrikes?
Talk to me!
I'm not a military man, so I'm relying on dakka experts for the sort of analysis the news won't provide.
Disciple of Fate wrote: We cant just intervene for a couple of months and leave. That wont work.
The French might disagree with you on that one. Recently they've been pretty successful at doing exactly that, then handing off to the UN for the rebuilding process.
Suppressing the war wont help. We go in there and were in for a fight, no matter what. No matter the RoE we will get plastered, by one side or the other, but more likely both sides. We cant suppress the war, it would be Iraq all over again, its basicly some of the same people on both sides that were there for Iraq too. Off course you have to temporarily supress the war to get those weapons out, but most likely almost all factions will fight you every step of the way.
Not really, there really are WMDs this time. The second is that the US and it's allies already know what doesn't work this time. Going into Iraq they had no idea of what they were getting into or how to go about it. It does assume that command learned a damn thing, which is always dangerous, but there it is.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Intervention in these kinds of conflicts is extremely difficult and has already proven to be no guarantee, like Lebanon. There 299 American and French military personnel lost their lives to islamic extremists, prompting the retreat out of Lebanon. Now the use of suicide attacks and bombings is much higher, due to the rise in extremism.
And, Unless I misread the latest intel, most of those extremists are coming from Syria rather than being home grown Lebanese extremists.
On your point of it getting worse. The only thing that is going to make it worse is Western intervention. Iran will not just stand by and see on of its only shia allies lose. It will worsen the conflict by sending more arms or even personnel (volunteers). China and Russia have already proven that they will send weapons to help against Western intervention. Helping the rebel factions win will most likely be only viable if we protect every single chemical bunker or storage. Because the most likely thing the sunni extremists will do is try to arm them to a missile and aim for Isreal, they only see Syria as a platform, they are not even Syrians themselves.
So the war spreading into Lebanon Jordan and Turkey wouldn't be 'worse'? Escalating violence against civilians by both sides isn't 'worse'? The first would be a not too far fetched at this point direct result of not intervening. The second *might* happen if there is intervention but *will* happen if there isn't. And what happens when those chemical weapons turn up in a train in London, or a bus in Amsterdam, or a subway in New York? I think that would qualify as 'worse' don't you?
Flashman wrote: If the last 12 years have taught us anything, it's that getting involved doesn't really achieve very much and no one thanks us for our "assistance" afterwards.
By all means send aid to the refugees, but otherwise stay well away from this mess.
Yes I feel the same way.
Was one of the million or so who protested in the UK over the 2nd Iraq war, didn't make a scrap of difference to government policy then and unfortunately you get the feeling that even now saying "really... have you thought this through?" won't make any difference either.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Let's talk numbers and logistics. Let's assume the West decides on military action.
How long will it take for:
1) American destroyers and/or British/French ships to reach the area to blast some missiles?
American destroyers are already there. One of the benefits of still having a navy.
2) How long would it take for an allied force of say, 30,000 men (or women I'm liberal ) to be deployed there?
I'd give it at least a month.
And what of Syria's response. Given that the military response is being aired 24/7 in the news, and given that the Russians gave the Syrians some anti- air defences, how effective could a Syrian defence be against allied airstrikes?
Likely not that effective. I probably shouldn't say more than that I know it's possible to get into Syrian air without getting spiked relatively easily.
Iraq had a decent AD net, but we know how to take those apart. We'd lose some birds, but probably at Balkans intervention levels.
Doesn't matter, though. Obama's going to go Clintonesque on this and hope that throwing a few Tomahawks at the problem will let him get away with claiming he did something.
Seaward wrote: The British in this very thread have told us that they, along with the French, could handle Syria. I propose we let them take point on this one.
And we'll send 9.500 Americans as part of the coalition.
Ever since the Falklands, the main strategy of our makeup of military force has been to make ourselves capable of instant deployment anywhere on the globe. Out of the entire EU, we're more or less the only ones who maintain any serious fighting capability. The only reason the British would even need the French along, is because we currently have no carrier capability, and they do.
Make no mistake. Britain could throw an army of thirty thousand men with full supporting tanks, helicopters, and light vehicles into Syria by this time next week if we really wanted to.
But that's really the crux of the matter. Why should we want to?
All you'd have to do is send your Section 20 crew at them... right?
Our NATO ally Turkey may want some help cleaning up the region. Or our regional allies in Jordan and Saudi Arabia may want us to help stabilize things too.
Secondly, it is "potentially" in the US interested to enforce the idea tha tth euse of Chemical Weapons for any reason leads to swift and brutal retaliation from other nations. This has been the unstated international norm since the end of WWI.
I also predict that IF any intervention happens it will be a Libya or Kossovo style air-war.
All these things being said, I don't particularly support an air campaign (or any campaign) in Syria since the objectives are very unclear.
Edit: Seaward, do you recall what "Balkan Intervention Levels" of aircraft lost was? I honestly don't remember losing any pilots to Serb fire.
Unidentified snipers have opened fire on a convoy of UN experts investigating suspected chemical weapons attacks in Syria's capital, the UN has said.
One car was shot at "multiple times", forcing the convoy to turn back. The UN promised to continue with the inquiry as soon as it could replace the car.
Syrian state media blamed opposition "terrorists" for the attack, though the claim could not be verified.
Hundreds died in suspected chemical attacks on Wednesday near Damascus.
The US said there was little doubt Syrian forces used chemical weapons in the attacks, which reportedly killed more than 300 people in rebel-held areas.
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad dismissed the accusation as "an insult to common sense" and warned the US against military intervention.
"If someone is dreaming of making Syria a puppet of the West, then this will not happen," he told the Russian newspaper Izvestiya.
'Intimidation'
The 20-member UN inspection team has been in Syria since 18 August to look into three earlier suspected chemical attacks.
The experts intend to take soil, blood, urine and tissue samples for laboratory testing from five locations on Monday and Tuesday.
They were unlikely to play any role in apportioning blame for the attack.
But shortly after setting out from the hotel, the cars came under fire "multiple times by unidentified snipers", according to a statement from the UN.
"The team returned safely back to the government checkpoint. The team will return to the area after replacing the vehicle," said the UN.
The UN Secretary General's spokesman, Farhan Haq, told the BBC the convoy was "deliberately targeted" and it seemed someone was trying to intimidate the team.
Military action
A year ago, US President Barack Obama said the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government would be "a red line" that could trigger US military action.
Washington has recently bolstered its naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean, and military leaders from the US, UK and their allies are meeting in Jordan.
But the UN Security Council remains divided, with China and Russia appearing unlikely to drop their objection to stricter sanctions on Mr Assad's government.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said on Monday that diplomats should be cautious in dealing with the chemical weapons issue, and Moscow warned Western nations not to prejudge the outcome of the inspections.
Western politicians have begun to suggest taking action outside of the UN system.
UK Foreign Secretary William Hague told the BBC that action could be taken without UN approval if there was "great humanitarian need" in Syria.
Hans Blix: "It's important that [the inspectors] can go to any place they want to see"
His French counterpart Laurent Fabius suggested the UN Security Council could be bypassed "in certain circumstances".
But in his latest comments on the crisis, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said any intervention in Syria without a UN mandate would be a "grave violation of international law".
The West, he told a news conference in Moscow, had not been able to come up with any proof of chemical weapons use while "saying at the same time that the red line has been crossed and there can be no delay".
'Neurotoxic symptoms'
Western officials were unimpressed with Syria's decision to allow in the UN experts.
Mr Hague said evidence could have been tampered with, degraded or destroyed in the five days since the attack.
A senior White House official, quoted by AP news agency, dismissed the visit as "too late to be credible".
Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) said on Saturday that three hospitals it supports in the Damascus area had treated about 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms" on Wednesday morning, of whom 355 died.
While MSF said it could not "scientifically confirm" the use of chemical weapons, staff at the hospitals described a large number of patients arriving in the space of less than three hours with symptoms including convulsions, pinpoint pupils and breathing problems.
Syria's security forces are widely believed to possess large undeclared stockpiles of mustard gas and sarin nerve agent.
It is one of seven countries that have not joined the 1997 convention banning chemical weapons.
Easy E wrote: Edit: Seaward, do you recall what "Balkan Intervention Levels" of aircraft lost was? I honestly don't remember losing any pilots to Serb fire.
Scott O'Grady's F-16 and an F-117, off the top of my head. I'm lumping in everything in that region over a period of five years.
Ketara wrote: In a hypothetical world where I was Prime Minister, I'd grab the US, the Germans, and the French, and have each of us contribute 2,500 men + support equipment. Then land at Latakia on the coast, and enforce a twenty mile safe zone. Followed by the setting up as many refugee camps as possible, and direct allocation of aid.
I'm all for helping refugees, and giving assistance to Turkey to help those fleeing the conflict. But no boots on the ground. That just seems like a sure fire way to invite mission creep as any peacekeeping force will end up taking fire, and possibly casualties, and both sides in the civil war will rush to blame each other. Have you forgotten the 1983 Beirut barracks suicide bombing?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The British and French were handling Syria when you guys were still chasing Geronimo around!
I'm having flashbacks to a previous thread where a particular community member, and alleged PMC (sorry "Operator"), was extolling the values of US volunteers before the US formally declared war.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pacific wrote: Was one of the million or so who protested in the UK over the 2nd Iraq war, didn't make a scrap of difference to government policy then and unfortunately you get the feeling that even now saying "really... have you thought this through?" won't make any difference either.
The UK population was over 55 million at the time, that figure puts you in the minority.
Edit: Seaward, do you recall what "Balkan Intervention Levels" of aircraft lost was? I honestly don't remember losing any pilots to Serb fire.
NATO combat aircraft: lost 3 fixed wing (including 1 F117) and two helos (both apaches). Had a further three damaged, lost 30 (ish) UAVs, IIRC. Those are the 'official' numbers, though other sources vary wildly on the number of aircraft damaged by ground fire.
I'm having flashbacks to a previous thread where a particular community member, and alleged PMC (sorry "Operator"), was extolling the values of US volunteers before the US formally declared war.
At the request of the mods, I'm not at liberty to respond to your provocations on that issue, as you know, and will enforce it. No more insults Baron.. Though it might amuse you to know that four pals of mine are currently stuck in Cairo because they went ahead instead of waiting, the new regime being less interested in hiring additional manpower to deal with Syria than the previous one was.
That said, 'let someone else deal with it' doesn't really work. It's like the old story about the woman getting raped and murdered in front of a large audience. Everyone assumed that someone else would deal with it. Isolationism is all well and good, but it hasn't worked yet, it only serves to make the casualties higher than they would have otherwise been. Personal opinion, I think it better to have the possibility of losing a few men than the certainty of losing a lot.
The chemical weapons allegedly used to kill hundreds of Syrian civilians by the regime of President Bashar Assad last Wednesday were fired by the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division of the Syrian Army, an Israel TV report said. This division is under the command of the president’s brother, Maher Assad.
The nerve gas shells were fired from a military base in a mountain range to the west of Damascus, the Channel 2 news report said.
The embattled regime has concentrated its vast stocks of chemical weaponry in just two or three locations, the report said, under the control of Syrian Air Force Intelligence, itself reporting to the president.
The TV report further added that “the assessment in Israel” is that the attack was intended to serve as the possible start of a wider operation. It said Israel was increasingly concerned about the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and their possibility of these weapons falling into still more dangerous hands than those of Assad. Israel was “privately” making clear its concerns to the United States, the report said.
In his first response Thursday to the alleged attack, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned that Iran was closely watching how the world would deal with the attack.
“Syria has become Iran’s testing ground, and Iran is closely watching whether and how the world responds to the atrocities committed there by its client state Syria and its proxy Hezbollah against innocent civilians in Syria,” he said.
BaronIveagh wrote: That said, 'let someone else deal with it' doesn't really work. It's like the old story about the woman getting raped and murdered in front of a large audience. Everyone assumed that someone else would deal with it. Isolationism is all well and good, but it hasn't worked yet, it only serves to make the casualties higher than they would have otherwise been. Personal opinion, I think it better to have the possibility of losing a few men than the certainty of losing a lot.
Your comparison with rape is horribly flawed.
Preventing a rape is perfectly desirable. You are preventing someone from having to endure a horrible act being committed against them by a given group or individual. The victim can then receive the help that she needs to rebuild her life and move on. Getting sucked into a civil war with no clear group to support, each of which is alleged to have committed war crimes against the other, with geo-political ramifications, a variety of extra-territorial actors and no clear end game is a vastly different proposition. A better metaphor would be trying to get involved in a turf war between rival gangs.
The embattled regime has concentrated its vast stocks of chemical weaponry in just two or three locations, the report said, under the control of Syrian Air Force Intelligence, itself reporting to the president.
I suppose the only saving grace is that if the US does get sucked in then maybe some targeted strikes against these locations will suffice (and give the media plenty of fodder to hand wring over)
Targeted strikes will be our primary tool. If we put boot on the ground, it'll solely be to secure weapon stock piles, though we'd be more likely to just bomb said locations.
I'm all for helping refugees, and giving assistance to Turkey to help those fleeing the conflict. But no boots on the ground. That just seems like a sure fire way to invite mission creep as any peacekeeping force will end up taking fire, and possibly casualties, and both sides in the civil war will rush to blame each other. Have you forgotten the 1983 Beirut barracks suicide bombing?
Either we make a safe haven, or we leave the place alone. If we send aid to the surrounding countries, it'll likely have more than half of it usurped, stolen, and shuffled away to somewhere else. If we send it directly into the country, the government forces will seize it. If we send weapons into the country, we run the risk of them getting used by people we don't like on civilians. And if we just nuke key points with missiles, all we do is mix things up for no real benefit to anyone.
The British and US armies have a lot of experience in peacekeeping actions of late. With ten thousand men, we'll have enough boots on the ground that we won't risk a repeat of the '93 experience.
When I say a twenty mile limit though, I mean that. Set up a perimeter of barbed wire with designated gates, and drones watching all the approaches for refugees approaching in need of help. Ten thousand men should be plenty to ensure the integrity of the safe zone with proper patrolling. And with a locally recruited police force, have the troops do as little peacekeeping internally in the safe zone as is necessary.
The goal would be keeping out all armed factions and allowing life to go on as normally as possible within the zone. With multiple nationalities involved, the likelihood of mission creep is substantially reduced as well. If you have a set border to be guarded split between several nationalities, any kind of mission creep would only be as a result of all parties concurring (as they would be too small to take action alone). And if all parties agree, then it's really no issue.
Fact is, most civilians in any country just want to be safe and tomorrow to be like today. Set up an area safeguarded by soldiers with food, hospitals and schools, and they'll come to you.
That was more complicated than just lack of boots on the ground. UN forces had stifling ROE and nowhere near enough supplies for what they were sent to do.
Ketara wrote: Fact is, most civilians in any country just want to be safe and tomorrow to be like today. Set up an area safeguarded by soldiers with food, hospitals and schools, and they'll come to you.
Fact is, most jihadis (and possibly other agitators) will also come to you, and not for humanitarian assistance. We've seen it in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lets not make it three for three.
Fact is, most jihadis (and possibly other agitators) will also come to you, and not for humanitarian assistance. We've seen it in Iraq and Afghanistan. Lets not make it three for three.
The death toll has quite possibly topped 100,000. Look at that figure for a second. Can you actually grasp how many people that is dead? Now consider: chemical attacks being used on the populace. By both sides if my guesses are accurate. People dying from a mode of warfare that we more or less completely outlawed after WW1 for being too brutal.
Now I'm completely aware that we cannot consider ourselves responsible for what goes on in other parts of the world. We have a duty to our own soldiers, to see that as few of them have to risk their lives as possible. That's why I would never advocate just moving into the region and taking it over altogether Iraq/Afghanistan style. We've been burned too badly too often doing that sort of thing.
But at the same time, if you allow the fear of a few dozen jihaadi fighters pin down your entire foreign policy and make you refrain from lending even the slightest helping hand to civilians in genuine need when they're getting hit with chemical attacks? Then they run your country. Not you. Consider yourself terrorised. You no longer dare to do anything which might anger them or embroil yourself against them.
We have a duty to our own. So rolling in guns blazing to 'impose' peace is a daft idea. It'll get too many of our own killed. Having a lot of people from various nations patrolling a perimeter? Risky, but potentially worthwhile if it saves another fifty thousand lives and stops children being gassed to death in their bedrooms.
I'm all for helping refugees, and giving assistance to Turkey to help those fleeing the conflict. But no boots on the ground. That just seems like a sure fire way to invite mission creep as any peacekeeping force will end up taking fire, and possibly casualties, and both sides in the civil war will rush to blame each other. Have you forgotten the 1983 Beirut barracks suicide bombing?
Either we make a safe haven, or we leave the place alone. If we send aid to the surrounding countries, it'll likely have more than half of it usurped, stolen, and shuffled away to somewhere else. If we send it directly into the country, the government forces will seize it. If we send weapons into the country, we run the risk of them getting used by people we don't like on civilians. And if we just nuke key points with missiles, all we do is mix things up for no real benefit to anyone.
The British and US armies have a lot of experience in peacekeeping actions of late. With ten thousand men, we'll have enough boots on the ground that we won't risk a repeat of the '93 experience.
When I say a twenty mile limit though, I mean that. Set up a perimeter of barbed wire with designated gates, and drones watching all the approaches for refugees approaching in need of help. Ten thousand men should be plenty to ensure the integrity of the safe zone with proper patrolling. And with a locally recruited police force, have the troops do as little peacekeeping internally in the safe zone as is necessary.
The goal would be keeping out all armed factions and allowing life to go on as normally as possible within the zone. With multiple nationalities involved, the likelihood of mission creep is substantially reduced as well. If you have a set border to be guarded split between several nationalities, any kind of mission creep would only be as a result of all parties concurring (as they would be too small to take action alone). And if all parties agree, then it's really no issue.
Fact is, most civilians in any country just want to be safe and tomorrow to be like today. Set up an area safeguarded by soldiers with food, hospitals and schools, and they'll come to you.
There is a third option - a moat filled with angry sea bass with "Lazers."
Ketara wrote: The death toll has quite possibly topped 100,000. Look at that figure for a second. Can you actually grasp how many people that is dead?
Yup, that's 100,000+ dead.
Ketara wrote: But at the same time, if you allow the fear of a few dozen jihaadi fighters pin down your entire foreign policy and make you refrain from lending even the slightest helping hand to civilians in genuine need when they're getting hit with chemical attacks? Then they run your country. Not you. Consider yourself terrorised. You no longer dare to do anything which might anger them or embroil yourself against them.
What delightful misinterpretation from understating the problem in an attempt to score some cheap points. It is the jihadis who are the most effective anti-Assad force in Syria. And remind us again just how many foreign fighters went to Iraq and Afghanistan and what sort of damage they did. Now you want to get involved in a conflict that already has Iran, Russia, Al-Queda, Hizbollah, and many others taking part?
But if the UK wants to waste the lives of their troops I wish them the very best. I'd hate to hear that they were being terrorised by a few dozen jihaadi fighters, especially after a few dozen Irish rebels got them to leave most of Ireland and later start a peace process for the north of the country
Ketara wrote: We have a duty to our own. So rolling in guns blazing to 'impose' peace is a daft idea. It'll get too many of our own killed. Having a lot of people from various nations patrolling a perimeter? Risky, but potentially worthwhile if it saves another fifty thousand lives and stops children being gassed to death in their bedrooms.
Beautifully poignant, but sadly ineffective appeal to emotion. Concerning the underlined portion that sort of contradicts what you said earlier. Namely;
Ketara wrote: Now I'm completely aware that we cannot consider ourselves responsible for what goes on in other parts of the world. We have a duty to our own soldiers, to see that as few of them have to risk their lives as possible..
So we have a duty to our own servicemen and women not to endanger their lives unnecessarily, but yet you want us to invade a sovereign nation (dress it up all you want, that's exactly what you're doing if you want to enforce a safe zone) and involve ourselves in a civil war with no clear way out and no clear faction to support.
Disciple of Fate wrote: We cant just intervene for a couple of months and leave. That wont work.
The French might disagree with you on that one. Recently they've been pretty successful at doing exactly that, then handing off to the UN for the rebuilding process.
Mali was a whole different situation. The situation in Mali with the Tuareg rebels has been a problem for many years. Reently this came to head with the influx of Libyan weapons out of the civil war. Although extremists supported the Tuareg rebels in pushing back the military. But the main thing that although it also had an islamist goal, the main part has been idependence. Sectarian violence was much less severe and the population much less divided. The parties were clearly defined, the goverment against the Tuareg/islamist rebels. Which made the task of driving them back easier. Mali has even signed a peace treaty with the Tuareg, with most of the conflict having died down. How does this even aprroach the level of complexity in Syria?
Suppressing the war wont help. We go in there and were in for a fight, no matter what. No matter the RoE we will get plastered, by one side or the other, but more likely both sides. We cant suppress the war, it would be Iraq all over again, its basicly some of the same people on both sides that were there for Iraq too. Off course you have to temporarily supress the war to get those weapons out, but most likely almost all factions will fight you every step of the way.
Not really, there really are WMDs this time. The second is that the US and it's allies already know what doesn't work this time. Going into Iraq they had no idea of what they were getting into or how to go about it. It does assume that command learned a damn thing, which is always dangerous, but there it is.
Iraq all over again as in the years of secterian violence and civil war. They might already know what doesnt work, but from the current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan its painfully clear that they still dont know what works. Why else would they be so reluctant? Libya was far easier and was demonstrated by how quick the intervened, just the goverment bombing the rebels, no secterian violence or ill defined factions. Its been over two years for Syria so far.
Disciple of Fate wrote: Intervention in these kinds of conflicts is extremely difficult and has already proven to be no guarantee, like Lebanon. There 299 American and French military personnel lost their lives to islamic extremists, prompting the retreat out of Lebanon. Now the use of suicide attacks and bombings is much higher, due to the rise in extremism.
And, Unless I misread the latest intel, most of those extremists are coming from Syria rather than being home grown Lebanese extremists.
Hezbollah is the primary shia militant organisation in Lebanon, the homegrown extremists. They are bombing sunni targets. Sunni extremists, retaliate in Lebanon be they homegrown or from the war in Syria. Even know its clear that both sides are pulling extremists from outside of Syria to fight. We in Europe are having problems with the fact that extremist youths are going to Syria to fight on the sunni extremist side. The situation is a mix of homegrown and import, being difficult to accurately count.
On your point of it getting worse. The only thing that is going to make it worse is Western intervention. Iran will not just stand by and see on of its only shia allies lose. It will worsen the conflict by sending more arms or even personnel (volunteers). China and Russia have already proven that they will send weapons to help against Western intervention. Helping the rebel factions win will most likely be only viable if we protect every single chemical bunker or storage. Because the most likely thing the sunni extremists will do is try to arm them to a missile and aim for Isreal, they only see Syria as a platform, they are not even Syrians themselves.
So the war spreading into Lebanon Jordan and Turkey wouldn't be 'worse'? Escalating violence against civilians by both sides isn't 'worse'? The first would be a not too far fetched at this point direct result of not intervening. The second *might* happen if there is intervention but *will* happen if there isn't. And what happens when those chemical weapons turn up in a train in London, or a bus in Amsterdam, or a subway in New York? I think that would qualify as 'worse' don't you?
Everything would be worse, but those things are already happening. Its already spread to Lebanon. We cant prevent that anymore. How are we supposed to prevent it from spreading? Intervention will just drive the extremists over the borders, like they do in Afghanistan to escape military actions. We would likely do more to spread it with intervention than the civil war currently does. And why do Jordan and Turkey not intervene? They have the forces and are bordered along Syria, yet only the West seems to be obligated. While experience shows that the culture shock and inexperience with those countries doesnt help in solving the problem. I fail to see how the violence is escalating, so far this seems to be an isolated incident. Off course its bad enough, but will Western intervention solve anything. So far there is no conclusive report saying that Western intervention will help. And seeing how reluctant the West still is it seems that they dont know what the intervention will achieve. And playing the Devil's advocate, lets help Assad against the rebels? We know hes a giant warcriminal, but at least we can trust him to secure those chemical weapons and maintain stability in the region. Would you support such a Western intervention to prevent it from getting 'worse'? Would you?
djones520 wrote: Targeted strikes will be our primary tool. If we put boot on the ground, it'll solely be to secure weapon stock piles, though we'd be more likely to just bomb said locations.
Yeah, because it worked so well last time it was done at Kamisiyah and Salman Pak. Oh, wait.... no, that just exposed tens of thousands of people to 'non-lethal' levels of mustard gas and sarin, among other things, and inflicted Gulf War Syndrome on coalition troops.
BaronIveagh wrote: Yeah, because it worked so well last time it was done at Kamisiyah and Salman Pak. Oh, wait.... no, that just exposed tens of thousands of people to 'non-lethal' levels of mustard gas and sarin, among other things, and inflicted Gulf War Syndrome on coalition troops.
You figured out Gulf War Syndrome? Better let someone know.
That was more complicated than just lack of boots on the ground. UN forces had stifling ROE and nowhere near enough supplies for what they were sent to do.
It was also the mindset of the Dutch UN forces there. The commander was concerned with getting his men home, which is why they didnt even offer token resistance and went as far as to hand over local contracted personnal, knowing what would happen. Air support was cancelled because, hold on, Serbian forces threatened to kill members of the Dutch battalion. They considered that to be worse, in a war, than knowing what the Serbs would do. Its still a big deal for us, in which its difficult to pick a side. Most people from my generation (18-25) think it was wrong of our forces not to do anything. Its what they had signed up for but when the moment of truth came they were too scared to. It didnt help that evidence was conveniently 'lost' by the military in the investigation. Most of the men of 'Dutchbat' are still shunned by society and if ever mentioned mostly on a negative tone in the media.
What delightful misinterpretation from understating the problem in an attempt to score some cheap points.....
......Beautifully poignant, but sadly ineffective appeal to emotion.........
.....But if the UK wants to waste the lives of their troops I wish them the very best. I'd hate to hear that they were being terrorised by a few dozen jihaadi fighters, especially after a few dozen Irish rebels got them to leave most of Ireland and later start a peace process for the north of the country ....
You seem to be under some sort of misapprehension here. Namely that snarkiness/borderline rudeness is becoming.
I wrote what I wrote before as it is what I genuinely feel on the issue. I don't take some sort of vicarious pleasure out of 'scoring points'. If you intend on having a serious/productive conversation with somebody else, a certain degree of basic common courtesy and politeness would be much appreciated. Otherwise, you might want to just step away from the keyboard before you hurt yourself laughing at your own rapier wit.
So we have a duty to our own servicemen and women not to endanger their lives unnecessarily, but yet you want us to invade a sovereign nation(dress it up all you want, that's exactly what you're doing if you want to enforce a safe zone) and involve ourselves in a civil war with no clear way out and no clear faction to support.
I believe that we should involve ourselves to a limited extent, yes. Involve us in the civil war? Not so much. Beyond securing the safezone and maintaining basic law and order (aka, no artillery attacks/chemical warfare/outright firefights), I recommend absolutely no involvement beyond that. As to no faction to support? I don't advocate supporting a faction at all.
Far harder things than this have been done over the years in terms of foreign policy and limited involvement in foreign countries. It's not impossible to maintain a safe zone for a year or two in the wake of what is quite frankly turning into mass murder.
What if the BG's drop rounds into your safe zone or send people in to kill people in your safe zone? What if rebels use your safe zone as, well a safe zone to launch attacks?
What if the rebels start instituting sharia law in your safe zone or maybe kill a few Christians for kicks?
Frazzled wrote: What if the BG's drop rounds into your safe zone or send people in to kill people in your safe zone? What if rebels use your safe zone as, well a safe zone to launch attacks?
What if the rebels start instituting sharia law in your safe zone or maybe kill a few Christians for kicks?
See, these are good questions. Excellent questions in fact. The sort of questions which a number of people get paid a lot of money to formulate policy on.
My first thoughts at answers? I draw the line at loss of life within the safe zone. If someone drops an artillery round in it, you plaster the area it came from with drone strikes and missiles. If sharia law is instituted? Fine. It's their society and way of life. As long as nobody is getting stoned to death/killed, they can live according to their own values. If anybody tries to do something along those lines (stoning women to death or other daft things), fingerprint the people involved so they can't get back into the safe zone, and kick them out back into the country. You lose your right to protection when you try and kill others.
Also, institute a policy of not allowing weapons across the safe zone border. It becomes difficult to use a place as a safe haven if you can't move men and materials across at will. If I have several thousand soldiers patrolling up and down that border, moving anything at all across unsanctioned will be a challenge.
These are just my initial thoughts in regards to such issues, but I like to think that they indicate that such issues are not unsolvable. My answers may not be perfect, or even the best ones (and indeed, probably are not). But I do not believe such difficulties to be insurmountable. Things will never work out perfectly, but it probably still works out better in the long run than the alternative (namely thousands dying to chemical weapon attacks).
See, these are good questions. Excellent questions in fact. The sort of questions which a number of people get paid a lot of money to formulate policy on.
I accept wire transfers, certified check, and of course platinum.
My first thoughts at answers? I draw the line at loss of life within the safe zone. If someone drops an artillery round in it, you plaster the area it came from with drone strikes and missiles.
What if the rounds are being fired from civilian occupied areas? What if that doesn’t stop incoming rounds/rockets? What if the round are from rebel factions?
If sharia law is instituted? Fine. It's their society and way of life. As long as nobody is getting stoned to death/killed, they can live according to their own values.
What if they don’t want to live like that? What if women start getting killed? What if fighting breaks out from groups that don’t want to live like that?
If anybody tries to do something along those lines (stoning women to death or other daft things), fingerprint the people involved so they can't get back into the safe zone, and kick them out back into the country. You lose your right to protection when you try and kill others.
What if they kill the fingerprinters or set off some nice suicide bombs? What if AlQaeda declares the camp now belongs to it?
Also, institute a policy of not allowing weapons across the safe zone border.
How? If the Israelis can’t do it how does the UN do it?
It becomes difficult to use a place as a safe haven if you can't move men and materials across at will. If I have several thousand soldiers patrolling up and down that border, moving anything at all across unsanctioned will be a challenge.
Cough Gaza cough West Bank cough cough Iraq cough
These are just my initial thoughts in regards to such issues, but I like to think that they indicate that such issues are not unsolvable. My answers may not be perfect, or even the best ones (and indeed, probably are not). But I do not believe such difficulties to be insurmountable. Things will never work out perfectly, but it probably still works out better in the long run than the alternative (namely thousands dying to chemical weapon attacks).
Fair enough boyo. Lets continue! The lack of shouting is good!
OT but speaking of shouting. I was at an IDPA match Saturday. Didn’t have my ears on but I didn’t realized people had started gunning until someone tapped my arm. I feel like TBone, oblivious to the world. It’s a good feeling…
Dreadclaw69 wrote: But if the UK wants to waste the lives of their troops I wish them the very best. I'd hate to hear that they were being terrorised by a few dozen jihaadi fighters, especially after a few dozen Irish rebels got them to leave most of Ireland and later start a peace process for the north of the country
I might point out that while nicely snarky, hilariously inaccurate. AN runs about half what PIRA alone did, according to estimates. FSA has an estimated manpower not a great deal less than the Syrian armed forces, but they're poorly trained and equipped and lack air power.
You figured out Gulf War Syndrome? Better let someone know.
Yes, I know there's 'controversy' thanks to all sorts of magic missing records that conveniently fell into a black hole someplace, but it's pretty fething obvious. If it was the anti-toxins supplied to coalition forces it wouldn't have effected so many in the civilian population. If it was a biowarfare agent, then you'd see a pattern of antibodies in the victims and a much more uniform set of symptoms. I suspect that the variation in symptoms has to do with the variation in exposure and proportion of agents inhaled
What if the rounds are being fired from civilian occupied areas?
I suppose it would depend upon the type of weapon being fired and responding appropriately. If it's a small mortar, then naturally, chucking a cruise missile would be somewhat disproportionate. If it's government owned mechanised artillery, then roll out the Challengers for some field practice? Likewise, a quick portable rocket unit on the back of a truck should be hittable with a carefully targeted drone missile.
Ultimately you may very well end up with a civilian casualty or two. But I'm going to be honest, I don't see very many civilians remaining that close to a safe zone and being on the hostile side of it.
What if that doesn’t stop incoming rounds/rockets?
Presuming you're knocking out whatever is throwing them, they'll end soon enough. The country is in a civil war, and frankly I can't see any Syrian commander on either side wasting their resources in a firefight with the West, when the West won't shoot until fired upon, and the other side is still trying to fillet them. Maybe if we remained once the country had been re-unified or one side had gained overwhelming advantage, but until then?
There's still the other side in the civil war which is actively trying to kill you, and you might need your rounds for them.
What if the round are from rebel factions?
If they're shelling it, they're hostiles. Eliminate them. Al Qaeda have forces there, being a 'rebel' does not make you a 'good guy'.
What if they don’t want to live like that?
If people have differing ways on how they want to live, split the safe zone into different sections. Ten to twenty miles is a lot of space. Let people migrate freely between sections as they want.
What if women start getting killed?
Arrest the perpetrators and either chuck them out or shoot them. Murder is murder.
What if fighting breaks out from groups that don’t want to live like that?
My previous responses cover this one I think.
How? If the Israelis can’t do it how does the UN do it?
The Gazans have had their border up for a very long time, so they've had time to dig tunnels. Not only that, they're on opposing ends of a blockade. If all the food and medicine and goodies are on our side for civilians who want them, there's no need to put in that level of effort.
On top of that, the Egyptians have been collapsing a lot of them lately. If that became an issue, we could easily adopt similar tactics.
These are just my initial thoughts in regards to such issues, but I like to think that they indicate that such issues are not unsolvable. My answers may not be perfect, or even the best ones (and indeed, probably are not). But I do not believe such difficulties to be insurmountable. Things will never work out perfectly, but it probably still works out better in the long run than the alternative (namely thousands dying to chemical weapon attacks).
Fair enough boyo. Lets continue! The lack of shouting is good!
OT but speaking of shouting. I was at an IDPA match Saturday. Didn’t have my ears on but I didn’t realized people had started gunning until someone tapped my arm. I feel like TBone, oblivious to the world. It’s a good feeling…
I'm all for helping refugees, and giving assistance to Turkey to help those fleeing the conflict. But no boots on the ground. That just seems like a sure fire way to invite mission creep as any peacekeeping force will end up taking fire, and possibly casualties, and both sides in the civil war will rush to blame each other. Have you forgotten the 1983 Beirut barracks suicide bombing?
I'm all for helping refugees, and giving assistance to Turkey to help those fleeing the conflict. But no boots on the ground. That just seems like a sure fire way to invite mission creep as any peacekeeping force will end up taking fire, and possibly casualties, and both sides in the civil war will rush to blame each other. Have you forgotten the 1983 Beirut barracks suicide bombing?
Ugh.. hate when someone brings that up. fething terrible and shameful that....
Yay humanity!
if there's a genocide, ok, I can see people intervening there. But this is an armed rebellion, and there isn't really a good outcome regardless of who wins.
I'm all for helping refugees, and giving assistance to Turkey to help those fleeing the conflict. But no boots on the ground. That just seems like a sure fire way to invite mission creep as any peacekeeping force will end up taking fire, and possibly casualties, and both sides in the civil war will rush to blame each other. Have you forgotten the 1983 Beirut barracks suicide bombing?
Ugh.. hate when someone brings that up. fething terrible and shameful that....
Yay humanity!
if there's a genocide, ok, I can see people intervening there. But this is an armed rebellion, and there isn't really a good outcome regardless of who wins.
Neurotixin weapons where purposefully used on a civilian populace. Children were hit with Sarin Gas. Watch this and tell me you are ok with sitting by and doing nothing about it when we have the power to step and and do something about it.
I'm okay with sitting back and doing nothing until our politicians explain EXACTLY what our objectives are and go through the formal process of having congress fund the operation.
We have stayed out of a LOT of bloody civil wars over the last several decades and let lots of children die absolutely horrible deaths. This is no different.
CptJake wrote: I'm okay with sitting back and doing nothing until our politicians explain EXACTLY what our objectives are and go through the formal process of having congress fund the operation.
We have stayed out of a LOT of bloody civil wars over the last several decades and let lots of children die absolutely horrible deaths. This is no different.
Chemical weapon are a special thing with me. You can hide from bullets, you can run from machetes, you can take cover from bombs. The gas will get you though. There is no way at all for the civilian populace to defend themselves from that.
Use of such weapons is the ultimate evil in my eyes, and should be treated as such. Call me an idealist if you want. Even if they still hate us afterwards, I think at the least going in, and destroying their ability to use such methods of warfare, while delivering a black eye or two, is still the right thing to do.
Driving tanks into villages and machinegunning all the kiddies kills them just as dead.
The dead kid doesn't give a damn what killed him/her. In fact, bleeding out over the course of an hour or two would suck a lot worse than doing the funky chicken for a minute or two.
CptJake wrote: I'm okay with sitting back and doing nothing until our politicians explain EXACTLY what our objectives are and go through the formal process of having congress fund the operation.
We have stayed out of a LOT of bloody civil wars over the last several decades and let lots of children die absolutely horrible deaths. This is no different.
Chemical weapon are a special thing with me. You can hide from bullets, you can run from machetes, you can take cover from bombs. The gas will get you though. There is no way at all for the civilian populace to defend themselves from that.
Use of such weapons is the ultimate evil in my eyes, and should be treated as such. Call me an idealist if you want. Even if they still hate us afterwards, I think at the least going in, and destroying their ability to use such methods of warfare, while delivering a black eye or two, is still the right thing to do.
After seeing that video...
I agree. Damn you for turning me into a bleeding heart liberal? (wait... wut?)
If it's beyond the shadow of doubt... man, you really have to think about whether if this something you'd look the other way or not.
djones520 wrote: You can't just turn away. You can't be everywhere at once, but you can't just turn away from atrocities such as this.
It only emboldens them onto far worse.
Agreed. And I'll be blunt: poison gas HURTS Not "I've been stabbed/shot" hurt. It's 'I've been dumped in hydrochloric acid' hurts. Calling the spams you experience from a nerve agent 'the funky chicken' just goes to show an utter lack of understanding of what those people are going through. Picture vomiting so hard you're breaking bones. And then there's that terrifying drowning sensation as you're lungs begin to fill with a pulmonary edema. Personal opinion, I'll gladly take being stabbed again over chlorine gas again any day. I don't even want to think about something like Sarin.
Yet more fun. SoS Kerry has deemed the latest gas attack a 'moral obscenity'. Really, it took this for the Syria situation to be a moral obscenity to you, John?
Well there wont be an UN force moving in, so if anything would happen it will be on humanitarian grounds.
Article of the BBC about the international situation surrounding Syria. Some interresting points: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23831696
Spoiler:
Syria attack may force search for peace
The apparent use of chemical weapons in the suburbs of Damascus, killing hundreds of civilians, has clearly lifted the Syrian conflict to a yet higher level of crisis.
With the US stiffening its military posture in the eastern Mediterranean and the Russians continuing to defend their only staunch Arab ally, the dire predictions made months ago by some regional analysts that the situation could spiral rapidly into World War III are starting to look a little less fanciful.
Conversely, and for that very reason, there are those who believe that the level of tension that has now been reached may force the unblocking of the process to find a political settlement of the crisis.
Pressure to co-operate
Out of the chaos and confusion of the past few days, several things have emerged clearly.
Even the regime itself and its closest allies, Russia and Iran, do not dispute that chemical weapons were used in the eastern and south-western suburbs of Damascus early on Wednesday morning.
The evidence from a huge flow of distressing amateur video is too massive to dismiss.
Medecins Sans Frontieres says 3,600 patients with neurotoxic symptoms were treated at three hospitals and that at least 355 of them died.
That may not be the whole picture.
The Violations Documentation Centre, the most measured and least sensationalist of the organisations logging casualties in the conflict, listed the names and details of 457 people it said died of chemical poisoning in eight Damascus suburbs on Wednesday. That too is likely to be a minimum figure.
While acknowledging the event, Russian and Iranian officials have either adopted the Syrian government line that the attacks were carried out by armed rebels, or left the issue of responsibility open.
In any event, with UN chemical weapons investigators already in Damascus on a prior mission, the pressure to allow them to examine the affected sites is hard to resist.
Both Moscow and Tehran have said they are urging the Syrian authorities to co-operate with the inspectors, and the Iranian foreign minister has quoted his Syrian counterpart, Walid Muallem, as saying the government is in discussion with the UN team and preparing the conditions for a site visit.
The situation also prompted a rare direct contact between Mr Muallem and the US Secretary of State, John Kerry.
Obama reluctant
With combat continuing on the ground in the affected areas, there is clearly scope for prevarication and delay, although Western patience is short.
But at least an appearance of regime willingness to co-operate may for the moment let the US and its allies off the hook.
For one of the other elements that has become clearer than ever in the past few days is the great reluctance of President Barack Obama and others to plunge into an embroilment that would be hard to get out of, and which would carry a very high risk of aggravating the situation even further.
For the West, an almost irresistible sentiment that something has to be done is colliding with the reality that there is no course of action that is attractive or even acceptable in terms of that risk.
Mr Obama also knows that his own public does not want another costly, open-ended adventure in the Middle East.
Limited options
Any military action would immediately bracket the West with Israel, whose air and missile strikes on Syria this year have been held up by the regime as evidence that its internal troubles are part of a Western-Zionist-Salafist plot to destroy a citadel of resistance to Israel.
Even the most minimalist response - stepping up arms and training to opposition forces - does not really amount to much of an option.
The Western powers have never wanted the rebels to win.
Their strategy has been to redress the balance so that the regime came under such pressure that it would cave in, dump the Assad leadership and negotiate a transition that would exclude the inner ruling circle while preserving stability and state structures.
There has never been evidence to suggest such an approach might work.
The signs have always been that the regime would pull the whole house down around it before capitulating, and also that its strategic allies, especially Russia, Iran and Hezbollah, would not allow that to happen.
In addition, the West faces the reality that the moderate opposition elements it has been trying to boost have proven neither cohesive, credible nor effective on the ground.
Instead, the running has largely been made by Islamist factions, many linked to al-Qaeda.
Political movement
As happened in Iraq, intervention by the West risks fragmenting the country further, creating an uncontrollable situation and handing large parts of it to forces it regards as its enemies.
To that extent, there may be more common ground between Washington and Moscow than meets the eye.
The Russians, traumatised by Chechnya, are also mesmerised by the prospect of a radical Islamist takeover in Syria.
That is why some observers believe there is still a measure of understanding between the Russians and Americans, whose foreign ministers decided in May to work together to bring about the political settlement that everybody agrees is the only solution, but which is proving devilishly difficult to get under way.
So it is not out of the question that the huge pressures exerted on all parties by the chemical weapons attacks might just be enough to pop the cork and force movement towards negotiations, with the latest speculation focusing on Geneva in October.
Any such prospect, distant though it may seem, would clearly be set back by Western military action.
An eventual formula where regime forces join with elements of the Free Syrian Army to expel or crush the Islamist radicals is not beyond imagination.
The alternatives to political movement are starker than ever.
But that has always been the case, and it has not prevented the crisis from moving from one worst-case scenario to the next.
djones520 wrote: You can't just turn away. You can't be everywhere at once, but you can't just turn away from atrocities such as this.
It only emboldens them onto far worse.
Agreed. And I'll be blunt: poison gas HURTS Not "I've been stabbed/shot" hurt. It's 'I've been dumped in hydrochloric acid' hurts. Calling the spams you experience from a nerve agent 'the funky chicken' just goes to show an utter lack of understanding of what those people are going through. Picture vomiting so hard you're breaking bones. And then there's that terrifying drowning sensation as you're lungs begin to fill with a pulmonary edema. Personal opinion, I'll gladly take being stabbed again over chlorine gas again any day. I don't even want to think about something like Sarin.
Don't break an ankle as you jump off that high horse. I know exactly what Sarin and other agents do. Spent too much time training how to fight in dirty environments and understand indicators of their use and treatments for folks that got slimed. And every Bugs and Gas guy I worked with called it the Funky Chicken.
Nothing will happen in the UN because Russia will veto it. Their getting mad fat rich off of Syria buying their gak. Same reason France raised a hissy fit over Iraq. It cut off their cash cow weapons dealing.
It baffles me though that EVERYONE was gung-ho about going into Libya, even the Danes were ready to load their longboats up with Vikings and pillage the gak out of Tripoli. But your just seeing a lot of foot shuffling about Syria, which is much worse on the scale of atrocities.
djones520 wrote: Nothing will happen in the UN because Russia will veto it. Their getting mad fat rich off of Syria buying their gak. Same reason France raised a hissy fit over Iraq. It cut off their cash cow weapons dealing.
It baffles me though that EVERYONE was gung-ho about going into Libya, even the Danes were ready to load their longboats up with Vikings and pillage the gak out of Tripoli. But your just seeing a lot of foot shuffling about Syria, which is much worse on the scale of atrocities.
Did the US put Assad in power? If not, there's your reason.
CptJake wrote: I'm okay with sitting back and doing nothing until our politicians explain EXACTLY what our objectives are and go through the formal process of having congress fund the operation.
We have stayed out of a LOT of bloody civil wars over the last several decades and let lots of children die absolutely horrible deaths. This is no different.
Chemical weapon are a special thing with me. You can hide from bullets, you can run from machetes, you can take cover from bombs. The gas will get you though. There is no way at all for the civilian populace to defend themselves from that.
Use of such weapons is the ultimate evil in my eyes, and should be treated as such. Call me an idealist if you want. Even if they still hate us afterwards, I think at the least going in, and destroying their ability to use such methods of warfare, while delivering a black eye or two, is still the right thing to do.
After seeing that video...
I agree. Damn you for turning me into a bleeding heart liberal? (wait... wut?)
If it's beyond the shadow of doubt... man, you really have to think about whether if this something you'd look the other way or not.
Also, keep in mind who's watching... (Iran)
Exactly, Iran is watching, AND expending resources to keep Syria in the game. Let them. Let them also build a nice animosity between the Sunni rebels that believe a different type of Islamism than the Shia Iranian gov't, and let them duke it out for a while and further weaken Iran.
djones520 wrote: Nothing will happen in the UN because Russia will veto it. Their getting mad fat rich off of Syria buying their gak. Same reason France raised a hissy fit over Iraq. It cut off their cash cow weapons dealing.
It baffles me though that EVERYONE was gung-ho about going into Libya, even the Danes were ready to load their longboats up with Vikings and pillage the gak out of Tripoli. But your just seeing a lot of foot shuffling about Syria, which is much worse on the scale of atrocities.
Did the US put Assad in power? If not, there's your reason.
The US had nothing to do with Qaddafi taking power in Libya. Unless you blame his predecessor being allied with the West as a reason.
CptJake wrote: I'm okay with sitting back and doing nothing until our politicians explain EXACTLY what our objectives are and go through the formal process of having congress fund the operation.
We have stayed out of a LOT of bloody civil wars over the last several decades and let lots of children die absolutely horrible deaths. This is no different.
Chemical weapon are a special thing with me. You can hide from bullets, you can run from machetes, you can take cover from bombs. The gas will get you though. There is no way at all for the civilian populace to defend themselves from that.
Use of such weapons is the ultimate evil in my eyes, and should be treated as such. Call me an idealist if you want. Even if they still hate us afterwards, I think at the least going in, and destroying their ability to use such methods of warfare, while delivering a black eye or two, is still the right thing to do.
After seeing that video...
I agree. Damn you for turning me into a bleeding heart liberal? (wait... wut?)
If it's beyond the shadow of doubt... man, you really have to think about whether if this something you'd look the other way or not.
Also, keep in mind who's watching... (Iran)
Exactly, Iran is watching, AND expending resources to keep Syria in the game. Let them. Let them also build a nice animosity between the Sunni rebels that believe a different type of Islamism than the Shia Iranian gov't, and let them duke it out for a while and further weaken Iran.
It isn't our fight at this point.
This isn't anyones fight at this point. So, let's just enjoy watching all the deaths right?
Went and watched all the videos I could find, about 70 plus of them.
NONE of them show people dying from Sarin gas....or bodies that would have shown the effects of death by sarin gas.
Most looked bogus and staged. The one with the doctor who personally moved 50 dead children who dies of sarin gas and was still alive to talk on camera was a particularly low point for medical ethics...
A whole lot of controlled twitching, legs twitch but not neck or fingers and not a one with the involuntary diarrhea or urination that always occurs even in low dose exposure to home made sarin like the Japanese subway attacks.
A few real videos showed some dying from what looks like chlorine gas poisoning...
I suspect many who are claiming the infamous pinpointing of the pupils so it must be sarin do not know what pinpointing of the pupils really looks like or are hoping those viewing their video do not...
How do we assess for “pinpoint” pupils?
Recall that the pupil should be mid-range and reactive under normal lighting conditions. When subjected to bright light, the pupil will constricted to reduce the volume of light entering the iris. In darkness the pupil will dilate to allow as much ambient light in as possible. Pupils smaller than 2mm in diameter under normal lighting conditions can be considered “pinpoint”. Any pupil that responds to changes in lighting conditions with 1mm of movement or less can be considered minimally reactive or nonreactive.
To assess for pinpoint pupils we need to subject the pupil to darkness by asking the patient to close their eyes or covering the patients eye. When we return the light source to the pupil we expect the pupil to be larger and rapidly return to its original size. If the pupils remain <2mm in diameter through the changing light conditions we have a “pinpoint pupils” finding. The fancy medical term for this phenomenon is abnormal miosis.
- See more at: http://theemtspot.com/2009/04/23/rapid-diagnosis-pinpoint-pupils/#sthash.3JYfKUtA.dpuf
Show me a video with pupils at less than 2mm and I will look at it...
Someone who thinks they have a video with all the required symptoms present and I will look at that also..
Again, have not seen one yet pointing to sarin gas and a simple blood test off a body would conclusively prove if the person died from sarin gas by the presence of Organophosphate.
An easy test and yet why has not the result of a positive test been published yet?
Did a lot of people get poisoned in Syria, probably.
Are a lot of folks taking advantage of it to make fake videos for their political cause, absolutely.
Do i think this was weapons grade Sarin, not a chance.
It's obvious your mind has already been made up that this is just a master mind plot by a bunch of backwoods rebels to sucker us into supporting them, thereby fooling the intelligence agencies of the most advanced countries in the world... but here you go anyways.
Baron. I find it hard to believe in the capacity your in and with a prior background you never heard of "Funky Chicken or Kickin Chicken" when someone reacts to a nerve agent. Pretty much how we in the military describe the spasms from a nerve agent.
Does Syria have blood agents? Now that's a royal screw over because that will eat through a NBC filter in like two hours max.
Edit
Google
"Kurds, Iraq, Sarin gas" make sure you have it in "Image" mode
Jihadin wrote: Baron. I find it hard to believe in the capacity your in and with a prior background you never heard of "Funky Chicken or Kickin Chicken" when someone reacts to a nerve agent. Pretty much how we in the military describe the spasms from a nerve agent.
Does Syria have blood agents? Now that's a royal screw over because that will eat through a NBC filter in like two hours max.
Edit
Google
"Kurds, Iraq, Sarin gas" make sure you have it in "Image" mode
From what I've read, they don't have the capability for that. Producing Sarin is about the extent of the capabilities.
If they were smart. If it was Assard using it. They be using Saddam stock pile if they have it first
As long as they stick with Sarin and not screw around with Anthrax/Blood/and any other horrible way of opting someone out via chemical then we're good. As long as it is not persistent
A few real videos showed some dying from what looks like chlorine gas poisoning...
Yes, because neutral non-profits like Doctors Without Boarders are really big on lying about using up their stockpiles of atropine and ordering tons more. If it was chlorine, not one of those poor bastards would have responded.
That's what's used to safely respond to victims. Safely. I'll add that it's entirely possible that the heat and arid environment combined with poor quality control during manufacture degraded it's effectiveness. (further, he might have been in contact with them after they died. It takes about a half an hour, supposedly, for Sarin to work it's way out of their clothing) One thing that has not been mentioned is if and how many hospital staff had to be treated for contact.
As far as showing the tests: sadly, no, organophosphates are not 100% proof of sarin (and let's be honest, even if they did post the results, if it was positive you'd claim they faked it) could be tabun or soman too, for example. Or environmental contamination.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
djones520 wrote: thereby fooling the intelligence agencies of the most advanced countries in the world...
These are the guys who were totes sure that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons and other WMD, right?
Point of fact, actually no, these are the intelligence agencies who were not convinced it was real. The one's htat were sure of Saddam's WMDs are the ones still skeptical of Syria.
Jihadin wrote:Baron. I find it hard to believe in the capacity your in and with a prior background you never heard of "Funky Chicken or Kickin Chicken" when someone reacts to a nerve agent. Pretty much how we in the military describe the spasms from a nerve agent.
No, I'll be honest, never heard it called that before. Only thing I ever heard it called was the 'shakes' or 'twitchin' though one guy called it 'dancin' (which, on reflection, could have been short for 'dancing the funky chicken' but I had always figured he was comparing it to Saint Vitus Dance). Also note that a lot of the guys I know are not American. The guy that delivered my (limited) knowledge of neurotoxins did so with a very heavy brogue. On the up side, my knowledge of Irish Gaelic is improving.
djones520 wrote: Now we wait to see if the world says it's ok for us to do something. *insert rolling eyes*
Uh...
Do you think Obama could get Congressional support?
Bush sought and received an authorization for the use of military force in Iraq from Congress, as the constitution requires.
I don't remember Obama getting congressional approval for Libya. o.O
What it all boils down to is this... all this previous anti-war rhetoric was really for political gain... and that's a shame.
Anytime a President want's to engage our military on some mission (will explicit goals), it should be debated/approved by Congress. Do it publically... so that the target is aware... maybe that'll get them to say no mas', we're fini... we don't want da 'Murricans here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: Nothing will happen in the UN because Russia will veto it. Their getting mad fat rich off of Syria buying their gak. Same reason France raised a hissy fit over Iraq. It cut off their cash cow weapons dealing.
It baffles me though that EVERYONE was gung-ho about going into Libya, even the Danes were ready to load their longboats up with Vikings and pillage the gak out of Tripoli. But your just seeing a lot of foot shuffling about Syria, which is much worse on the scale of atrocities.
I agree...
Something isn't squaring up here... (must be because the Russian/Iranian influences over Syria).
I do believe the POTUS can authorized military action for up to thirty days without Congress approval. Anything after that needs Congress support. I could be totally wrong here on this.
I don't remember Obama getting congressional approval for Libya. o.O
The President has 60 days to get Congressional support, and if he doesn't, has to withdraw within 30 days, under the law. This was set up so that in the event that Congress was in recess, etc, that the President wasn't hampered in responding to an emergency. Point of fact, he doesn't have to get Congressional approval to launch nuclear weapons either.
Remember kids, Duck and Cover, and listen in to 640 and 1240 CONELRAD for your up to the minute coverage of World War 3.
Jihadin wrote: I do believe the POTUS can authorized military action for up to thirty days without Congress approval. Anything after that needs Congress support. I could be totally wrong here on this.
You are correct. Some of the more ardent Obama haters were trying to go after him on this with Libya. I imagine whatever actions we end up taking, will involve a couple of weeks at the most.
Jihadin wrote: I do believe the POTUS can authorized military action for up to thirty days without Congress approval. Anything after that needs Congress support. I could be totally wrong here on this.
You are correct. Some of the more ardent Obama haters were trying to go after him on this with Libya. I imagine whatever actions we end up taking, will involve a couple of weeks at the most.
I'm trying to figure out how killing a load of civilians with chemical weapons is a great atrocity that demands we must act, but killing the same number with high explosives isn't. I mean, if dead civilians demand an international response, does it matter if they were killed with chemical weapons or just regular murderous devices?
I'm not saying anything about whether or not we need to intervene*, it just seems weird that chemical weapons have some magic extra evilness to them. "Oh sure, if you kill civilians with artillery and rockets fired from helicopters that's pretty awful but we won't do anything, but kill some with gas and that's totally unacceptable.
*I've read a few pieces from people who know what they're talking about, and they're pretty divided on whether such an intervention would help so I'm certainly not going to claim I know.
Jihadin wrote: Whembly...at times your "innocence" makes me chuckle and be jealous of you
O.o
You're welcome...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sebster wrote: I'm trying to figure out how killing a load of civilians with chemical weapons is a great atrocity that demands we must act, but killing the same number with high explosives isn't. I mean, if dead civilians demand an international response, does it matter if they were killed with chemical weapons or just regular murderous devices?
I'm not saying anything about whether or not we need to intervene*, it just seems weird that chemical weapons have some magic extra evilness to them. "Oh sure, if you kill civilians with artillery and rockets fired from helicopters that's pretty awful but we won't do anything, but kill some with gas and that's totally unacceptable.
*I've read a few pieces from people who know what they're talking about, and they're pretty divided on whether such an intervention would help so I'm certainly not going to claim I know.
I see where you're coming from, but "regular murderous devices" compared to chemical/biological warfare is completely different. Hence, it's WMD classification and using Chem/Bio WMD, especially where civilians are involved just takes it up another notch.
sebster wrote: I'm trying to figure out how killing a load of civilians with chemical weapons is a great atrocity that demands we must act, but killing the same number with high explosives isn't. I mean, if dead civilians demand an international response, does it matter if they were killed with chemical weapons or just regular murderous devices?
I'm not saying anything about whether or not we need to intervene*, it just seems weird that chemical weapons have some magic extra evilness to them. "Oh sure, if you kill civilians with artillery and rockets fired from helicopters that's pretty awful but we won't do anything, but kill some with gas and that's totally unacceptable.
*I've read a few pieces from people who know what they're talking about, and they're pretty divided on whether such an intervention would help so I'm certainly not going to claim I know.
Well, partially it has to do with the laws of war. (Yes, there are such things) The reason is that it's only real use is as a weapon of total war. Like nukes and napalm and Agent Orange. It's sole purpose is to kill every last living thing in an entire area. And since most soldiers get protective gear etc, the only real use for it is as a terror weapon on unprotected civvies (see Iraq for Saddam using it this way). It can stay in an area for years, depending on the agent used. Throw in that it's one of the most horrific, agonizing, ways to die you will ever hear of, and yeah, there's the reason.
BaronIveagh wrote: Well, partially it has to do with the laws of war. (Yes, there are such things) The reason is that it's only real use is as a weapon of total war. Like nukes and napalm and Agent Orange. It's sole purpose is to kill every last living thing in an entire area. And since most soldiers get protective gear etc, the only real use for it is as a terror weapon on unprotected civvies (see Iraq for Saddam using it this way). It can stay in an area for years, depending on the agent used. Throw in that it's one of the most horrific, agonizing, ways to die you will ever hear of, and yeah, there's the reason.
Napalm ain't 'illegal' to use in warfare.
But in broad strokes, you're correct. We take a hard line on chemical/biological/nuclear weapon employment even in isolated instances because we do not want to creep towards consistent widespread deployment of any of them. It's basically a zero tolerance policy to ensure that nobody ever goes, "Well, the Syrians got away with X amount, so we'll use just a little bit more this time."
whembly wrote: I see where you're coming from, but "regular murderous devices" compared to chemical/biological warfare is completely different. Hence, it's WMD classification and using Chem/Bio WMD, especially where civilians are involved just takes it up another notch.
But that's the thing - it is commonly accepted that chemical/biological warfare is completely different, but I don't know why.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Well, partially it has to do with the laws of war. (Yes, there are such things) The reason is that it's only real use is as a weapon of total war. Like nukes and napalm and Agent Orange. It's sole purpose is to kill every last living thing in an entire area. And since most soldiers get protective gear etc, the only real use for it is as a terror weapon on unprotected civvies (see Iraq for Saddam using it this way). It can stay in an area for years, depending on the agent used. Throw in that it's one of the most horrific, agonizing, ways to die you will ever hear of, and yeah, there's the reason.
Targeting civilians is against the rules of war, no matter how you do it.
And people killed by high explosives die some very agonising deaths as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote: But in broad strokes, you're correct. We take a hard line on chemical/biological/nuclear weapon employment even in isolated instances because we do not want to creep towards consistent widespread deployment of any of them. It's basically a zero tolerance policy to ensure that nobody ever goes, "Well, the Syrians got away with X amount, so we'll use just a little bit more this time."
Can we not say the same thing about the targeting of civilians in general. That we should have a zero tolerance policy, to ensure nobody says 'well the Syrians got away with killing x amount, so we'll kill just a few more'?
sebster wrote: Can we not say the same thing about the targeting of civilians in general. That we should have a zero tolerance policy, to ensure nobody says 'well the Syrians got away with killing x amount, so we'll kill just a few more'?
Major difference in that though its happening "over there". If it was happening on one home turf then its a different agenda. Its "alright" if they stay within the limits of their border. Once they start going outside the border then its a different ball game.
So why isn't the killing of civilians enough? What does it matter that they were killed with chemical weapons?
Because the use of NBC weapons is in most cases vastly easier to prove than the deliberate targeting of civilians with conventional weapons. Civilians die in war. Bombs go astray, fire missions get called on the wrong coordinates, passers by catch strays, things get misidentified, whatever. We know that and accept it as part of war. Where we draw the line is deliberate, indiscriminate civilian killing, but that's hard to prove most of the time.
With NBC, we don't face that hurdle. Did it get used? If so, doesn't matter who on, it's the red line. In most cases.
Seaward wrote: Because the use of NBC weapons is in most cases vastly easier to prove than the deliberate targeting of civilians with conventional weapons. Civilians die in war. Bombs go astray, fire missions get called on the wrong coordinates, passers by catch strays, things get misidentified, whatever. We know that and accept it as part of war. Where we draw the line is deliberate, indiscriminate civilian killing, but that's hard to prove most of the time.
With NBC, we don't face that hurdle. Did it get used? If so, doesn't matter who on, it's the red line. In most cases.
Fair point. Do you think that's how debate over this conflict has played out?
sebster wrote: Fair point. Do you think that's how debate over this conflict has played out?
No. I think NBC use considerations, and civilian killing for that matter, have been a part of it, but only a part of it.
I think we should've gone in a long, long time ago, but we didn't. I think it's become much harder to go in successfully now, while becoming much more difficult to avoid going in. Obama bluffed on the chemical red line, and it's been called. He wants more than anything, I believe, to avoid taking any action at all, because he's well aware that his party's had a lot of success beating up on Republicans for the past decade over mishandling our wars, and he has smart, experienced guys around him who have made it clear that intervention in Syria at any meaningful level would not be one iota prettier than either Iraq or Afghanistan.
I mean the portion of the world concerned with humanitarian intervention in general. I'm not sure if you're trying to suggest the US military engages in deliberate attacks on civilians or not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope not.
dogma wrote: So you speak for the portion of the world that concerns itself with humanitarian intervention?
That is a bold claim.
Not at all. Simply broadly paraphrasing the criteria the UN Security Council looks at for determining whether humanitarian intervention is justified, and, more specifically, the historical NATO approach to NBC attacks and civilian targeting, especially within its sphere of influence.
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you so woefully uninformed as to believe most of the world is comfortable with indiscriminate, deliberate civilian killing?
Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you so woefully uninformed as to believe most of the world is comfortable with indiscriminate, deliberate civilian killing?
Well terrorists exist, so obviously some people are comfortable with the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians.
As to whether or not most people are comfortable with such behavior? I don't know, and neither do you.
I don't expect anything before Sunday and thus will preserve judgement on this one yet. If they UN report, however, turns out to show that Assad really used chemical weapons, then bombs away.
...and really, what weight does Russia have in speaking about moral? The same Russia that imprisons homosexuals, tortures and kills political enemies?
Sigvatr wrote: I don't expect anything before Sunday and thus will preserve judgement on this one yet. If they UN report, however, turns out to show that Assad really used chemical weapons, then bombs away.
...and really, what weight does Russia have in speaking about moral? The same Russia that imprisons homosexuals, tortures and kills political enemies?
The Security Council is a joke anyway. With nations like Russia having a veto right, it fails to actually do its purpose. Nations that openly violate basic human rights should not be allowed to even be part of the SC.
If folks are hell bent on intervening because killing a few hundred with chem is worse than killing 10s of thousands conventionally, I submit those folks need to re-evaluate why they feel that way.
The 'chem means deliberate targeting of civilians' reasoning is flawed. You can (and in this case looks like it was) use non-persistent agents to clear/breach an area to make it easier for troops to get in, much like you would use a conventional strike. Except, especially in an urban environment the required shelling to suppress an area also destroys structures and infrastructure that a non-persistent agent does not. And the non-persistent agent can suppress forces in structures more effectively than HE in many cases.
You can use it to secure a flank or as a short duration obstacle to maneuver/area denial technique (easier than laying mines). Plenty of military uses.
And you can (and the Syrian army has, as have various groups of rebels) deliberately target civilians with conventional means.
Again, deliberately targeting civilians should be the issue. The few hundred dead due to being slimed is nothing compared to the 10s of thousands dead from conventional means.
And once you admit to yourselves that our nations have sat back and watch much larger scale genocide over the last few decades many times, I submit this is a lower level of carnage and limited to within the borders of a single nation at this point. What is our national interest and how is it best served?
The best I got right now to justify intervention is our Pres has declared a Red Line and we look weak not punishing those that cross it. Is that really enough justification to allocate resources to this conflict? If so, what specific objectives (from policy level on down) do you expect and want to be met?
Would launching strikes at a few known chem weapon storage sites be enough of a wrist slap? That is as far as I think we should go at this point.
CptJake wrote: I'm okay with sitting back and doing nothing until our politicians explain EXACTLY what our objectives are and go through the formal process of having congress fund the operation.
We have stayed out of a LOT of bloody civil wars over the last several decades and let lots of children die absolutely horrible deaths. This is no different.
I know its a crazy thought, but belief it or not, the US has stayed out of most civil wars in the world. This should be an addition to that list.
CptJake wrote: I'm okay with sitting back and doing nothing until our politicians explain EXACTLY what our objectives are and go through the formal process of having congress fund the operation.
We have stayed out of a LOT of bloody civil wars over the last several decades and let lots of children die absolutely horrible deaths. This is no different.
I know its a crazy thought, but belief it or not, the US has stayed out of most civil wars in the world. This should be an addition to that list.
Double standards of the worst variety. In 1776, in North America, there was a minor disagreement between some decent English fellows, but the Americans got involved and dragged it down with their revolution nonsense! Same thing happened in 1861!
On a serious note, I'd never thought I'd be agreeing with the Russian foreign minister, but what are a few missile strikes going to do? I mean really do? So they destroy a few buildings and/or presidential palaces. Then what? In my view, this is one of the curses of modern warfare, the idea that you can push a button and solve problems. The main underlying problems will not go away, politicians have been seduced by this easy option.
Some questions for the Americans:
1) What's with John McCain? Seriously? Every interview I've seen of the guy in the last 48hrs has almost descended into farce. The guy just wants to strap himself to a cruise missile and fire into Syria! Totally gung-ho. I don't question the man's courage, but you'd expect representatives to be cool headed and detached.
2) Why are the countries with low budget militaries (France/ Britain) wanting to go all Rambo, but the planet's No.1 military are reluctant to get involved. If this was 40k, it would be the PDF launching a crusade, whilst the Space Marines had a sit down to think about it!
For the record, I hope our countries stay well clear, but it's a strange series of events.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 2) Why are the countries with low budget militaries (France/ Britain) wanting to go all Rambo, but the planet's No.1 military are reluctant to get involved. If this was 40k, it would be the PDF launching a crusade, whilst the Space Marines had a sit down to think about it!
For the record, I hope our countries stay well clear, but it's a strange series of events.
Two reasons:
1) They know they're not going without the US, so it's pretty easy to make a show of principle when your involvement is going to be token.
UN's 1980 'Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons' prohibits it's use against civilians, which was what I was talking about, not it's use on military targets. 'Total War' isn't war made on a military, it's war made on people. Sherman in Georgia, the blitz on London, the firebombing of Dresden, that sort of thing
I will say that, airstrikes and missiles, if coordinated with some of the larger rebel factions, could be quite effective. The Syrian military's main advantage over the Syrian opposition is air power and artillery support. Eliminate those...
CptJake the problem with that scenario is that you're indiscriminately killing everyone, military and civilian in that area, and even a short lived agent still can last for a half an hour or more, which is plenty of time to spread given how wind corridors form in urban areas. I know you can plead 'acceptable collateral damage' but wiping out everything for several blocks is still wiping out everything for several blocks. And properly equipped soldiers might not even be effected, other than a possible hit to morale seeing the civvies dying around then. Basically you get a crime against humanity for no military gain.
1. If we are mad about Chemical Weapons, it makes sens to launch air strikes and Missiels at Chemical Weapons stockpiles, launchers, plants, etc.
2. It might also be a good idea to dismantle the Air Defense system, and let the Syrians know that if they continue, the next air strikes won't just be at the Air Defense network.
However, I don't know anything about such things, so I have no idea how feasible/risky these options are.
Easy E wrote: Two random thoughts about our options militarily:
1. If we are mad about Chemical Weapons, it makes sens to launch air strikes and Missiels at Chemical Weapons stockpiles, launchers, plants, etc.
Easier said than done. First you'd need reliable intel about their locations. For example, it's hard to tell via sat recon one rocket or artillery shell from another. It's not like there's a big sign out front hat says 'CW Here!'. You also run the risk of releasing it and killing everyone yourself if done improperly.
Which would make us instantly the bad guys. Expect pics of dead civies and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
I wonder if Iran will pop off some of the Hezzbullah they have in the US, or keep them on the leash. This could get interesting, best to alert the AAA wiener dog battalions.
We don't even need to kill civilians or allow chem we hit to contaminate an area. When we strike they WILL show civilian casualties. That is a given.
It doesn't help one's cause to make it true though. And as far as their location: no, we know where they used to be. That's not the same thing. That they're still there is based on several broad assumptions, the biggest of which is that they have not been moved since then.
You can't move it without several different things happening, many of which we specifically collect against. Since we have been watching, chances are we know where they are.
CptJake wrote: You can't move it without several different things happening, many of which we specifically collect against. Since we have been watching, chances are we know where they are.
I'd have more confidence in that statement if not for the fact that many of them likely originated in Iraq, meaning they've given the US the slip at least once before.
I might be misinformed, but my understanding is that in flight mix systems can be more or less loaded into a truck and moved, since the precursor chemicals aren't mixed until the weapon is discharged.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Speaking of Declarations of War, where is it???
They have 60 days to get one after the shooting starts.
It does have a familiar ring to it.
Come on Obama I'm one of your few conservative supporters on the itnernaitonal scene due to your stated desire to not do stuff like this.
Hmm... Seeking a coalition of the willing to take down an Arab Ba’athist dictator over WMDs. Where have I heard this before?
It's amazing how much he decried all of this while a Senator... but now that he's wearing the big boy pants, the world looks a lot different. Think you'd ever hear an apology though?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: 2) Why are the countries with low budget militaries (France/ Britain) wanting to go all Rambo, but the planet's No.1 military are reluctant to get involved. If this was 40k, it would be the PDF launching a crusade, whilst the Space Marines had a sit down to think about it!
For the record, I hope our countries stay well clear, but it's a strange series of events.
Two reasons:
1) They know they're not going without the US, so it's pretty easy to make a show of principle when your involvement is going to be token.
2) They know the US isn't going.
I beg to differ. We have a submarine en-route and a permanent aircraft carrier called Cyprus which just so happens to be nearby, so it's hardly a token effort!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Yep looks like we're going the Clinton fire fifty cruise missiles route.
Oh well. Its a fig leaf I guess.
Getting the impression you don't like Clinton that much!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Speaking of Declarations of War, where is it???
Since when did Presidents ask congress for a declaration of war? Wasn't Madison the last one in 1812 or was it Wilson in '17? But you get my point. I hope!
Since when did Presidents ask congress for a declaration of war? Wasn't Madison the last one in 1812 or was it Wilson in '17? But you get my point. I hope!
Roosevelt, though it was more an acknowledgement of the military reality than the president requesting it, per se. Before him, Woodrow Wilson,
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I beg to differ. We have a submarine en-route and a permanent aircraft carrier called Cyprus which just so happens to be nearby, so it's hardly a token effort!
I don't consider lobbing cruise missiles into Damascus "going in." An air campaign, however brief, would surprise the hell out of me. Syria's AD is a lot better than Libya's, and I think everyone's going to realize that pointless shows of force aren't worth the risk.
Obama's never going to walk guys into Syria, in large part because he knows even under the best of circumstances it'd be incredibly messy and he'd get hammered politically for it at home after ten years of his party - not to mention himself - beating up on Bush. If we're not walking guys in, you're not walking guys in. Why would you? As said, it'll be incredibly messy, and while there's the upside of potentially doing some real good, the downside is that said good will come with a lot of bad, as is the nature of these things, and your enlightened European brethren (and the entirety of the Middle East, of course) will hammer you over it for the next two decades.
dogma wrote: Well terrorists exist, so obviously some people are comfortable with the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians.
As to whether or not most people are comfortable with such behavior? I don't know, and neither do you.
Okay.
Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion about the rationale for possible Syrian intervention?
All of the comments I have made in this thread were substantive. My intention was to disabuse people of the notion that it is clear most people from nations that concern themselves with humanitarian intervention are uncomfortable with the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians.
I mean the US has, in the past, not only permitted the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians but engaged in it. Why this particular instance of said should rankle the moral sensibilities of that political entity's citizens is beyond my understanding.
dogma wrote: All of the comments I have made in this thread were substantive.
Heh.
My intention was to disabuse people of the notion that it is clear most people from nations that concern themselves with humanitarian intervention are uncomfortable with the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians.
I mean the US has, in the past, not only permitted the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians but engaged in it. Why this particular instance of said should rankle the moral sensibilities of that political entity's citizens is beyond my understanding.
Ah, I see we're deep into the "policy never evolves" fallacy. As the Italians were once in favor of throwing Christians to lions, we must assume they still are in this morally static world you've created.
As far as humanitarian intervention goes, it's pretty irrelevant whether or not individual citizens approve, and what criteria they use. Unless you believe humanitarian intervention is conducted by a town council getting together and deciding to buy a carrier group, the official positions of representative governments are what matter
Agree with Captain Jake. A conflict that has seen hundreds of thousands dead already.. really what is the difference in the means of death? It is all horrific, whether you are buried under rubble, blown up, gassed etc.
Pacific wrote: Was one of the million or so who protested in the UK over the 2nd Iraq war, didn't make a scrap of difference to government policy then and unfortunately you get the feeling that even now saying "really... have you thought this through?" won't make any difference either.
The UK population was over 55 million at the time, that figure puts you in the minority.
I possibly didn't write that very well..I meant a million people marching at organised events throughout the country.
The majority of the UK population was opposed to the war at its start, a figure that grew as the conflict continued.
I also think a coalition of the willing should be formed to stop these horrible things, and for that coalition to be comprised of countries from the Arab League. Come on, Saudi Arabia and the UAE; help your brothers.
We're not the world police, and we have no national security interest in Syria. The absolutely only reason would should intervene is because the president said we would, which I wish he had not.
Ah, I see we're deep into the "policy never evolves" fallacy. As the Italians were once in favor of throwing Christians to lions, we must assume they still are in this morally static world you've created.
That is a straw man. The distinction between Ancient Rome and modern Italy is not like the distinction between the United States in the 1940's and the United States of today.
That aside, my contention is that many people in the world appear to be comfortable with the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians; even in the nation-states that concern themselves with humanitarian intervention.
As far as humanitarian intervention goes, it's pretty irrelevant whether or not individual citizens approve, and what criteria they use. Unless you believe humanitarian intervention is conducted by a town council getting together and deciding to buy a carrier group, the official positions of representative governments are what matter
I believe that representative democracies are influenced by the moral stances of the people they represent, and that the official positions such bodies take are therefore reflective of them.
Also, the statement you made presents a false choice.
Pacific wrote: Agree with Captain Jake. A conflict that has seen hundreds of thousands dead already.. really what is the difference in the means of death? It is all horrific, whether you are buried under rubble, blown up, gassed etc.
"We are told that the American soldier does not know what he was fighting for. Now, at least he will know what he is fighting against." Eisenhower, upon his visit to Buchenwald.
Pacific wrote: Agree with Captain Jake. A conflict that has seen hundreds of thousands dead already.. really what is the difference in the means of death? It is all horrific, whether you are buried under rubble, blown up, gassed etc.
"We are told that the American soldier does not know what he was fighting for. Now, at least he will know what he is fighting against." Eisenhower, upon his visit to Buchenwald.
And? We let Stalin kill 20+ million, Pol Pot got his share, and so on and so on... For feths sake, the cartels are killing thousands a year right across our own border and we don't bomb them.
Evil exists. We are in a very resource constrained environment and can't and DON'T fight it everywhere. And I have yet to see anyone in this topic explain why it is in our national interest to jump in on this one, nor explain exactly what objectives they hope to achieve. Without good solid answers to those, there is no good reason to jump in.
Pacific wrote: Agree with Captain Jake. A conflict that has seen hundreds of thousands dead already.. really what is the difference in the means of death? It is all horrific, whether you are buried under rubble, blown up, gassed etc.
"We are told that the American soldier does not know what he was fighting for. Now, at least he will know what he is fighting against." Eisenhower, upon his visit to Buchenwald.
And? We let Stalin kill 20+ million, Pol Pot got his share, and so on and so on... For feths sake, the cartels are killing thousands a year right across our own border and we don't bomb them.
Evil exists. We are in a very resource constrained environment and can't and DON'T fight it everywhere. And I have yet to see anyone in this topic explain why it is in our national interest to jump in on this one, nor explain exactly what objectives they hope to achieve. Without good solid answers to those, there is no good reason to jump in.
Because Syria is a nation backed by two (very potential) future enemies of the US, who have significant NBC capabilities, Iran and North Korea.
We told them not to cross that line, do not use those weapons. They have multiple times now. If we do not do something, then those other folks are that much more emboldened. Plus, now that Assad has let that cat out of the bag, there is nothing stopping him from using them on Israel, or Turkey, in the event things start going south for him. Both are regional allies, and it's our duty to do what we can to protect them, even if that means preemptively.
There are US interests involved in getting those weapons destroy.
The reason we let Russia get away with it is because we were in no position to stop him after WW2 or even later on. At best we had equal military power.
We can stop Syria.
I frankly think that if we do go in we shouldn't help any of the involved factions. We are there to help civilians and nothing more. Set up safe zones and keep them locked down tighter than Fort Knox, strip search people, metal detectors, the whole 9 yards. Anybody that so much as vaguely points a gun in our direction or harms a civilian gets hammered back to the stone age.
CptJake wrote: And I have yet to see anyone in this topic explain why it is in our national interest to jump in on this one, nor explain exactly what objectives they hope to achieve. Without good solid answers to those, there is no good reason to jump in.
Why it is in the US best interests to intervene: 1) This has the potential to spread and become a larger regional conflict. Which if any of you think you're hurting at the pump now, if major powers in the middle east start fighting among themselves, you'll miss the days when petrol was ONLY $5 a gallon. (which will rape economies in general and the US in particular) 2) Assuming that the US honors it's treaties, it's likely to become eventually involved anyway, and nipping the problem in the bud will save time and lives. 3) Doing nothing sends entirely the wrong message to potential adversaries ie that the US is weak.
Objectives:
Containment of the conflict, or better forcing a resolution
Elimination of Syria's CW capabilities
Reconstruction/Nation building (Preferably in conjunction with the UN) to increase stability both within Syria and regionally.
We could have stopped Rwanda, but didn't. We could stop what is going on in the Congo, and don't. We could interfere in Mexico and don't. Hell, we could send the 10st into Chicago and end gang violence there in a week, but don't.
As for just 'helping civilians', WAY easier said than done. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of bad guys freely mixing with the civilian population. Running giant prison camps you want to call 'safe zones' ensure you growing insurgents that see your forces as the occupier. We do NOT need to be getting into that business.
CptJake wrote: And I have yet to see anyone in this topic explain why it is in our national interest to jump in on this one, nor explain exactly what objectives they hope to achieve. Without good solid answers to those, there is no good reason to jump in.
Why it is in the US best interests to intervene: 1) This has the potential to spread and become a larger regional conflict. Which if any of you think you're hurting at the pump now, if major powers in the middle east start fighting among themselves, you'll miss the days when petrol was ONLY $5 a gallon. (which will rape economies in general and the US in particular) 2) Assuming that the US honors it's treaties, it's likely to become eventually involved anyway, and nipping the problem in the bud will save time and lives. 3) Doing nothing sends entirely the wrong message to potential adversaries ie that the US is weak.
Objectives:
Containment of the conflict, or better forcing a resolution Elimination of Syria's CW capabilities Reconstruction/Nation building (Preferably in conjunction with the UN) to increase stability both within Syria and regionally.
So basically you are for a full out invasion on a bigger scale than what we did in Iraq, because to have a chance at your objectives that is what you are talking about. I say we cannot afford that right now, and that it wouldn't work even if we could. As soon as you say we should be involved in 'nation building' I say you extremely ignorant of what is going on over there and what 'nation building' in that region entails.
By the way, what treaty would we be honoring? I am unaware of any treaty that would justify us going into Syria. We are way to late to 'nip this in the bud'. It ends with the losers being slaughter wholesale at this point. Both sides know this and are fighting with that in mind.
We have already done nothing as the first 100k got slaughtered. Staying out now doesn't show anyone we are weaker than we have already shown. In fact, it lets Iran expend resources propping up Assad that weaken them.
djones520 wrote: Because Syria is a nation backed by two (very potential) future enemies of the US, who have significant NBC capabilities, Iran and North Korea.
We told them not to cross that line, do not use those weapons. They have multiple times now. If we do not do something, then those other folks are that much more emboldened. Plus, now that Assad has let that cat out of the bag, there is nothing stopping him from using them on Israel, or Turkey, in the event things start going south for him. Both are regional allies, and it's our duty to do what we can to protect them, even if that means preemptively.
There are US interests involved in getting those weapons destroy.
Currently NATO allies (amongst others Germany and the Netherlands) are already protecting the Turkish border with patriots. So the danger of a stray missile isnt that high. But now that the cat is out of the bag its even more dangerous to intervene. Sure Assad can use chemical attacks on Turkey or Isreal, but what would be the point at the moment? Intervention would be the point that things go south for him for sure. Than he knows hes finished and will not hold back, intervention is just the thing that would spread this conflict to the regional level. If Assad knows he is finished he will use every dirty or forbidden weapon to lash out to his enemies, doesnt matter to a dead man what happens to the region after hes dead anyway. Intervening because of one chemical attack shouldnt happen because of the risks involved. We dont even have the full picture of this chemical attack, let alone who ordered it in the regime (its run like a clan, Assad isnt the only bad egg).
How would intervention stop the spread of the conflict to the region? As it stands intervention seems to be just the thing to increase the spread.
Grey Templar wrote: We are there to help civilians and nothing more. Set up safe zones and keep them locked down tighter than Fort Knox, strip search people, metal detectors, the whole 9 yards. Anybody that so much as vaguely points a gun in our direction or harms a civilian gets hammered back to the stone age.
Not seeing a compelling reason why it has to be our kids getting blown up by VBIED's at these checkpoints, or why we shouldn't be spending our taxpayer dollars on American issues instead of Syrian ones. Turkey and Israel are concerned? Great, go get em, guys! Have a ball with that.
I'm just saying IF we go in, that's what we should do.
And we could do things to minimize the risk of VBIED's. Like not allowing any vehicles through check points. And making sure only a few people approach at a time. It would have to be a very iron-fisted approach.
Something like 50 yards of clear space, only a few people at a time may approach the check point(or get anywhere near our guys), only a limited amount of baggage allowed through, everything gets inspected, etc...
And any hint of something suspicious and it gets obliterated. People want our help they get it on our terms. We have nothing to lose as far as image goes so being heavy handed when a possible threat comes shouldn't be a concern.
Again, this is only if we do go in. I am not in favor of sending in troops.
Air and missile strikes are another thing however.
I'm reminded how we took the moral high ground on Afghanistan and Iraq. After ten years we either condemned for being there, view as "occupiers", we're there for oil only, Bush lied, DoD contracting agency has help in securing contracts from government employee, or/and money not well spent. It seems all well and good now but you be saying something different in 3-4 years. Gawd forbid if we do go in and we find Saddam stock pile in Syria. You all whine and complain on money not well spent when Bush holds a huge BBQ on the deck on the Lincoln
We told them not to cross that line, do not use those weapons. They have multiple times now. If we do not do something, then those other folks are that much more emboldened.
Obama stated that the use or movement of chemical weapons would cross a "red line", and alter his "calculus". After that statement was made the US began to support Syrian, rebel groups. So it has done something, it simply hasn't engaged in direct, military intervention.
Plus, now that Assad has let that cat out of the bag, there is nothing stopping him from using them on Israel, or Turkey, in the event things start going south for him.
Well, aside from all the things that were stopping him from doing so before. Notably the Israeli military, the Turkish military, the US military, the assorted European militaries, and arguably the contingencies associated with Russian support.
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, they got some ballsy pilots. If you are low enough the AA can't get a fix.
Pretty much. The Israeli AF is flat out crazy good.
Flying at the deck, is a lot differant for ADA then a bomber flying at 35,000 feet. If the ADA is advanced enough they will be able to see him. The question is, is it advanced enough.
That is something that I do not know. I could probably find out though... *contemplates going to talk to the intel guys*
This one isn't true, actually. The US has been quite busy across the Rio Grand. So, and let me summarize this: the US should be ok with sacrificing thousands of US servicemen for the profit of major corporations, but is opposed to fighting a war on moral grounds to stop war crimes and genocide. And yet by the rest of your post you suggest this is a good thing, as opposed to being ass backwards?
So basically you are for a full out invasion on a bigger scale than what we did in Iraq, because to have a chance at your objectives that is what you are talking about. I say we cannot afford that right now, and that it wouldn't work even if we could. As soon as you say we should be involved in 'nation building' I say you extremely ignorant of what is going on over there and what 'nation building' in that region entails.
Enlighten me then. What do you think nation building there would entail.
Syrians have some of the best Russian air defense equipment. If anyone in that region could hit a B-2, it would be them.
It doesn't take the best. The Serbs pulled it out of their ass and hit F117s over Bosnia with obsolete crap. You can target a stealth as long as you don't mind burning up your radar to do it.
The IDF pilots also have the advantage that they're flying a very short distance.
IDF pilots are crazy good? Only have to fly a short distance? I'm sold - we're not needed, it sounds like Israel should be able to handle this within hours.
So far they have made threats against Isreali air attacks. But they wont actually be crazy enough to shoot down Isreali jets and risk a war with a much better military force. They would probably get lucky if they tried hard enough, but why risk anything on a couple of relatively harmless air attacks?
Ouze wrote: IDF pilots are crazy good? Only have to fly a short distance? I'm sold - we're not needed, it sounds like Israel should be able to handle this within hours.
Too many potential targets, not enough planes. Though Damascus is practically on the boarder with Israel. One thing an invasion of Syria will have going for it is that the majority of it's fighting would be within range of fire support from across the boarder or the ocean. Unlike Iraq (which is both larger and higher in population) the cities developed around the trade routes between Egypt and the Bosporus rather than along the rivers, so everything is along the boarder or along the shore.
"I wouldn't have a problem with drone strikes on weapons stockpiles,"
Lets hope if they are launched they miss....
If military grade Sarin is released when a Syrian military stockpile is hit upwind of a major city then the President will be responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and the press will see what death from Sarin gas really looks like...
Last time checked Russia and China were the Syrian government's main allies.
Russian military advisers are in place at Syrian Army Air Defense Command and Control sites.
What do you think Putin will do when his troops are killed?
What we we do in their place when a foreign attack commits an undeclared act of war against an alley when that attack also releases a weapon of mass destruction that kills thousands of innocent civilians and many of our own troops?
"I wouldn't have a problem with drone strikes on weapons stockpiles,"
Lets hope if they are launched they miss....
If military grade Sarin is released when a Syrian military stockpile is hit upwind of a major city then the President will be responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians and the press will see what death from Sarin gas really looks like...
Last time checked Russia and China were the Syrian government's main allies.
Russian military advisers are in place at Syrian Army Air Defense Command and Control sites.
What do you think Putin will do when his troops are killed?
What we we do in their place when a foreign attack commits an undeclared act of war against an alley when that attack also releases a weapon of mass destruction that kills thousands of innocent civilians and many of our own troops?
I'm far from being an expert, but the quick read up I did on Sarin gas properties (http://sc-ems.com/ems/NuclearBiologicalChemical/Sarin/sarin.htm) seems to indicate that it's persistency in cool summer temperatures (15 celcius) is about 30 minutes. I imagine the blast from most payloads would be enough to annihilate a good quantity of the substance.
And your evaluation of it's lethality seems way off. A ton of Sarin gaz will kill 300-700 peeps per km assuming a population density of 3k-10k per square km.
I also imagine that modern armies have answer to bombing specifically hazardous locations.
Kovnik Obama wrote: I imagine the blast from most payloads would be enough to annihilate a good quantity of the substance.
And your evaluation of it's lethality seems way off. A ton of Sarin gaz will kill 300-700 peeps per km assuming a population density of 3k-10k per square km.
I also imagine that modern armies have answer to bombing specifically hazardous locations.
Sarin isn't typically stored as Sarin, but rather as it's precursor chemicals. (Sarin itself has a short shelf life as well). Typically the chemicals are mixed as the rocket or projectile travels to it's target.
The other problem is we don't know what else is mixed in with sarin and chlorine among Syria's chemical weapons. Something like phosgene (which has a very faint odor and if you can smell it you've already been exposed to 4 times a 'safe' amount, wear your detection pin) or vinyl arsine (can persist for weeks in buildings) mixed in with the sarin and well...
Disciple of Fate wrote: So far they have made threats against Isreali air attacks. But they wont actually be crazy enough to shoot down Isreali jets and risk a war with a much better military force. They would probably get lucky if they tried hard enough, but why risk anything on a couple of relatively harmless air attacks?
If Israel tackles this alone it will open them up to attacks from all the surrounding nations that are hostile towards them. We know there's plenty of countries there who can't wait to jump in on a war Israel started.
Egypt has its own issue going for them. Sinai Penninsula is literally no man land and the UN Observation troops in there...Syria has its own issue going as we all know. Jordan..well something about US troops being in there. Lebanon has its own problem from Syria and internal crap....If some country has a major brain fart and goes for it against Israel it just Israel borders expand even more
Jihadin wrote: Egypt has its own issue going for them. Sinai Penninsula is literally no man land and the UN Observation troops in there...Syria has its own issue going as we all know. Jordan..well something about US troops being in there. Lebanon has its own problem from Syria and internal crap....If some country has a major brain fart and goes for it against Israel it just Israel borders expand even more
Iran would like a peace of that candy though.
Regardless I'd rather not risk that entire region going into all out war, because if just one of them does have a brainfart, that's what we'll be facing and there is no way we would be able to keep out of that.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So far they have made threats against Isreali air attacks. But they wont actually be crazy enough to shoot down Isreali jets and risk a war with a much better military force. They would probably get lucky if they tried hard enough, but why risk anything on a couple of relatively harmless air attacks?
If Israel tackles this alone it will open them up to attacks from all the surrounding nations that are hostile towards them. We know there's plenty of countries there who can't wait to jump in on a war Israel started.
But there is no country able at the moment. They have tried before in seemingly overwhelming power, but now at least Syria and Egypt are out. Im not betting on Jordan trying it on their won. So one could argue its going good for Isreal at the moment, with its former opponents struggling with domestic unrest.
Jihadin wrote: Egypt has its own issue going for them. Sinai Penninsula is literally no man land and the UN Observation troops in there...Syria has its own issue going as we all know. Jordan..well something about US troops being in there. Lebanon has its own problem from Syria and internal crap....If some country has a major brain fart and goes for it against Israel it just Israel borders expand even more
Iran would like a peace of that candy though.
Regardless I'd rather not risk that entire region going into all out war, because if just one of them does have a brainfart, that's what we'll be facing and there is no way we would be able to keep out of that.
If Iran attacks Isreal then its no longer a question of Western intervention. It would be the time to remove an unfriendly Iran. Kind of like Kuwait in the 90's.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So far they have made threats against Isreali air attacks. But they wont actually be crazy enough to shoot down Isreali jets and risk a war with a much better military force. They would probably get lucky if they tried hard enough, but why risk anything on a couple of relatively harmless air attacks?
If Israel tackles this alone it will open them up to attacks from all the surrounding nations that are hostile towards them. We know there's plenty of countries there who can't wait to jump in on a war Israel started.
But there is no country able at the moment. They have tried before in seemingly overwhelming power, but now at least Syria and Egypt are out. Im not betting on Jordan trying it on their won. So one could argue its going good for Isreal at the moment, with its former opponents struggling with domestic unrest.
Jihadin wrote: Egypt has its own issue going for them. Sinai Penninsula is literally no man land and the UN Observation troops in there...Syria has its own issue going as we all know. Jordan..well something about US troops being in there. Lebanon has its own problem from Syria and internal crap....If some country has a major brain fart and goes for it against Israel it just Israel borders expand even more
Iran would like a peace of that candy though.
Regardless I'd rather not risk that entire region going into all out war, because if just one of them does have a brainfart, that's what we'll be facing and there is no way we would be able to keep out of that.
If Iran attacks Isreal then its no longer a question of Western intervention. It would be the time to remove an unfriendly Iran. Kind of like Kuwait in the 90's.
Fair enough, but I still don't want that to happen.
Disciple of Fate wrote: So far they have made threats against Isreali air attacks. But they wont actually be crazy enough to shoot down Isreali jets and risk a war with a much better military force. They would probably get lucky if they tried hard enough, but why risk anything on a couple of relatively harmless air attacks?
If Israel tackles this alone it will open them up to attacks from all the surrounding nations that are hostile towards them. We know there's plenty of countries there who can't wait to jump in on a war Israel started.
But there is no country able at the moment. They have tried before in seemingly overwhelming power, but now at least Syria and Egypt are out. Im not betting on Jordan trying it on their won. So one could argue its going good for Isreal at the moment, with its former opponents struggling with domestic unrest.
Jihadin wrote: Egypt has its own issue going for them. Sinai Penninsula is literally no man land and the UN Observation troops in there...Syria has its own issue going as we all know. Jordan..well something about US troops being in there. Lebanon has its own problem from Syria and internal crap....If some country has a major brain fart and goes for it against Israel it just Israel borders expand even more
Iran would like a peace of that candy though.
Regardless I'd rather not risk that entire region going into all out war, because if just one of them does have a brainfart, that's what we'll be facing and there is no way we would be able to keep out of that.
If Iran attacks Isreal then its no longer a question of Western intervention. It would be the time to remove an unfriendly Iran. Kind of like Kuwait in the 90's.
Fair enough, but I still don't want that to happen.
Well I think were in luck on that part. Neither Isreal and Iran would make the first move.
If Iran attacks Isreal then its no longer a question of Western intervention. It would be the time to remove an unfriendly Iran. Kind of like Kuwait in the 90's.
If Iran attacks Isreal then its no longer a question of Western intervention. It would be the time to remove an unfriendly Iran. Kind of like Kuwait in the 90's.
Not even close. Iraq was old migs. Iran is F14s.
I meant more in the measure of the West intervenes against a foreign aggresor (i.e. Iran). But will use the oppurtunity to hit some targets its always wanted to without having to invade. Besides, now the US has F-22's and arent they supposed to be made just for such a job (the F-14's)?
If Iran attacks Isreal then its no longer a question of Western intervention. It would be the time to remove an unfriendly Iran. Kind of like Kuwait in the 90's.
Not even close. Iraq was old migs. Iran is F14s.
That's a joke. Iran's F-14's are 40 years old, and haven't seen a western maintenance depot in that time frame. They are not a threat to our aircraft. The most advanced aircraft they have is the Mig-29, some of which were Iraqi. All in all, their total Air Superiority force makes up about a single Wing of our aircraft.
The Iranian Air Force is not a threat to ours, the Israeli's, or any other major western power. Their ability to wage a war with Israel is non-existant without the support of the surrounding Arab nations, and I gaurantee you Iraq will give Iran a big feth YOU, before they let any of their military into their space.
Since the Ayatollah took over the country I highly doubt the F14's are top notched let alone maintained. Where would they get the parts
Off the top of my head I believe the former King of Iran brought like 20+ F-14's. Serious doubts on them using if they do have them the Pheonix Air to Air missiles.
I also don't doubt some of those F14's are in Russia
Jihadin wrote: Since the Ayatollah took over the country I highly doubt the F14's are top notched let alone maintained. Where would they get the parts
Off the top of my head I believe the former King of Iran brought like 20+ F-14's. Serious doubts on them using if they do have them the Pheonix Air to Air missiles.
I also don't doubt some of those F14's are in Russia
The Iranians under the Shah had American contractors to help maintain those F14s. I believe they were sabotaged right before the Americans bugged out back in 1979. I highly doubt those F14s are even flyable and if they are, they are running avionics packages 30+ years out of date.
djones520 wrote: Iran's F-14's are 40 years old, and haven't seen a western maintenance depot in that time frame.
I'll just point one thing out. One of the finest running maintained classic American automobiles I have ever ridden in was in Havana. I think it safe to day that Cuba has been without a supply of NOS parts for 1937 Buicks for some time.
So, don't assume that your maint program is better than theirs, parts or no.
Known stocks include your Mig 29s, an unknown number (most reports say about 20-ish) of F 14's remain operational of the original 80, and (most likely) 250 Flanker Cs they ordered from Russia a while back as part of several very large arms transactions Russia and China have made under the table with Iran. How many of them and the 2 squadrons of J-10's from China they actually got are entirely anyone's guess.
I've heard that Iran cannot build aircraft, but I know for a fact they've been building a local knock off of the F-5 for years.
Jihadin wrote: 30 years plus avionic package eh. I wouldn't trust the airframe to handle flight.
If they can duplicate the F-5 they can probably duplicate the F-14. Those Flanker Cs though are a bigger concern. I'm told that they're not the fastest, but are highly maneuverable.
Jihadin wrote: That's the aircraft itself Baron. Unless its Russian "volunteer" pilot the Syrian pilot experience is nil compared to a western fighter pilot.
I'm more than familiar with the difference between the machine and it's crew. Flanker training flights have been spotted (supposedly) on occasion on the northern border of Iran. How much the Russian's experience will rub off on the guys they're training is a good question. Logically they'd want their best guys in them, but who knows what goes on.
djones520 wrote: Their ability to wage a war with Israel is non-existant without the support of the surrounding Arab nations, and I gaurantee you Iraq will give Iran a big feth YOU, before they let any of their military into their space.
I imagine that the Saudis and Jordanians would also be displeased. The Egyptians might take issue as well.
Enlighten me then. What do you think nation building there would entail.
Any outside force would minimally need to depose the Assad regime and replace it with a new one, all the while fighting existential dissidents who were not invited to the party; many of whom are hostile to the West.
Article 5 springs to mind. Turkey IS a NATO member state.
Article 5 does not require a military response. And, given that the US has not used the military against Mexico, or even broached the topic with the other members of NATO, I am doubtful any non-military violence within Turkey will elicit a NATO response.
Grey Templar wrote:Do the Syrians have anything capable of hitting a B-2?
Yes. Anything can hit anything.
djones520 wrote:
Grey Templar wrote: Yeah, they got some ballsy pilots. If you are low enough the AA can't get a fix.
Pretty much. The Israeli AF is flat out crazy good.
Flying at the deck, is a lot differant for ADA then a bomber flying at 35,000 feet. If the ADA is advanced enough they will be able to see him. The question is, is it advanced enough.
That is something that I do not know. I could probably find out though... *contemplates going to talk to the intel guys*
Conversely, being low means that every IR and optical platform in the world's going to be able to open up on you, and you're going to need to pop up at some point anyway to set up your dump. I doubt the Israelis go in with nuts in the trees; just a standard package with plenty of SEAD, and they probably simply rarely get shot at. Like the Serbs in the '90s, I expect Syrian priority is keeping the AD to live and fight another day rather than risking it protecting whatever the Israelis are going to hit, knowing they're going to hit it anyway.
I'm told that they're not the fastest, but are highly maneuverable.
Eh. So's everything we fly. I'll take a Super Bug with AESA over a Flanker in any fight, ever. If it ever did come to knife-fighting, we've been using AIM-9Xs cued off the JHMCS for a while now.
CptJake wrote: We could have stopped Rwanda, but didn't. We could stop what is going on in the Congo, and don't. We could interfere in Mexico and don't. Hell, we could send the 10st into Chicago and end gang violence there in a week, but don't.
As for just 'helping civilians', WAY easier said than done. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of bad guys freely mixing with the civilian population. Running giant prison camps you want to call 'safe zones' ensure you growing insurgents that see your forces as the occupier. We do NOT need to be getting into that business.
2 important points there - as you've said, extremely selective use of force. Millions have died in the congo, no-one gives a damn.
And while I can understand people not knowing about history from some time ago, in this case we have a military action from 10 years ago in Iraq that will show what is going to happen in Syria once the Assad regime is knocked out of place. Like Iraq, we're going to set the country up for 20 years of sectarian violence, of destruction of civil infrastructure as the various warlords vie for power in the country. The city under control of the rebels has got groups that are affiliated with Al-Quaeda in charge of it - that is the kind of people that are going to be rising to prominence once these air strikes have been completed.
Most importantly it's going to result in a complete de-stabilisation of the area - the kind that breeds terrorists, like in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, the kids pulling their way out of houses that have been reduced to rubble and look at the West as the reason their life has been turned on its head. Our un-necessary meddling in others events, that is benefiting only the industrialists directing national policies, could well end up costing the rest of us.
Well I think were in luck on that part. Neither Isreal and Iran would make the first move.
You say that. Iran creeps ever closer and closer to their first nuclear weapon. And that's something that Israel simply cannot permit to come into existence.
Due to that factor, I think that the Israeli's will be at war with Iran at some point in the next four years.
Well I think were in luck on that part. Neither Isreal and Iran would make the first move.
You say that. Iran creeps ever closer and closer to their first nuclear weapon. And that's something that Israel simply cannot permit to come into existence.
Due to that factor, I think that the Israeli's will be at war with Iran at some point in the next four years.
Oh that the most certainly will. But they wont risk it over Syria, why lose gear and trained personnel when you have a major showdown coming up. Only if provoked will either of them start a war over Syria.
CptJake wrote: We could have stopped Rwanda, but didn't. We could stop what is going on in the Congo, and don't. We could interfere in Mexico and don't. Hell, we could send the 10st into Chicago and end gang violence there in a week, but don't.
As for just 'helping civilians', WAY easier said than done. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of bad guys freely mixing with the civilian population. Running giant prison camps you want to call 'safe zones' ensure you growing insurgents that see your forces as the occupier. We do NOT need to be getting into that business.
2 important points there - as you've said, extremely selective use of force. Millions have died in the congo, no-one gives a damn.
And while I can understand people not knowing about history from some time ago, in this case we have a military action from 10 years ago in Iraq that will show what is going to happen in Syria once the Assad regime is knocked out of place. Like Iraq, we're going to set the country up for 20 years of sectarian violence, of destruction of civil infrastructure as the various warlords vie for power in the country. The city under control of the rebels has got groups that are affiliated with Al-Quaeda in charge of it - that is the kind of people that are going to be rising to prominence once these air strikes have been completed.
Most importantly it's going to result in a complete de-stabilisation of the area - the kind that breeds terrorists, like in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, the kids pulling their way out of houses that have been reduced to rubble and look at the West as the reason their life has been turned on its head. Our un-necessary meddling in others events, that is benefiting only the industrialists directing national policies, could well end up costing the rest of us.
I fully agree with almost everything you said. But on the part of kids blaming the West, I think were already damned for not helping sooner in their eyes. So the difference to me would be putting our troops in arms reach of those people.
A wide range of officials characterized the action under consideration as “limited,” perhaps lasting no more than one or two days. The attacks, which are expected to involve scores of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from American destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, would not be focused on chemical weapons storage sites, which would risk an environmental and humanitarian catastrophe and could open up the sites to raids by militants, officials said.
The strikes would instead be aimed at military units that have carried out chemical attacks, the headquarters overseeing the effort and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks, according to the options being reviewed within the administration.
So, we're going with the worst possible out of our poor options, of course. Do we have any national security interest in acting? No. Are we going to make a difference? No. Are we going to destroy the chemical weapons? Absolutely not. Is this going to inflame the muslim world against the US once again meddling in their affairs?* Sure. Is it going to cost plenty of money at a time when we're reducing spending on all the things Americans need? You bet. Are we accidentally going to kill some civilians? Almost certainly.
Pro-tip: They're going to hate us whether we act, or whether we don't. In this sense they are much like the conservatives in this very thread who will condemn Obama for failing to act and then, I assure you, in less than 6 months be screaming about how he entangled us in another foreign conflict while demanding he return his Nobel peace prize.
'Murica
*Not that they need any help, they're always pretty inflamed against us anyway
A wide range of officials characterized the action under consideration as “limited,” perhaps lasting no more than one or two days. The attacks, which are expected to involve scores of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from American destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, would not be focused on chemical weapons storage sites, which would risk an environmental and humanitarian catastrophe and could open up the sites to raids by militants, officials said.
The strikes would instead be aimed at military units that have carried out chemical attacks, the headquarters overseeing the effort and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks, according to the options being reviewed within the administration.
So, we're going with the worst possible out of our poor options, of course. Do we have any national security interest in acting? No. Are we going to make a difference? No. Are we going to destroy the chemical weapons? Absolutely not. Is this going to inflame the muslim world against the US once again meddling in their affairs?* Sure. Is it going to cost plenty of money at a time when we're reducing spending on all the things Americans need? You bet. Are we accidentally going to kill some civilians? Almost certainly.
Pro-tip: They're going to hate us whether we act, or whether we don't. In this sense they are much like the conservatives in this very thread who will condemn Obama for failing to act and then, I assure you, in less than 6 months be screaming about how he entangled us in another foreign conflict while demanding he return his Nobel peace prize.
'Murica
*Not that they need any help, they're always pretty inflamed against us anyway
This is going to end very badly. Knowing what targets we will probably hit gives the Syrian government time to pull a Hamas move and place those installations right next to the children's playground. This is going to end up the same as Isreali airstrikes on rocket sites. Great PR for them against the West from images of dead children and a lot of people not caring about the circumstances.
A wide range of officials characterized the action under consideration as “limited,” perhaps lasting no more than one or two days. The attacks, which are expected to involve scores of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from American destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, would not be focused on chemical weapons storage sites, which would risk an environmental and humanitarian catastrophe and could open up the sites to raids by militants, officials said.
The strikes would instead be aimed at military units that have carried out chemical attacks, the headquarters overseeing the effort and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks, according to the options being reviewed within the administration.
So, we're going with the worst possible out of our poor options, of course. Do we have any national security interest in acting? No. Are we going to make a difference? No. Are we going to destroy the chemical weapons? Absolutely not. Is this going to inflame the muslim world against the US once again meddling in their affairs?* Sure. Is it going to cost plenty of money at a time when we're reducing spending on all the things Americans need? You bet. Are we accidentally going to kill some civilians? Almost certainly.
Pro-tip: They're going to hate us whether we act, or whether we don't. In this sense they are much like the conservatives in this very thread who will condemn Obama for failing to act and then, I assure you, in less than 6 months be screaming about how he entangled us in another foreign conflict while demanding he return his Nobel peace prize.
'Murica
*Not that they need any help, they're always pretty inflamed against us anyway
Yup...
I'd say, we either stay out (but, help with refugees and such).
Or, go hog-wild, balls-out and curb stomp both Assad/rebels...
Frazzled wrote: I don't think its about Assad. I think its showing Iran -use WMDs and you get some procrastination and waffling on the subject but its okay prior to this to do what you want
Frazzled wrote: If that is the case then the bombing needs to be epic-a level that would even give Russians pause- and not something Clintonesque.
I agree whole heartedly. The thing is. The West hates to see anything so horrifying and that really is a problem and something that is exploitable. Syria (and Iraq and Afghanistan before it) needs a salting of the earth, lamentation of the women campaign with boots on the ground but that isn't going to happen.
A wide range of officials characterized the action under consideration as “limited,” perhaps lasting no more than one or two days. The attacks, which are expected to involve scores of Tomahawk cruise missiles launched from American destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean Sea, would not be focused on chemical weapons storage sites, which would risk an environmental and humanitarian catastrophe and could open up the sites to raids by militants, officials said.
The strikes would instead be aimed at military units that have carried out chemical attacks, the headquarters overseeing the effort and the rockets and artillery that have launched the attacks, according to the options being reviewed within the administration.
So, we're going with the worst possible out of our poor options, of course. Do we have any national security interest in acting? No. Are we going to make a difference? No. Are we going to destroy the chemical weapons? Absolutely not. Is this going to inflame the muslim world against the US once again meddling in their affairs?* Sure. Is it going to cost plenty of money at a time when we're reducing spending on all the things Americans need? You bet. Are we accidentally going to kill some civilians? Almost certainly.
Pro-tip: They're going to hate us whether we act, or whether we don't. In this sense they are much like the conservatives in this very thread who will condemn Obama for failing to act and then, I assure you, in less than 6 months be screaming about how he entangled us in another foreign conflict while demanding he return his Nobel peace prize.
'Murica
*Not that they need any help, they're always pretty inflamed against us anyway
So that's what crossing the red line does? If Syria has used chemical weapons then their stores of them haven't been affected so they still have them for possible future deployment, so it seems this is just a face saving gesture more than anything. It won't do anything substantial to change the outcome of the civil war. The media will have plenty of fodder to hand wring over once the inevitable pictures of civilians killed as alleged collateral damage surface. Jihaddis now have another reason to be upset with the US. And Assad now has something else to rally his supporters around. I get the feeling this course of action hardly benefits us.
Frazzled wrote: I don't think its about Assad. I think its showing Iran -use WMDs and you get hit.
Yup. Develop WMDs all you want. But once you are alleged to have used them well spin our wheels, ask for a UN inspection, and then maybe hit you with some cruise missiles a week or so later..... but we won't target your WMD stockpiles.
Eh. So's everything we fly. I'll take a Super Bug with AESA over a Flanker in any fight, ever. If it ever did come to knife-fighting, we've been using AIM-9Xs cued off the JHMCS for a while now.
That's because you're used to the superbug. Flanker's nothing to sneeze at, and according to the Jerusalem Post they bought in bulk. She's got a higher climb speed and more engine thrust than that superbug and if she's carrying the newer Russian package she's a very viable threat.
For the giggles, here's footage of the new model flanker from the Paris air show
BaronIveagh wrote: That's because you're used to the superbug. Flanker's nothing to sneeze at, and according to the Jerusalem Post they bought in bulk. She's got a higher climb speed and more engine thrust than that superbug and if she's carrying the newer Russian package she's a very viable threat.
For the giggles, here's footage of the new model flanker from the Paris air show
That's impressive, but the big questions are;
- who will be flying them?
- how much, and what sort of, training have they had?
Going to war (you know, blowing things up and killing people) is an act of extremely serious moral dimension. We should not even consider this engagement unless we are satisfied that at least one of the two is true:
1) That such action is so manifestly in our own selfish interests that we can be forgiven for taking the violent action.
2) That the action is so manifestly in the interests of general altruistic good we would scarcely forgive ourselves if we didn't take the violent action.
Lets lay our cards on the table here. The most successful Western military interventions since the end of WW2 have been Grenada and the Falklands. everything else has been a hamstrung clusterfeth or has seen muddled aims get even more tangled.
Hell, even the campaign in Western Europe during 44-45 had infighting and the political bullseye of no march on Berlin. The naughty letter (is that right or was it the naughty list? I get Churchill and Santa confused) pitched by Churchill to Stalin was particularly epic in offensiveness, as was the Polish solution.
Personally I feel the whole area would be left more stable by backing Assad. He can threaten pissing on the Israeli cornflakes without meaning it and you know how much corruption you are getting.
then maroon/burgundy, then really really dark red!
kill each other'. (I had to remove the word he used as Dakka does not permit that particular n-word) While I doubt many of you would put it in such.... blatant terms, the fact that there is a certain 'subhuman' tone to the view that the US should not be concerned that particularly horrific WMDs are being used on civilian targets has crept into these discussions before sort of exposes the real issue.
