The United States fired a barrage of cruise missiles into Syria Thursday night in retaliation for this week's gruesome chemical weapons attack against civilians, U.S. officials said. It was the first direct U.S. assault on the Syrian government and Donald Trump's most dramatic military order since becoming president.
The strikes hit the government-controlled Shayrat airbase in central Syria, from where U.S. officials say the Syrian military planes that dropped the sarin gas had taken off. The U.S. missiles hit at 8:45 p.m.ET Thursday — early Friday morning in Syria.
The Tomahawk missiles were fired from two warships in the Mediterranean Sea, U.S. officials say.
Speaking Thursday night, Trump said Assad "launched a horrible chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians using a deadly nerve agent."
Ustrello wrote: We are posting about it in the US politics thread already
True but "launching ze mizzles" is a bit more than politics. It may yet be that we'll need a dedicated Syria thread, depending on the fallout. Let the mods decide.
Why bomb the people fighting isis? This makes no sense. Trump just made a massive error in judgement.
Because they used (not for the first time) illegal chemical weapons on a civilian population center.
I'm not sure why this needs to be spelled out. ISIS is not the only "bad" out there.
If you need to, I can paint the picture a little bit for you. Its 2 am. You're awoken by explosions. Your home is shaking, and you gather your baby up in your arms hoping the bombs don't directly hit you. The explosions end, and you breath a sigh of relief. A few minutes later though, your baby starts to shake. You turn the lights on, and notice that his nose is running, he's spasming, and starting to choke. While you're panicking, you start to lose control of your own body. Your eyes begin to hurt, and you've started sweating, despite the cool desert night. All of a sudden you drop your child as your body locks up, and you fall to the ground with seizures. Eventually, you lose consciousness before you suffocate to death.
But hey, the Syrian's fight ISIS on occasion, so there shouldn't be a response to that.
I really can't believe that some people are so clouded with hatred for a man, that they can't acknowledge that sometimes you have to stand up to someone doing the wrong thing.
I dont think th US has 'gone to war', the attacks are not ongoing and assad is smart enough not to try and retaliate.
It has got Assads attention, and Moscows too, this is a good thing. Assad has played his hands smart, it is very likely that the sarin attack was organised by someone unilaterally in the Syrian army. It wasn't necessary tactically and Assad is not the type to launch attacks like that in a pique or for lulz as Saddam was wont to do.
Loss of materiel from the cruise missile strike - 60 missiles will take out quite a bit - will encourage Assad to keep his commanders on a tighter leash.
Exactly as the title of the video says: Russian military footage of the US strikes on the Syrian Shairat base. That said, I am not sure this is Russian footage. The text on the screen is in english.
Anyways, the US has once again shown its true colours: The biggest supporter of radical jihadist and terrorist organisations the world over. Dear Americans, how do you feel about so much money (cruise missiles are ridiculously expensive) being spent on aiding ISIS?
I won't get into wars he said. It'll be fun he said...
THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TOWAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!
The Syrian Government may* have used chemical weapons. It's not like the rebels didn't have anything to gain from using them. Also notice how we (the US) are the only ones rushing to go fight in Syria not a day after the claim of a violation of "muh Geneva Convention." We don't even had solid evidence that Assad did it.
Exactly as the title of the video says: Russian military footage of the US strikes on the Syrian Shairat base. That said, I am not sure this is Russian footage. The text on the screen is in english.
Anyways, the US has once again shown its true colours: The biggest supporter of radical jihadist and terrorist organisations the world over.
Dear Americans, how do you feel about so much money (cruise missiles are ridiculously expensive) being spent on aiding ISIS?
ISIS? How about most terrorist groups since the 60's? How about most of the population is tired of being world police?
I won't get into wars he said. It'll be fun he said...
THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TOWAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!
The Syrian Government may* have used chemical weapons. It's not like the rebels didn't have anything to gain from using them. Also notice how we (the US) are the only ones rushing to go fight in Syria not a day after the claim of a violation of "muh Geneva Convention." We don't even had solid evidence that Assad did it.
You, nor I, nor anyone on this board has any idea what evidence exists or how solid it is.
IF the sarin was dropped by air, as bomb fragments at the site seem to indicate, it is entirely plausible we could trace the strike back to its point of origin (the airfield we hit according to reports). We definitely have the capability to do so deployed in that theater. Just because you and I have not seen the evidence does not mean that evidence does not exist.
THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TOWAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!
Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?
If this were a game changer event in an otherwise "civilized" war like the Falklands war, sure, it would be cause for indignation. When it's a random, low frequency event in a very ugly and brutal civil war thats been going on for half a decade and with no end in sight, well, it's a rather arbitrary line no better than any other, that comes off as an excuse to do something one wanted to already do anyway.
Dear Americans, how do you feel about so much money (cruise missiles are ridiculously expensive) being spent on aiding ISIS?
I feel great. Don't worry we are still bombing ISIS, while all Russia was doing was bombing opposition forces.
Which includes ISIS. Russia has done a lot to fight ISIS, especially around Palmyra.
But you feel great about supporting terrorists? Isn't that a bit weird? Then again, the US policy of simultaneously fighting and aiding radical islamists is kinda weird I suppose...
KTG17 wrote: How do you feel that your country supports a war criminal who gasses his own people?
Conflicted. I feel bad about Assad's forces gassing innocent people. But I also know that those people gassing innocent kids are the same people that protect the majority of Syrian kids from guys like ISIS and others that are even more murderous than the Assad regime. I do not view Assad and his men as 'the good guys', but rather as the least bad of 'the bad guys'. Like most civil wars, there are no good guys in this conflict.
KTG17 wrote: Oh wait I forgot you live under a different standard since Putin gassed his own people once too.
Dude... That one is below the belt.
KTG17 wrote: BTW, the missiles may seem expensive by Russian standards, but a million a pop is nothing by American.
Awesome! Can you give me a million or two then? It is nothing to you after all, and I could really make use of it.
THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TOWAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!
Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?
To put it simply: Yes it is worse. People who were killed by the gas didn't need to be near the impact. They also did not die quietly. Smoke inhalation and suffocation is not the best way to die. It is pretty bad. But death by chemical weapon is leagues worse. For one, you do not hemorrhage out of orifices uncontrollably until you begin to go in to seizures so strong that it breaks bones.
THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TOWAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!
Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?
To put it simply: Yes it is worse. People who were killed by the gas didn't need to be near the impact. They also did not die quietly. Smoke inhalation and suffocation is not the best way to die. It is pretty bad. But death by chemical weapon is leagues worse. For one, you do not hemorrhage out of orifices uncontrollably until you begin to go in to seizures so strong that it breaks bones.
Just one of the ways it is worse.
For those who are asking if it's worse, look up Mustard Gas. I'd rather be shot, stabbed, or bombed then hit with Mustard Gas.
THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TOWAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!
Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?
If this were a game changer event in an otherwise "civilized" war like the Falklands war, sure, it would be cause for indignation. When it's a random, low frequency event in a very ugly and brutal civil war thats been going on for half a decade and with no end in sight, well, it's a rather arbitrary line no better than any other, that comes off as an excuse to do something one wanted to already do anyway.
The way I see things here.
Chemical weapons and Conventional weapons, and stuff like flamethrowers etc... are equal if used on enemy military forces. All's fair in war as the saying goes.
Accidentally hitting civilian targets with conventional weapons is of course bad, but its unavoidable sometimes.
Accidentally hitting civilian targets with chemical weapons, or any sort of deliberate targeting of civilians with any kind of weapon, are all equally abhorrent.
Chemical weapons by their nature are indiscriminate and difficult to control, so you cannot in good conscience use them if there is any chance of them hitting civilians.
THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TOWAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!
Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?
To put it simply: Yes it is worse. People who were killed by the gas didn't need to be near the impact.
same thing for errant shells, shrapnel, bullets that miss their intended targets and fly through a wall 400m away and kill someone there, bombs that go off course, buildings that collapse, etc.
They also did not die quietly. Smoke inhalation and suffocation is not the best way to die. It is pretty bad. But death by chemical weapon is leagues worse.
For one, you do not hemorrhage out of orifices uncontrollably until you begin to go in to seizures so strong that it breaks bones.
Just one of the ways it is worse.
and taking a burst of AK fire, pulverizing your hip, destroying 3 ribs, and shattering your elbow, in addition to bursting a lung and perforating intestines, and dying in agony 8 hours later is any less awful? Thats a pretty daily occurrence in war. Burning to death in a vehicle, being buried alive by a bulldozer, being tortured to death over many days in state security dungeons, dying of sepsis from lack of medical care, starving to death, etc are all so much less terrible that they're not worth going to war over?
THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TOWAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!
Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?
To put it simply: Yes it is worse. People who were killed by the gas didn't need to be near the impact.
same thing for errant shells, shrapnel, bullets that miss their intended targets and fly through a wall 400m away and kill someone there, bombs that go off course, buildings that collapse, etc.
They also did not die quietly. Smoke inhalation and suffocation is not the best way to die. It is pretty bad. But death by chemical weapon is leagues worse.
For one, you do not hemorrhage out of orifices uncontrollably until you begin to go in to seizures so strong that it breaks bones.
Just one of the ways it is worse.
and taking a burst of AK fire, pulverizing your hip, destroying 3 ribs, and shattering your elbow, in addition to bursting a lung and perforating intestines, and dying in agony 8 hours later is any less awful? Thats a pretty daily occurrence in war. Burning to death in a vehicle, being buried alive by a bulldozer, being tortured to death over many days in state security dungeons, dying of sepsis from lack of medical care, starving to death, etc are all so much less terrible that they're not worth going to war over?
Cool, do AKs have a 100% kill rate in a radius where they are deployed?
THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TOWAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!
Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?
To put it simply: Yes it is worse. People who were killed by the gas didn't need to be near the impact.
same thing for errant shells, shrapnel, bullets that miss their intended targets and fly through a wall 400m away and kill someone there, bombs that go off course, buildings that collapse, etc.
They also did not die quietly. Smoke inhalation and suffocation is not the best way to die. It is pretty bad. But death by chemical weapon is leagues worse.
For one, you do not hemorrhage out of orifices uncontrollably until you begin to go in to seizures so strong that it breaks bones.
Just one of the ways it is worse.
and taking a burst of AK fire, pulverizing your hip, destroying 3 ribs, and shattering your elbow, in addition to bursting a lung and perforating intestines, and dying in agony 8 hours later is any less awful? Thats a pretty daily occurrence in war. Burning to death in a vehicle, being buried alive by a bulldozer, being tortured to death over many days in state security dungeons, dying of sepsis from lack of medical care, starving to death, etc are all so much less terrible that they're not worth going to war over?
Cool, do AKs have a 100% kill rate in a radius where they are deployed?
Does sarin?
The answer to both would be no.
In fact, you probably do better with the AK, because you can go by and cap the wounded, dig out those you missed and cap them. With sarin, they either die or don't unless you go in with the AKs to finish off survivors.
THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TOWAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!
Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?
To put it simply: Yes it is worse. People who were killed by the gas didn't need to be near the impact.
same thing for errant shells, shrapnel, bullets that miss their intended targets and fly through a wall 400m away and kill someone there, bombs that go off course, buildings that collapse, etc.
They also did not die quietly. Smoke inhalation and suffocation is not the best way to die. It is pretty bad. But death by chemical weapon is leagues worse.
For one, you do not hemorrhage out of orifices uncontrollably until you begin to go in to seizures so strong that it breaks bones.
Just one of the ways it is worse.
and taking a burst of AK fire, pulverizing your hip, destroying 3 ribs, and shattering your elbow, in addition to bursting a lung and perforating intestines, and dying in agony 8 hours later is any less awful? Thats a pretty daily occurrence in war. Burning to death in a vehicle, being buried alive by a bulldozer, being tortured to death over many days in state security dungeons, dying of sepsis from lack of medical care, starving to death, etc are all so much less terrible that they're not worth going to war over?
Cool, do AKs have a 100% kill rate in a radius where they are deployed?
since when is that a criteria for judging any of these things, and since when does gas in an uncontrolled environment have such a kill rate?
Gas certainly does not, we can look at the Tokyo sarin sttacks as an example.
Why bomb the people fighting isis? This makes no sense. Trump just made a massive error in judgement.
Because they used (not for the first time) illegal chemical weapons on a civilian population center.
I'm not sure why this needs to be spelled out. ISIS is not the only "bad" out there.
If you need to, I can paint the picture a little bit for you. Its 2 am. You're awoken by explosions. Your home is shaking, and you gather your baby up in your arms hoping the bombs don't directly hit you. The explosions end, and you breath a sigh of relief. A few minutes later though, your baby starts to shake. You turn the lights on, and notice that his nose is running, he's spasming, and starting to choke. While you're panicking, you start to lose control of your own body. Your eyes begin to hurt, and you've started sweating, despite the cool desert night. All of a sudden you drop your child as your body locks up, and you fall to the ground with seizures. Eventually, you lose consciousness before you suffocate to death.
But hey, the Syrian's fight ISIS on occasion, so there shouldn't be a response to that.
I won't get into wars he said. It'll be fun he said...
THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TOWAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!
Yet we don't have any plans for an end game strategy with Syria. Assad uses chemical weapons, we launch conventional missiles. Then....what? It's not the first time Assad has used or been accused of using chemical weapons since the civil war started yet not much has changed and I don't see us invading Syria, forcing regime change, occupying the country to support the new government and spending decades there rebuilding the country.
Chemical weapon attacks are bad but again, not the first instance of this happening in Syria yet neither PotUS that has been in charge when it happened has asked Congress for a declaration of war. Do you think Trump is going to ask Congress to declare war on Syria? I don't think that's likely.
I don't see token strikes that are half measures at best and saber rattling empty rhetoric changing the situation in Syria. We've using that strategy for what, 6 years now?
Some aircraft destroyed, some survived. Landing place mostly undamaged, Some barracks burned. Looks like only few rockets (as intended or not) actually hit the base.
Obama negotiated a removal of Chemical Weapons in Syria with Russian aid. AS long as that illusion had to be maintained, no Chemical Weaposn were used. Now that Obama is gone, Chemical weapons are back ont eh table.
In addition, Trump had to strike the Syrians. Look how much his base (and he himself) bashed Obama when a red-line was corssed but no military action was taken. He press conference the other day was about "crossing lines" and the base's usually response to crossing lines is a military strike. Anything else is weakness. Therefore, Trump had to wag the dog a bit and strike with cruise missiles.
The question in my mind is why Chemical Weapons were used now? What are the Syrians/Russians trying to prove or provoke?
Easy E wrote: Obama negotiated a removal of Chemical Weapons in Syria with Russian aid. AS long as that illusion had to be maintained, no Chemical Weaposn were used. Now that Obama is gone, Chemical weapons are back ont eh table.
In addition, Trump had to strike the Syrians. Look how much his base (and he himself) bashed Obama when a red-line was corssed but no military action was taken. He press conference the other day was about "crossing lines" and the base's usually response to crossing lines is a military strike. Anything else is weakness. Therefore, Trump had to wag the dog a bit and strike with cruise missiles.
The question in my mind is why Chemical Weapons were used now? What are the Syrians/Russians trying to prove or provoke?
According to Wikipedia Assad used chemical weapons against opposition forces TEN times during Obama's presidency.
Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War has been confirmed by the United Nations. Deadly attacks during the war included the Ghouta attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the Khan al-Assal attack in the suburbs of Aleppo in March 2013. While no party took responsibility for the chemical attacks, the Syrian Ba'athist military was seen as main suspect, due to a large arsenal of such weapons. A U.N. fact-finding mission and a UNHRC Commission of Inquiry have simultaneously investigated the attacks. The U.N. mission found likely use of the nerve agent sarin in the case of Khan Al-Asal (19 March 2013), Saraqib (29 April 2013), Ghouta (21 August 2013), Jobar (24 August 2013) and Ashrafiyat Sahnaya (25 August 2013). The UNHRC commission later confirmed the use of sarin in the Khan al-Asal, Saraqib and Ghouta attacks, but did not mention the Jobar and the Ashrafiyat Sahnaya attacks. The UNHRC commission also found that the sarin used in the Khan al-Asal attack bore "the same unique hallmarks" as the sarin used in the Ghouta attack and indicated that the perpetrators likely had access to chemicals from the Syrian Army's stockpile. Those attacks prompted the international community to pressure disarmament of the Syrian Armed Forces from chemical weapons, which was executed during 2014. Despite the disarmament process, dozens of incidents with suspected use of chemical weapons followed throughout Syria, mainly blamed on Syrian Ba'athist forces, as well as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and even on Syrian opposition forces.
In August 2016, a confidential report by the United Nations and the OPCW explicitly blamed the Syrian military of Bashar al-Assad for dropping chemical weapons (chlorine bombs) on the towns of Talmenes in April 2014 and Sarmin in March 2015 and ISIS for using sulfur mustard on the town of Marea in August 2015.[1] Several other attacks have been alleged, reported and/or investigated. In 2017, the 2017 Khan Shaykhun chemical attack drew international attention and provoked the first U.S. military action against the Syrian government.
THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TOWAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!
Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?
To put it simply: Yes it is worse. People who were killed by the gas didn't need to be near the impact.
same thing for errant shells, shrapnel, bullets that miss their intended targets and fly through a wall 400m away and kill someone there, bombs that go off course, buildings that collapse, etc.
They also did not die quietly. Smoke inhalation and suffocation is not the best way to die. It is pretty bad. But death by chemical weapon is leagues worse.
For one, you do not hemorrhage out of orifices uncontrollably until you begin to go in to seizures so strong that it breaks bones.
Just one of the ways it is worse.
and taking a burst of AK fire, pulverizing your hip, destroying 3 ribs, and shattering your elbow, in addition to bursting a lung and perforating intestines, and dying in agony 8 hours later is any less awful? Thats a pretty daily occurrence in war. Burning to death in a vehicle, being buried alive by a bulldozer, being tortured to death over many days in state security dungeons, dying of sepsis from lack of medical care, starving to death, etc are all so much less terrible that they're not worth going to war over?
Cool, do AKs have a 100% kill rate in a radius where they are deployed?
Does sarin?
The answer to both would be no.
In fact, you probably do better with the AK, because you can go by and cap the wounded, dig out those you missed and cap them. With sarin, they either die or don't unless you go in with the AKs to finish off survivors.
You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.
Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?
In not foolowing what is going on there, but I rememeber, that Assad removed all chemical weapons with UN control. About rumors says that Russia used chemical weapons - that's just crazy. IMHO, it might be chemical weapon storage hit by the "normal" bomb or even installation (with real victims).
THEY USED ILLEGAL CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON CIVILIANS! WHAT THE HELL ARE WE SUPPOSED TO GO TOWAR FOR, IF NOT THAT?!?!
Is that objectively worse than using barrel bombs, artillery, bullets, blades, bulldozing alive, etc? Is dying from chemical asphyxiation due to smoke inhalation from burning buildings or flaming toxic vehicle materials, a very common thing in such battlefields, worse than dying from chemical asphyxiation from some other gas? Why were rooms full of people killed in cells by bullets and grenades and pipes not enough to go to war over, but gas is?
To put it simply: Yes it is worse. People who were killed by the gas didn't need to be near the impact.
same thing for errant shells, shrapnel, bullets that miss their intended targets and fly through a wall 400m away and kill someone there, bombs that go off course, buildings that collapse, etc.
They also did not die quietly. Smoke inhalation and suffocation is not the best way to die. It is pretty bad. But death by chemical weapon is leagues worse.
For one, you do not hemorrhage out of orifices uncontrollably until you begin to go in to seizures so strong that it breaks bones.
Just one of the ways it is worse.
and taking a burst of AK fire, pulverizing your hip, destroying 3 ribs, and shattering your elbow, in addition to bursting a lung and perforating intestines, and dying in agony 8 hours later is any less awful? Thats a pretty daily occurrence in war. Burning to death in a vehicle, being buried alive by a bulldozer, being tortured to death over many days in state security dungeons, dying of sepsis from lack of medical care, starving to death, etc are all so much less terrible that they're not worth going to war over?
Cool, do AKs have a 100% kill rate in a radius where they are deployed?
Does sarin?
The answer to both would be no.
In fact, you probably do better with the AK, because you can go by and cap the wounded, dig out those you missed and cap them. With sarin, they either die or don't unless you go in with the AKs to finish off survivors.
You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.
They only have a high kill rate in very specific instances. If you're in a confined area and receive a high dose, yeah you are done, 100% kill rate. If I stand 10 feet away from you and rock and roll thirty 125 grain 7.62mm bullets travelling at 2400ft/sec into your body, well, we'll probably also have a 100% kill rate.
If we're talking gas being released by shell or canister in an open atmosphere with people of all ages and levels of health, scattered randomly over a given area, you're not going to get a 100% kill rate, just as you wont with the AK either.
Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?
why go through all that killing of prisoners, torture, indiscriminate attacks on civilians with conventional weapons, attacks on hospitals, denial of food and medical care, etc?
I said it in the now-locked thread asking whether or not trump will attack Syria, and I'll say it again - I, for, one, am tired of financially supporting middle east wars for going on 14 years now.
And I'm not super stoked about starting up a fresh one, especially with the Russians supporting the other side, and us kind-of allying with ISIS in the process.
The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
This isn't a "total war or nothing" situation. This is a violation of one of the world's accepted tenents and needed a firm response. I don't call 50-60 cruise missiles a "token" response as others unfamiliar with what one of these weapons can do, might suggest.
Some aircraft destroyed, some survived. Landing place mostly undamaged, Some barracks burned. Looks like only few rockets (as intended or not) actually hit the base.
Runways are a waste of a target. They are typically fixed in hours even if you seed them with antipersonnel mines. Hitting them only makes sense if you need that airfield out of commission for a specific time period in order to conduct another operation.
We hit fuel and ammo bunkers and the other things we meant to hit.
You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.
Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?
Because you can't always get forces with AKs into and out of where you want killing to happen. Pretty much the reason all indirect and many long range direct fire weapons are bought and used.
But you knew that.
Do you want to try to refute my actual point, that sarin does not have a 100% kill rate when used?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kap'n Krump wrote: I said it in the now-locked thread asking whether or not trump will attack Syria, and I'll say it again - I, for, one, am tired of financially supporting middle east wars for going on 14 years now.
And I'm not super stoked about starting up a fresh one, especially with the Russians supporting the other side, and us kind-of allying with ISIS in the process.
Starting a fresh one? So the 1000+ boots on the ground in Syria and the many thousands of bombs dropped BEFORE this strike are just my imagination?
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians
I mean...again, burying them alive, blowing them up with explosives, starving them to death, denying them medical care, shooting them, torturing them, etc was better? That wasnt worth going to war over?
inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Nobody is talking about appeasement, nobody is talking about just giving Assad what he wants. People are talking about how absurd it is that chemical weapons are some sort of uncrossable red line when none of the above was, and that we dont seem to have any plan or goal in any of this, and we've seen where that rodeo goes more than once in recent years.
This isn't a total war or nothing situation. This is a violation of one of the world's tenants and needed a firm response. I don't call 100 cruise missiles a "token" response as others unfamiliar with what one of these weapons can do, might suggest.
again, why is a chemical attack worthy of this, but starving these people to death, bulldozing them alive, blowing them up, torturing them in prisons, mass executions by rifle and hand grenade, etc was not?
re: Vaktathi - Chemical, Nuclear, Biological warfare are international taboos. They just are and the world has agreements in place stating exactly that.
9/12/13 *Syria sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General which said that Assad signed a legislative decree providing the accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention. In the letter, Assad said Syria would observe its CWC obligations immediately, as opposed to 30 days from the date of accession, as stipulated in the treaty.
This isn't about whether the other patterns of atrocities committed by Assad's forces are "lessened" by this action, they aren't. But this, undeniably, is uniquely different.
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
This isn't a "total war or nothing" situation. This is a violation of one of the world's accepted tenents and needed a firm response. I don't call 50-60 cruise missiles a "token" response as others unfamiliar with what one of these weapons can do, might suggest.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
We waited until the ELEVENTH instance of a chemical weapons attack in a conflict that has been ongoing for SIX YEARS to launch cruise missiles at an AIRFIELD. I'm sure cratering a runway with missiles will totally scare Assad out of using chemical weapons for a TWELFTH time. Good thing Trump taught him a lesson now.
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
It's not WW3 and it's not going to get to WW3. Best case Assad is disposed internally and a more moderate pro Russia despot takes his place. Everyone gets to check off the "regime change" box and we move on. Worst case Russia continues to stand by Assad and we continue with the intermittent bombing anytime Trump thinks popular opinion supports it and political points can be scored. We're not going to actually start a war with a nuclear power over Syria. The juice isn't worth the squeeze for us by a long shot.
Easy E wrote: Obama negotiated a removal of Chemical Weapons in Syria with Russian aid. AS long as that illusion had to be maintained, no Chemical Weaposn were used. Now that Obama is gone, Chemical weapons are back ont eh table.
In addition, Trump had to strike the Syrians. Look how much his base (and he himself) bashed Obama when a red-line was corssed but no military action was taken. He press conference the other day was about "crossing lines" and the base's usually response to crossing lines is a military strike. Anything else is weakness. Therefore, Trump had to wag the dog a bit and strike with cruise missiles.
The question in my mind is why Chemical Weapons were used now? What are the Syrians/Russians trying to prove or provoke?
You'll have trouble answering that question as the Syrians have nothing to gain from using chemical weapons at this point. They are winning their war - the have the Russian Air-force assisting them. Plus the damage that was caused by the Sarin could easily have been done by another airstrike with conventional weapons (as in it wasn't even that deadly of a hit). No evidence points at this being a deliberate chemical attack. The answer from the Syrian government makes the most sense. A conventional air-raid must have hit a Sarin stockpile of some kind and released the chemical that way. Multiple strikes against the same town and only 1 produced Sarin gas (supposedly). This is very very weak stuff. If not for the pictures of dying babies - this would just sound like another day in the history of the Syrian civil war.
You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.
Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?
Because you can't always get forces with AKs into and out of where you want killing to happen. Pretty much the reason all indirect and many long range direct fire weapons are bought and used.
But you knew that.
Do you want to try to refute my actual point, that sarin does not have a 100% kill rate when used?
Sarin gas has a 100% kill rate when mixed at a weapons grade level. Even at lower than lethal doses, without the antidote it can cause serious damage to the nervous system that will require medical attention for the rest of the persons life. What are the odds of having the antidote within reach, or within a 10 minute drive, from the targeted area?
If you want to go down the route of "Thats not what you said!" I will say I misspoke and that what I said was incredibly vague. My bad. I had just woken up and not made it to the caffeine yet.
BigWaaagh wrote: re: Vaktathi - Chemical, Nuclear, Biological warfare are international taboos. They just are and the world has agreements in place stating exactly that.
So is torture, attacks on civilians, levelling civilian towns and cities, bulldozing people alive, restricting food and medical supplies and allowing people to starve to death or die from treatablr causes, executions of prisoners, and other such atrocities, what is different about gas?
9/12/13 *Syria sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General which said that Assad signed a legislative decree providing the accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention. In the letter, Assad said Syria would observe its CWC obligations immediately, as opposed to 30 days from the date of accession, as stipulated in the treaty.
This isn't about whether the other patterns of atrocities committed by Assad's forces are "lessened" by this action, they aren't. But this, undeniably, is uniquely different.
It's only different because people are choosing to arbitrarily see it differently.
Assad has signed and agreed to many things and then reneged, what about gas is fundamentally different aside from "just because"?
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
It's not WW3 and it's not going to get to WW3. Best case Assad is disposed internally and a more moderate pro Russia despot takes his place. Everyone gets to check off the "regime change" box and we move on. Worst case Russia continues to stand by Assad and we continue with the intermittent bombing anytime Trump thinks popular opinion supports it and political points can be scored. We're not going to actually start a war with a nuclear power over Syria. The juice isn't worth the squeeze for us by a long shot.
Yeah, but that's not really what you've been saying here, is it? You've been ranting on about the escalation scenario when just the opposite is true. The response was measured and it did rattle the saber, which can work just fine, thank you, but you're harping on about US troops strolling through the suburbs of Damascus while drawing down the ire of a nuclear power. THIS WAS A MEASURED RESPONSE TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH ARE A NO-NO TO THE WHOLE FETHING WORLD, not us declaring war on Syria or escalating or taking on Russia. It is what it is, nothing more. Doing nothing in the face of this ultimate atrocity is not an option, frankly. Furthermore...and I don't see how anybody can't see this...I think the Chems were used purposefully because Trump has been vocally "meh" about Syrian involvement/interest. Kind of reminds me when GHWB gave what was interpreted as a verbal green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait. This is the nature of dictators. They're opportunists and have no compulsion about ruthlessness in the execution of the opportunistic nature.
You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.
Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?
Because you can't always get forces with AKs into and out of where you want killing to happen. Pretty much the reason all indirect and many long range direct fire weapons are bought and used.
But you knew that.
Do you want to try to refute my actual point, that sarin does not have a 100% kill rate when used?
Sarin gas has a 100% kill rate when mixed at a weapons grade level. Even at lower than lethal doses, without the antidote it can cause serious damage to the nervous system that will require medical attention for the rest of the persons life.
How is this any diffetent than a bullet?
Yeah if you take a certain concentration of Sarin or VX, it is 100% fatal. Taking a bullet to the brain is 100% fatal too. Yeah a lower dose will cause permanent terrible injury, so will bullets striking a non-immediately-lethal target.
BigWaaagh wrote: re: Vaktathi - Chemical, Nuclear, Biological warfare are international taboos. They just are and the world has agreements in place stating exactly that.
So is torture, attacks on civilians, levelling civilian towns and cities, bulldozing people alive, restricting food and medical supplies and allowing people to starve to death or die from treatablr causes, executions of prisoners, and other such atrocities, what is different about gas?
9/12/13 *Syria sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General which said that Assad signed a legislative decree providing the accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention. In the letter, Assad said Syria would observe its CWC obligations immediately, as opposed to 30 days from the date of accession, as stipulated in the treaty.
This isn't about whether the other patterns of atrocities committed by Assad's forces are "lessened" by this action, they aren't. But this, undeniably, is uniquely different.
It's only different because people are choosing to arbitrarily see it differently.
Assad has signed and agreed to many things and then reneged, what about gas is fundamentally different aside from "just because"?
There's absolutely nothing arbitrary in the global condemnation of the use of chemical weapons. Nothing arbitrary at all.
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
This isn't a "total war or nothing" situation. This is a violation of one of the world's accepted tenents and needed a firm response. I don't call 50-60 cruise missiles a "token" response as others unfamiliar with what one of these weapons can do, might suggest.
Its strange. I haven't heard any reports of China, Russia, Germany, Brazil, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, France, UK, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Yemen, Qatar, South Africa, Canada or any other nation also launching attacks. Its weird being its a crime against humanity and all.
BigWaaagh wrote: re: Vaktathi - Chemical, Nuclear, Biological warfare are international taboos. They just are and the world has agreements in place stating exactly that.
So is torture, attacks on civilians, levelling civilian towns and cities, bulldozing people alive, restricting food and medical supplies and allowing people to starve to death or die from treatablr causes, executions of prisoners, and other such atrocities, what is different about gas?
9/12/13 *Syria sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General which said that Assad signed a legislative decree providing the accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention. In the letter, Assad said Syria would observe its CWC obligations immediately, as opposed to 30 days from the date of accession, as stipulated in the treaty.
This isn't about whether the other patterns of atrocities committed by Assad's forces are "lessened" by this action, they aren't. But this, undeniably, is uniquely different.
It's only different because people are choosing to arbitrarily see it differently.
Assad has signed and agreed to many things and then reneged, what about gas is fundamentally different aside from "just because"?
There's absolutely nothing arbitrary in the global condemnation of the use of chemical weapons. Nothing arbitrary at all.
I mean...you can state so, but that doesnt make it so, at least, in relation to the other things happening in Syria.
What about gas is so much worse than bulldozing people alive, bombing them with incendiary devices and explosives, starving them to death, torture, killing of prisoners, etc?
The big thing with chemical weapons is that they dont really do anything conventional weapons dont but add costs to both attacker and defender, so everyone agrees to just not use them, but fundamentally its hard to see any moral issue that makes gas so much worse than being exploded, buried alive, bleeding out after multiple gunshot wounds for hours, etc.
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
This isn't a "total war or nothing" situation. This is a violation of one of the world's accepted tenents and needed a firm response. I don't call 50-60 cruise missiles a "token" response as others unfamiliar with what one of these weapons can do, might suggest.
Its strange. I haven't heard any reports of China, Russia, Germany, Brazil, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, France, UK, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Yemen, Qatar, South Africa, Canada or any other nation also launching attacks. Its weird being its a crime against humanity and all.
You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.
Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?
Because you can't always get forces with AKs into and out of where you want killing to happen. Pretty much the reason all indirect and many long range direct fire weapons are bought and used.
But you knew that.
Do you want to try to refute my actual point, that sarin does not have a 100% kill rate when used?
Sarin gas has a 100% kill rate when mixed at a weapons grade level. Even at lower than lethal doses, without the antidote it can cause serious damage to the nervous system that will require medical attention for the rest of the persons life.
How is this any diffetent than a bullet?
Yeah if you take a certain concentration of Sarin or VX, it is 100% fatal. Taking a bullet to the brain is 100% fatal too. Yeah a lower dose will cause permanent terrible injury, so will bullets striking a non-immediately-lethal target.
Because a bullet takes aim. You are not going to get a 100% headshot all of the time. I don't care how much you watch The Walking Dead. Also, you are not going to die from a bullet to the brain 100% of the time.
You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.
Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?
Because you can't always get forces with AKs into and out of where you want killing to happen. Pretty much the reason all indirect and many long range direct fire weapons are bought and used.
But you knew that.
Do you want to try to refute my actual point, that sarin does not have a 100% kill rate when used?
Sarin gas has a 100% kill rate when mixed at a weapons grade level. Even at lower than lethal doses, without the antidote it can cause serious damage to the nervous system that will require medical attention for the rest of the persons life. What are the odds of having the antidote within reach, or within a 10 minute drive, from the targeted area?
If you want to go down the route of "Thats not what you said!" I will say I misspoke and that what I said was incredibly vague. My bad. I had just woken up and not made it to the caffeine yet.
And yet, people survived this attack...
Are you now under the belief Assad would use less than weapons grade sarin? Or can you admit, even weapons grade sarin, when used in something other than a lab environment, doesn't have 100% kill rate?
As for causing serious permanent damage, yeah, but so do bullets and bomb fragments and incendiaries.
I get that chem weapons are taboo, but they are not close to as destructive as some folks want to believe. Temp, wind, humidity and other factors all affect the effectiveness of even weapons grade sarin.
BigWaaagh wrote: re: Vaktathi - Chemical, Nuclear, Biological warfare are international taboos. They just are and the world has agreements in place stating exactly that.
So is torture, attacks on civilians, levelling civilian towns and cities, bulldozing people alive, restricting food and medical supplies and allowing people to starve to death or die from treatablr causes, executions of prisoners, and other such atrocities, what is different about gas?
9/12/13 *Syria sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General which said that Assad signed a legislative decree providing the accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention. In the letter, Assad said Syria would observe its CWC obligations immediately, as opposed to 30 days from the date of accession, as stipulated in the treaty.
This isn't about whether the other patterns of atrocities committed by Assad's forces are "lessened" by this action, they aren't. But this, undeniably, is uniquely different.
It's only different because people are choosing to arbitrarily see it differently.
Assad has signed and agreed to many things and then reneged, what about gas is fundamentally different aside from "just because"?
There's absolutely nothing arbitrary in the global condemnation of the use of chemical weapons. Nothing arbitrary at all.
I mean...you can state so, but that doesnt make it so, at least, in relation to the other things happening in Syria.
What about gas is so much worse than bulldozing people alive, bombing them with incendiary devices and explosives, starving them to death, torture, killing of prisoners, etc?
The big thing with chemical weapons is that they dont really do anything conventional weapons dont but add costs to both attacker and defender, so everyone agrees to just not use them, but fundamentally its hard to see any moral issue that makes gas so much worse than being exploded, buried alive, bleeding out after multiple gunshot wounds for hours, etc.
No, actually, I can state so because it is so by international declarations, treaties and agreements. THIS IS FACT! WMD's get their own classification and treatment. THIS IS FACT! You're trying to draw, what, a "A is as bad as B, so what's the difference" argument here? Give me a break.
You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.
Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?
Because you can't always get forces with AKs into and out of where you want killing to happen. Pretty much the reason all indirect and many long range direct fire weapons are bought and used.
But you knew that.
Do you want to try to refute my actual point, that sarin does not have a 100% kill rate when used?
Sarin gas has a 100% kill rate when mixed at a weapons grade level. Even at lower than lethal doses, without the antidote it can cause serious damage to the nervous system that will require medical attention for the rest of the persons life.
How is this any diffetent than a bullet?
Yeah if you take a certain concentration of Sarin or VX, it is 100% fatal. Taking a bullet to the brain is 100% fatal too. Yeah a lower dose will cause permanent terrible injury, so will bullets striking a non-immediately-lethal target.
Because a bullet takes aim. You are not going to get a 100% headshot all of the time. I don't care how much you watch The Walking Dead.
Thats why we have a 30 round magazine and a 600rpm rate of fire.
Also, you are not going to die from a bullet to the brain 100% of the time.
Barring non penetration of the skull, an AK bullet is going to be as close to 100% lethal as a high dose of Sarin.
Ultimately, again however, Sarin is not 100% lethal outside of high concentrations and confined areas, and what difference does that lethality rating make? A 500lb iron bomb is also 100% lethal within a certain radius, arguably moreso than the AK or Sarin. Not seeing where the lethality is so important, and Sarins lethality on an open battlefield is being grossly over exaggerated
BigWaaagh wrote: re: Vaktathi - Chemical, Nuclear, Biological warfare are international taboos. They just are and the world has agreements in place stating exactly that.
So is torture, attacks on civilians, levelling civilian towns and cities, bulldozing people alive, restricting food and medical supplies and allowing people to starve to death or die from treatablr causes, executions of prisoners, and other such atrocities, what is different about gas?
9/12/13 *Syria sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General which said that Assad signed a legislative decree providing the accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention. In the letter, Assad said Syria would observe its CWC obligations immediately, as opposed to 30 days from the date of accession, as stipulated in the treaty.
This isn't about whether the other patterns of atrocities committed by Assad's forces are "lessened" by this action, they aren't. But this, undeniably, is uniquely different.
It's only different because people are choosing to arbitrarily see it differently.
Assad has signed and agreed to many things and then reneged, what about gas is fundamentally different aside from "just because"?
There's absolutely nothing arbitrary in the global condemnation of the use of chemical weapons. Nothing arbitrary at all.
I mean...you can state so, but that doesnt make it so, at least, in relation to the other things happening in Syria.
What about gas is so much worse than bulldozing people alive, bombing them with incendiary devices and explosives, starving them to death, torture, killing of prisoners, etc?
The big thing with chemical weapons is that they dont really do anything conventional weapons dont but add costs to both attacker and defender, so everyone agrees to just not use them, but fundamentally its hard to see any moral issue that makes gas so much worse than being exploded, buried alive, bleeding out after multiple gunshot wounds for hours, etc.
No, actually, I can state so because it is so by international declarations, treaties and agreements. THIS IS FACT! WMD's get their own classification and treatment. THIS IS FACT! You're trying to draw, what, a "A is as bad as B, so what's the difference" argument here? Give me a break.
I'm not arguing against the fact that such weapons are banned by many treaties and agreements, I'm stating that a whole bunch of other things Assad has done are just as bad and against just as many treaties and agreements and declarations. What makes gas so different than those things that its worth going to war over when those others, that are just as bad or worse in terms of effects and scale and are against just as many agreements, were not?
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
This isn't a "total war or nothing" situation. This is a violation of one of the world's accepted tenents and needed a firm response. I don't call 50-60 cruise missiles a "token" response as others unfamiliar with what one of these weapons can do, might suggest.
Its strange. I haven't heard any reports of China, Russia, Germany, Brazil, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, France, UK, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Yemen, Qatar, South Africa, Canada or any other nation also launching attacks. Its weird being its a crime against humanity and all.
Is that your litmus? Really?
It is for anyone arguing that we need to do it for humanity or whatever bs.
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
This isn't a "total war or nothing" situation. This is a violation of one of the world's accepted tenents and needed a firm response. I don't call 50-60 cruise missiles a "token" response as others unfamiliar with what one of these weapons can do, might suggest.
Its strange. I haven't heard any reports of China, Russia, Germany, Brazil, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, France, UK, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Yemen, Qatar, South Africa, Canada or any other nation also launching attacks. Its weird being its a crime against humanity and all.
Is that your litmus? Really?
It is for anyone arguing that we need to do it for humanity or whatever bs.
So which is it? Humanity or BS...or are you stating humanitarian action is BS?
You can do better with an AK? That must be why people go through the trouble of producing a chemical with such a high kill rate.
Why risk breaking international law when just an AK will do?
Because you can't always get forces with AKs into and out of where you want killing to happen. Pretty much the reason all indirect and many long range direct fire weapons are bought and used.
But you knew that.
Do you want to try to refute my actual point, that sarin does not have a 100% kill rate when used?
Sarin gas has a 100% kill rate when mixed at a weapons grade level. Even at lower than lethal doses, without the antidote it can cause serious damage to the nervous system that will require medical attention for the rest of the persons life.
How is this any diffetent than a bullet?
Yeah if you take a certain concentration of Sarin or VX, it is 100% fatal. Taking a bullet to the brain is 100% fatal too. Yeah a lower dose will cause permanent terrible injury, so will bullets striking a non-immediately-lethal target.
Because a bullet takes aim. You are not going to get a 100% headshot all of the time. I don't care how much you watch The Walking Dead.
Thats why we have a 30 round magazine and a 600rpm rate of fire.
Also, you are not going to die from a bullet to the brain 100% of the time.
Barring non penetration of the skull, an AK bullet is going to be as close to 100% lethal as a high dose of Sarin.
Ultimately, again however, Sarin is not 100% lethal outside of high concentrations and confined areas, and what difference does that lethality rating make? A 500lb iron bomb is also 100% lethal within a certain radius, arguably moreso than the AK or Sarin. Not seeing where the lethality is so important, and Sarins lethality on an open battlefield is being grossly over exaggerated
BigWaaagh wrote: re: Vaktathi - Chemical, Nuclear, Biological warfare are international taboos. They just are and the world has agreements in place stating exactly that.
So is torture, attacks on civilians, levelling civilian towns and cities, bulldozing people alive, restricting food and medical supplies and allowing people to starve to death or die from treatablr causes, executions of prisoners, and other such atrocities, what is different about gas?
9/12/13 *Syria sent a letter to the United Nations Secretary General which said that Assad signed a legislative decree providing the accession of Syria to the Chemical Weapons Convention. In the letter, Assad said Syria would observe its CWC obligations immediately, as opposed to 30 days from the date of accession, as stipulated in the treaty.
This isn't about whether the other patterns of atrocities committed by Assad's forces are "lessened" by this action, they aren't. But this, undeniably, is uniquely different.
It's only different because people are choosing to arbitrarily see it differently.
Assad has signed and agreed to many things and then reneged, what about gas is fundamentally different aside from "just because"?
There's absolutely nothing arbitrary in the global condemnation of the use of chemical weapons. Nothing arbitrary at all.
I mean...you can state so, but that doesnt make it so, at least, in relation to the other things happening in Syria.
What about gas is so much worse than bulldozing people alive, bombing them with incendiary devices and explosives, starving them to death, torture, killing of prisoners, etc?
The big thing with chemical weapons is that they dont really do anything conventional weapons dont but add costs to both attacker and defender, so everyone agrees to just not use them, but fundamentally its hard to see any moral issue that makes gas so much worse than being exploded, buried alive, bleeding out after multiple gunshot wounds for hours, etc.
[/spoiler]
No, actually, I can state so because it is so by international declarations, treaties and agreements. THIS IS FACT! WMD's get their own classification and treatment. THIS IS FACT! You're trying to draw, what, a "A is as bad as B, so what's the difference" argument here? Give me a break.
Varkathi: I'm not arguing against the fact that such weapons are banned by many treaties and agreements, I'm stating that a whole bunch of other things Assad has done are just as bad and against just as many treaties and agreements and declarations. What makes gas so different than those things that its worth going to war over when those others, that are just as bad or worse in terms of effects and scale and are against just as many agreements, were not?
ME(I suck at editing): Who's gone to war? We declared war? This was a measured response to a specific action. And for the last time, if you don't get the whole concept of WMD's being categorically different and condemned in the eyes of the entire world than conventional warfare, then you're not getting the point and purpose of the action, or this thread.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Anyone arguing for it when no other nation does something, you betcha. If its not a compelling interest to the US then it should not be done.
I didn't know Neville Chamberlain had relatives in Texas.
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
It's not WW3 and it's not going to get to WW3. Best case Assad is disposed internally and a more moderate pro Russia despot takes his place. Everyone gets to check off the "regime change" box and we move on. Worst case Russia continues to stand by Assad and we continue with the intermittent bombing anytime Trump thinks popular opinion supports it and political points can be scored. We're not going to actually start a war with a nuclear power over Syria. The juice isn't worth the squeeze for us by a long shot.
Yeah, but that's not really what you've been saying here, is it? You've been ranting on about the escalation scenario when just the opposite is true. The response was measured and it did rattle the saber, which can work just fine, thank you, but you're harping on about US troops strolling through the suburbs of Damascus while drawing down the ire of a nuclear power. THIS WAS A MEASURED RESPONSE TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH ARE A NO-NO TO THE WHOLE FETHING WORLD, not us declaring war on Syria or escalating or taking on Russia. It is what it is, nothing more. Doing nothing in the face of this ultimate atrocity is not an option, frankly. Furthermore...and I don't see how anybody can't see this...I think the Chems were used purposefully because Trump has been vocally "meh" about Syrian involvement/interest. Kind of reminds me when GHWB gave what was interpreted as a verbal green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait. This is the nature of dictators. They're opportunists and have no compulsion about ruthlessness in the execution of the opportunistic nature.
I don't recall Obama launching cruise missiles during the multiple instances of chemical weapon attacks in Syria during the last 6 years. Why was it ok for Obama to not blast Syrian airfields? Did the OT have threads about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria that happened in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016? Why was Trump's attack morally necessary but Obama's inaction acceptable?
Launching an attack against a military base in another sovereign nation is absolutely an act of war. How is the US military deliberately attacking the Syrian military not an act of war?
It's also a possibility that opposition forces were in possession of chemical weapons and conventional bombing by the Syrian air force (which had conducted multiple bombings of that city previously) set them off. We know that opposition forces, especially ISIS have already used chemical weapons in Syria.
Frazzled wrote: Anyone arguing for it when no other nation does something, you betcha. If its not a compelling interest to the US then it should not be done.
I didn't know Neville Chamberlain had relatives in Texas.
Everything is bigger and better in Texas, including the appeasement.
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
It's not WW3 and it's not going to get to WW3. Best case Assad is disposed internally and a more moderate pro Russia despot takes his place. Everyone gets to check off the "regime change" box and we move on. Worst case Russia continues to stand by Assad and we continue with the intermittent bombing anytime Trump thinks popular opinion supports it and political points can be scored. We're not going to actually start a war with a nuclear power over Syria. The juice isn't worth the squeeze for us by a long shot.
Yeah, but that's not really what you've been saying here, is it? You've been ranting on about the escalation scenario when just the opposite is true. The response was measured and it did rattle the saber, which can work just fine, thank you, but you're harping on about US troops strolling through the suburbs of Damascus while drawing down the ire of a nuclear power. THIS WAS A MEASURED RESPONSE TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH ARE A NO-NO TO THE WHOLE FETHING WORLD, not us declaring war on Syria or escalating or taking on Russia. It is what it is, nothing more. Doing nothing in the face of this ultimate atrocity is not an option, frankly. Furthermore...and I don't see how anybody can't see this...I think the Chems were used purposefully because Trump has been vocally "meh" about Syrian involvement/interest. Kind of reminds me when GHWB gave what was interpreted as a verbal green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait. This is the nature of dictators. They're opportunists and have no compulsion about ruthlessness in the execution of the opportunistic nature.
I don't recall Obama launching cruise missiles during the multiple instances of chemical weapon attacks in Syria during the last 6 years. Why was it ok for Obama to not blast Syrian airfields? Did the OT have threads about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria that happened in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016? Why was Trump's attack morally necessary but Obama's inaction acceptable?
Launching an attack against a military base in another sovereign nation is absolutely an act of war. How is the US military deliberately attacking the Syrian military not an act of war?
It's also a possibility that opposition forces were in possession of chemical weapons and conventional bombing by the Syrian air force (which had conducted multiple bombings of that city previously) set them off. We know that opposition forces, especially ISIS have already used chemical weapons in Syria.
Frazzled wrote: Anyone arguing for it when no other nation does something, you betcha. If its not a compelling interest to the US then it should not be done.
I didn't know Neville Chamberlain had relatives in Texas.
PJ: Everything is bigger and better in Texas, including the appeasement.
ME: I don't care about 'whataboutism', I'm here and now. This happened here and now.
I didn't know Neville Chamberlain had relatives in Texas.
If its good enough for George Washington its good enough for me, chickenhawk.
Not exactly the 18th Century, though, now is it? Somehow I don't see GW being afraid of standing up for what's right.
Okay, now I have to walk the dog, so hold the replies for me for 10 minutes, if you would. I'll provide the topic...If George Washington had a Twitter account, would he tweet in the mornings that Martha put too much starch in his uniform? Talk amongst yourselves.
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
It's not WW3 and it's not going to get to WW3. Best case Assad is disposed internally and a more moderate pro Russia despot takes his place. Everyone gets to check off the "regime change" box and we move on. Worst case Russia continues to stand by Assad and we continue with the intermittent bombing anytime Trump thinks popular opinion supports it and political points can be scored. We're not going to actually start a war with a nuclear power over Syria. The juice isn't worth the squeeze for us by a long shot.
Yeah, but that's not really what you've been saying here, is it? You've been ranting on about the escalation scenario when just the opposite is true. The response was measured and it did rattle the saber, which can work just fine, thank you, but you're harping on about US troops strolling through the suburbs of Damascus while drawing down the ire of a nuclear power. THIS WAS A MEASURED RESPONSE TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH ARE A NO-NO TO THE WHOLE FETHING WORLD, not us declaring war on Syria or escalating or taking on Russia. It is what it is, nothing more. Doing nothing in the face of this ultimate atrocity is not an option, frankly. Furthermore...and I don't see how anybody can't see this...I think the Chems were used purposefully because Trump has been vocally "meh" about Syrian involvement/interest. Kind of reminds me when GHWB gave what was interpreted as a verbal green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait. This is the nature of dictators. They're opportunists and have no compulsion about ruthlessness in the execution of the opportunistic nature.
I don't recall Obama launching cruise missiles during the multiple instances of chemical weapon attacks in Syria during the last 6 years. Why was it ok for Obama to not blast Syrian airfields? Did the OT have threads about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria that happened in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016? Why was Trump's attack morally necessary but Obama's inaction acceptable?
Launching an attack against a military base in another sovereign nation is absolutely an act of war. How is the US military deliberately attacking the Syrian military not an act of war?
It's also a possibility that opposition forces were in possession of chemical weapons and conventional bombing by the Syrian air force (which had conducted multiple bombings of that city previously) set them off. We know that opposition forces, especially ISIS have already used chemical weapons in Syria.
Frazzled wrote: Anyone arguing for it when no other nation does something, you betcha. If its not a compelling interest to the US then it should not be done.
I didn't know Neville Chamberlain had relatives in Texas.
PJ: Everything is bigger and better in Texas, including the appeasement.
ME: I don't care about 'whataboutism', I'm here and now. This happened here and now.
How is what I posted "whataboutism'? You seem 100% convinced that Assad was the one who deployed the chemical weapons when we also know for a fact that ISIS has used chemical weapons in Syria. That's not whataboutism, that's reasonable doubt for accepting the narrative of the attack at face value. Likewise, the fact that during THIS SAME CONFLICT Obama, as PotUS chose NOT to launch missiles at Syrian military bases in retaliation for any of the 8+ prior instances when Assad used chemical weapons. The same conflict, that same parties involved, the same atrocity committed yet you want to dismiss it as whataboutism?
BrotherGecko wrote: I can't wait until we target infrastructure in Syria and get a right good ole humanitarian crisis going....for humanity.
I imagine this is a one shot deal. CNN will be showing something else soon enough and distractions from certain..issues had to be done. On the positive it may backfoot NK for a bit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SlaveToDorkness wrote: Because O was a huge simpering vagina when it came to foreign policy?
You have to admit "the Chicago Way" has evolved a bit. It used to be tommy guns from a Model T, now its a your own personal drone straight up de yumpa.
So someone I despise does something I agree with. But its probably for the wrong reasons and is likely to little to late to make a difference other than making the whole mess worse? Gahhh so conflicted
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
It's not WW3 and it's not going to get to WW3. Best case Assad is disposed internally and a more moderate pro Russia despot takes his place. Everyone gets to check off the "regime change" box and we move on. Worst case Russia continues to stand by Assad and we continue with the intermittent bombing anytime Trump thinks popular opinion supports it and political points can be scored. We're not going to actually start a war with a nuclear power over Syria. The juice isn't worth the squeeze for us by a long shot.
Yeah, but that's not really what you've been saying here, is it? You've been ranting on about the escalation scenario when just the opposite is true. The response was measured and it did rattle the saber, which can work just fine, thank you, but you're harping on about US troops strolling through the suburbs of Damascus while drawing down the ire of a nuclear power. THIS WAS A MEASURED RESPONSE TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH ARE A NO-NO TO THE WHOLE FETHING WORLD, not us declaring war on Syria or escalating or taking on Russia. It is what it is, nothing more. Doing nothing in the face of this ultimate atrocity is not an option, frankly. Furthermore...and I don't see how anybody can't see this...I think the Chems were used purposefully because Trump has been vocally "meh" about Syrian involvement/interest. Kind of reminds me when GHWB gave what was interpreted as a verbal green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait. This is the nature of dictators. They're opportunists and have no compulsion about ruthlessness in the execution of the opportunistic nature.
I don't recall Obama launching cruise missiles during the multiple instances of chemical weapon attacks in Syria during the last 6 years. Why was it ok for Obama to not blast Syrian airfields? Did the OT have threads about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria that happened in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016? Why was Trump's attack morally necessary but Obama's inaction acceptable?
Launching an attack against a military base in another sovereign nation is absolutely an act of war. How is the US military deliberately attacking the Syrian military not an act of war?
It's also a possibility that opposition forces were in possession of chemical weapons and conventional bombing by the Syrian air force (which had conducted multiple bombings of that city previously) set them off. We know that opposition forces, especially ISIS have already used chemical weapons in Syria.
Frazzled wrote: Anyone arguing for it when no other nation does something, you betcha. If its not a compelling interest to the US then it should not be done.
I didn't know Neville Chamberlain had relatives in Texas.
PJ: Everything is bigger and better in Texas, including the appeasement.
ME: I don't care about 'whataboutism', I'm here and now. This happened here and now.
[/spoiler]
PJ: How is what I posted "whataboutism'? You seem 100% convinced that Assad was the one who deployed the chemical weapons when we also know for a fact that ISIS has used chemical weapons in Syria. That's not whataboutism, that's reasonable doubt for accepting the narrative of the attack at face value. Likewise, the fact that during THIS SAME CONFLICT Obama, as PotUS chose NOT to launch missiles at Syrian military bases in retaliation for any of the 8+ prior instances when Assad used chemical weapons. The same conflict, that same parties involved, the same atrocity committed yet you want to dismiss it as whataboutism?
ME: Until I hear otherwise, Assad has the history of using Chemical Weapons on his own people and this occurred during a Syrian air strike. I'm not going to guesstimate that something else happened. If it's proven that this is not the case, then my position adapts accordingly. As far as "whataboutism", just park the Obama reference please. That's a whole other argument that goes into the fact that he approached Congress about Syrian actions and was summarily given the big 'No'. So, yeah, whataboutism is relevant and that Obama sidetrack really doesn't hold up. Nor, once again, are we debating the merits of an action by Obama, are we?
GoatboyBeta wrote: So someone I despise does something I agree with. But its probably for the wrong reasons and is likely to little to late to make a difference other than making the whole mess worse? Gahhh so conflicted
I understand the reasons given for making the strike but I'm in the undecided crowd about if it was the correct response. I've been vocal in the past about supporting the Kurds in Iraq and Syria and think that helping them would be the best option for us. I'd honestly like to see President Trump do more on that front than make missile strikes that could end up helping the ISIL types in the area.
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
It's not WW3 and it's not going to get to WW3. Best case Assad is disposed internally and a more moderate pro Russia despot takes his place. Everyone gets to check off the "regime change" box and we move on. Worst case Russia continues to stand by Assad and we continue with the intermittent bombing anytime Trump thinks popular opinion supports it and political points can be scored. We're not going to actually start a war with a nuclear power over Syria. The juice isn't worth the squeeze for us by a long shot.
Yeah, but that's not really what you've been saying here, is it? You've been ranting on about the escalation scenario when just the opposite is true. The response was measured and it did rattle the saber, which can work just fine, thank you, but you're harping on about US troops strolling through the suburbs of Damascus while drawing down the ire of a nuclear power. THIS WAS A MEASURED RESPONSE TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH ARE A NO-NO TO THE WHOLE FETHING WORLD, not us declaring war on Syria or escalating or taking on Russia. It is what it is, nothing more. Doing nothing in the face of this ultimate atrocity is not an option, frankly. Furthermore...and I don't see how anybody can't see this...I think the Chems were used purposefully because Trump has been vocally "meh" about Syrian involvement/interest. Kind of reminds me when GHWB gave what was interpreted as a verbal green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait. This is the nature of dictators. They're opportunists and have no compulsion about ruthlessness in the execution of the opportunistic nature.
I don't recall Obama launching cruise missiles during the multiple instances of chemical weapon attacks in Syria during the last 6 years. Why was it ok for Obama to not blast Syrian airfields? Did the OT have threads about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria that happened in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016? Why was Trump's attack morally necessary but Obama's inaction acceptable?
Launching an attack against a military base in another sovereign nation is absolutely an act of war. How is the US military deliberately attacking the Syrian military not an act of war?
It's also a possibility that opposition forces were in possession of chemical weapons and conventional bombing by the Syrian air force (which had conducted multiple bombings of that city previously) set them off. We know that opposition forces, especially ISIS have already used chemical weapons in Syria.
Frazzled wrote: Anyone arguing for it when no other nation does something, you betcha. If its not a compelling interest to the US then it should not be done.
I didn't know Neville Chamberlain had relatives in Texas.
PJ: Everything is bigger and better in Texas, including the appeasement.
ME: I don't care about 'whataboutism', I'm here and now. This happened here and now.
[/spoiler]
PJ: How is what I posted "whataboutism'? You seem 100% convinced that Assad was the one who deployed the chemical weapons when we also know for a fact that ISIS has used chemical weapons in Syria. That's not whataboutism, that's reasonable doubt for accepting the narrative of the attack at face value. Likewise, the fact that during THIS SAME CONFLICT Obama, as PotUS chose NOT to launch missiles at Syrian military bases in retaliation for any of the 8+ prior instances when Assad used chemical weapons. The same conflict, that same parties involved, the same atrocity committed yet you want to dismiss it as whataboutism?
ME: Until I hear otherwise, Assad has the history of using Chemical Weapons on his own people and this occurred during a Syrian air strike. I'm not going to guesstimate that something else happened. If it's proven that this is not the case, then my position adapts accordingly. As far as "whataboutism", just park the Obama reference please. That's a whole other argument that goes into the fact that he approached Congress about Syrian actions and was summarily given the big 'No'. So, yeah, whataboutism is relevant and that Obama sidetrack really doesn't hold up. Nor, once again, are we debating the merits of an action by Obama, are we?
We're discussing Trump's decision to attack a Syrian military installation and your support for that action. The support you are lending to the current PotUS is based on the same arguments used to criticize the previous PotUS that you liked but didn't condemn. I didn't condemn Obama'-s inaction either but I'm not praising Trump's action now.
I'm trying to impose some consistency onto your argument regarding the point in contention, that Trump had to act NOW. I don't think he did and I think it is pertinent to point out that in the previous instances of this same atrocity in the same conflict in the same theater the PotUS/US didn't respond with an attack against Syrian military installations. IMHO acts of war should only be ordered after Congress issues a declaration of war s that the PotUS acts with the consent of the people. I don't think anything in this most recent incidence of a chemical weapon attack by Assad (I'll agree to concede to your point to accept the official story until proven otherwise to resolve that tangent) had any significant difference to previous ones that warrant a different response. I don't see why you think this incidence requires a new and escalated retaliation.
GoatboyBeta wrote: So someone I despise does something I agree with. But its probably for the wrong reasons and is likely to little to late to make a difference other than making the whole mess worse? Gahhh so conflicted
I understand the reasons given for making the strike but I'm in the undecided crowd about if it was the correct response. I've been vocal in the past about supporting the Kurds in Iraq and Syria and think that helping them would be the best option for us. I'd honestly like to see President Trump do more on that front than make missile strikes that could end up helping the ISIL types in the area.
Helping the Kurds creates the problem that neither the govt in Iraq that we helped found and still support or the increasingly theocratic govt in Turkey our NATO ally want to cede any land to the sovereignty of the Kurds but creating a Kurdistan is a primary Kurdish goal.
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
It's not WW3 and it's not going to get to WW3. Best case Assad is disposed internally and a more moderate pro Russia despot takes his place. Everyone gets to check off the "regime change" box and we move on. Worst case Russia continues to stand by Assad and we continue with the intermittent bombing anytime Trump thinks popular opinion supports it and political points can be scored. We're not going to actually start a war with a nuclear power over Syria. The juice isn't worth the squeeze for us by a long shot.
Yeah, but that's not really what you've been saying here, is it? You've been ranting on about the escalation scenario when just the opposite is true. The response was measured and it did rattle the saber, which can work just fine, thank you, but you're harping on about US troops strolling through the suburbs of Damascus while drawing down the ire of a nuclear power. THIS WAS A MEASURED RESPONSE TO THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS WHICH ARE A NO-NO TO THE WHOLE FETHING WORLD, not us declaring war on Syria or escalating or taking on Russia. It is what it is, nothing more. Doing nothing in the face of this ultimate atrocity is not an option, frankly. Furthermore...and I don't see how anybody can't see this...I think the Chems were used purposefully because Trump has been vocally "meh" about Syrian involvement/interest. Kind of reminds me when GHWB gave what was interpreted as a verbal green light to Saddam to invade Kuwait. This is the nature of dictators. They're opportunists and have no compulsion about ruthlessness in the execution of the opportunistic nature.
I don't recall Obama launching cruise missiles during the multiple instances of chemical weapon attacks in Syria during the last 6 years. Why was it ok for Obama to not blast Syrian airfields? Did the OT have threads about the chemical weapons attacks in Syria that happened in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016? Why was Trump's attack morally necessary but Obama's inaction acceptable?
Launching an attack against a military base in another sovereign nation is absolutely an act of war. How is the US military deliberately attacking the Syrian military not an act of war?
It's also a possibility that opposition forces were in possession of chemical weapons and conventional bombing by the Syrian air force (which had conducted multiple bombings of that city previously) set them off. We know that opposition forces, especially ISIS have already used chemical weapons in Syria.
Frazzled wrote: Anyone arguing for it when no other nation does something, you betcha. If its not a compelling interest to the US then it should not be done.
I didn't know Neville Chamberlain had relatives in Texas.
PJ: Everything is bigger and better in Texas, including the appeasement.
ME: I don't care about 'whataboutism', I'm here and now. This happened here and now.
[/spoiler]
PJ: How is what I posted "whataboutism'? You seem 100% convinced that Assad was the one who deployed the chemical weapons when we also know for a fact that ISIS has used chemical weapons in Syria. That's not whataboutism, that's reasonable doubt for accepting the narrative of the attack at face value. Likewise, the fact that during THIS SAME CONFLICT Obama, as PotUS chose NOT to launch missiles at Syrian military bases in retaliation for any of the 8+ prior instances when Assad used chemical weapons. The same conflict, that same parties involved, the same atrocity committed yet you want to dismiss it as whataboutism?
ME: Until I hear otherwise, Assad has the history of using Chemical Weapons on his own people and this occurred during a Syrian air strike. I'm not going to guesstimate that something else happened. If it's proven that this is not the case, then my position adapts accordingly. As far as "whataboutism", just park the Obama reference please. That's a whole other argument that goes into the fact that he approached Congress about Syrian actions and was summarily given the big 'No'. So, yeah, whataboutism is relevant and that Obama sidetrack really doesn't hold up. Nor, once again, are we debating the merits of an action by Obama, are we?
PJ: We're discussing Trump's decision to attack a Syrian military installation and your support for that action. The support you are lending to the current PotUS is based on the same arguments used to criticize the previous PotUS that you liked but didn't condemn. I didn't condemn Obama'-s inaction either but I'm not praising Trump's action now.
I'm trying to impose some consistency onto your argument regarding the point in contention, that Trump had to act NOW. I don't think he did and I think it is pertinent to point out that in the previous instances of this same atrocity in the same conflict in the same theater the PotUS/US didn't respond with an attack against Syrian military installations. IMHO acts of war should only be ordered after Congress issues a declaration of war s that the PotUS acts with the consent of the people. I don't think anything in this most recent incidence of a chemical weapon attack by Assad (I'll agree to concede to your point to accept the official story until proven otherwise to resolve that tangent) had any significant difference to previous ones that warrant a different response. I don't see why you think this incidence requires a new and escalated retaliation.
.
ME: What the hell are you talking about? Consistency? Fine, let's do the "whataboutism" shuffle *sigh*. Obama wanted to do...and should have done...exactly what Trump did. Chemical weapons use, or any other WMD use, is a red line that shouldn't be crossed without consequences. Obama had ships deployed and positioned in the Med to strike after Assad's use of Chemical Weapons but he backed down in the face of Congressional opposition. So instead, he then chose the route of backing the...obviously now, alleged...Russian agreement to get Syria to dismantle it's Chemical stockpile. He should have hit Assad then as Trump has hit him now. A measured, precision hit that targeted the airfield where the alleged planes that conducted the strike took off from.
ME(I suck at editing): Who's gone to war? We declared war? This was a measured response to a specific action.
we didnt declare war in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea, Panama, etc either...
And for the last time, if you don't get the whole concept of WMD's being categorically different and condemned in the eyes of the entire world than conventional warfare, then you're not getting the point and purpose of the action, or this thread.
I get that people treat them differently, but I also understand why and its not really just because "oh theyre so bad" relative to other weapons.
I also get that Assad has done much worse, violating other taboos and treaties and the like, repeatedly, and there was never any talk of bombings or missiles or sending in troops or red lines.
Your response has just been "everyone signed papers that says chemical weapons are bad", and I get that, but they also said as much about bombing civilians, bull dozing them alive, torturing them, killing prisoners, starving them to death, etc. What makes gas so special as to illicit this response when the others did not?
I'm not debating that chemical weapons are seen as taboo and bad. Im not debating that Assad is a bad dude for doing these things. Im arguing that choosing this to act on over dozens of other equally or even more horrifying things is opportunistically arbitrary, being seized on for no real reason over anything else.
GoatboyBeta wrote: So someone I despise does something I agree with. But its probably for the wrong reasons and is likely to little to late to make a difference other than making the whole mess worse? Gahhh so conflicted
I understand the reasons given for making the strike but I'm in the undecided crowd about if it was the correct response. I've been vocal in the past about supporting the Kurds in Iraq and Syria and think that helping them would be the best option for us. I'd honestly like to see President Trump do more on that front than make missile strikes that could end up helping the ISIL types in the area.
Helping the Kurds creates the problem that neither the govt in Iraq that we helped found and still support or the increasingly theocratic govt in Turkey our NATO ally want to cede any land to the sovereignty of the Kurds but creating a Kurdistan is a primary Kurdish goal.
This is very true. I guess I stand apart from US foreign policy in that I actually wouldn't mind seeing a Kurdish state created. It seems the best outcome given the (lack of) character of our other allies in the immediate region.
ME(I suck at editing): Who's gone to war? We declared war? This was a measured response to a specific action.
we didnt declare war in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea, Panama, etc either...
And for the last time, if you don't get the whole concept of WMD's being categorically different and condemned in the eyes of the entire world than conventional warfare, then you're not getting the point and purpose of the action, or this thread.
I get that people treat them differently, but I also understand why and its not really just because "oh theyre so bad" relative to other weapons.
I also get that Assad has done much worse, violating other taboos and treaties and the like, repeatedly, and there was never any talk of bombings or missiles or sending in troops or red lines.
Your response has just been "everyone signed papers that says chemical weapons are bad", and I get that, but they also said as much about bombing civilians, bull dozing them alive, torturing them, killing prisoners, starving them to death, etc. What makes gas so special as to illicit this response when the others did not?
I'm not debating that chemical weapons are seen as taboo and bad. Im not debating that Assad is a bad dude for doing these things. Im arguing that choosing this to act on over dozens of other equally or even more horrifying things is opportunistically arbitrary, being seized on for no real reason over anything else.
"Opportunistically arbitrary"...You just do not get it...at all.
GoatboyBeta wrote: So someone I despise does something I agree with. But its probably for the wrong reasons and is likely to little to late to make a difference other than making the whole mess worse? Gahhh so conflicted
I understand the reasons given for making the strike but I'm in the undecided crowd about if it was the correct response. I've been vocal in the past about supporting the Kurds in Iraq and Syria and think that helping them would be the best option for us. I'd honestly like to see President Trump do more on that front than make missile strikes that could end up helping the ISIL types in the area.
Helping the Kurds creates the problem that neither the govt in Iraq that we helped found and still support or the increasingly theocratic govt in Turkey our NATO ally want to cede any land to the sovereignty of the Kurds but creating a Kurdistan is a primary Kurdish goal.
This is very true. I guess I stand apart from US foreign policy in that I actually wouldn't mind seeing a Kurdish state created. It seems the best outcome given the (lack of) character of our other allies in the immediate region.
Going to Iraq and Turkey and telling them we're taking their land and giving it to the Kurds because we decided that's best is a very heavy handed approach that would damage our influence in the region create more ill will towards us and be eerily similar to how the U.K. Decision to carve up the ME back in the day helped entrench all the instability in the region.
ME(I suck at editing): Who's gone to war? We declared war? This was a measured response to a specific action.
we didnt declare war in Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Korea, Panama, etc either...
And for the last time, if you don't get the whole concept of WMD's being categorically different and condemned in the eyes of the entire world than conventional warfare, then you're not getting the point and purpose of the action, or this thread.
I get that people treat them differently, but I also understand why and its not really just because "oh theyre so bad" relative to other weapons.
I also get that Assad has done much worse, violating other taboos and treaties and the like, repeatedly, and there was never any talk of bombings or missiles or sending in troops or red lines.
Your response has just been "everyone signed papers that says chemical weapons are bad", and I get that, but they also said as much about bombing civilians, bull dozing them alive, torturing them, killing prisoners, starving them to death, etc. What makes gas so special as to illicit this response when the others did not?
I'm not debating that chemical weapons are seen as taboo and bad. Im not debating that Assad is a bad dude for doing these things. Im arguing that choosing this to act on over dozens of other equally or even more horrifying things is opportunistically arbitrary, being seized on for no real reason over anything else.
"Opportunistically arbitrary"...You just do not get it...at all.
I guess not.
Answer this question. What about small scale use of chemical weapon is so much worse than any of the other stuff that has been listed, that it deserves or requires this response?
Are they more horrific than other weapons? Do they induce greater suffering? Do they kill more people? Not really.
Are they against more treaties or declarations or statements than any one of tens of thousands of other crimes comitted by Assads regime? Nope.
Are those uses of chemical weapons some sort of threat to the US or other nations? Nope.
What makes the small scale use of chemical weapons in this case deserving of a military response where horrific torture, mass murder, explosive and incendiary bombing of civilians, etc did not?
Is there reason to believe that Trump's missile salvo will have a lasting tangible impact on the further use of chemical weapons? Is this the action that finally teaches Assad or his generals the lesson not to do it again or do we think we'll see chemical weapons deployed again in the future?
Answer this question. What about small scale use of chemical weapon is so much worse than any of the other stuff that has been listed, that it deserves or requires this response? Yes. Allowed and it creates a precedent for WMD usage.
Are they more horrific than other weapons? Do they induce greater suffering? Do they kill more people? Not really. Are you kidding? Yes, for feth's sake, yes.
Are they against more treaties or declarations or statements than any one of tens of thousands of other crimes comitted by Assads regime? Nope. You're missing the point. There's these other things called "war crimes", equally condemned by the international community and they have a dedicated means of being addressed as well.
Are those uses of chemical weapons some sort of threat to the US or other nations? Nope. That's a pretty weak litmus test. Ever heard of the Sarin attacks in Japan?
What makes the small scale use of chemical weapons in this case deserving of a military response where horrific torture, mass murder, explosive and incendiary bombing of civilians, etc did not? It's "small scale", so who cares. I'm pretty sure any of these gas attack victims will say there's no such thing as a "small" whiff of Sarin. Come on! Enough with the laundry list of horrors, nobody is lessening them, but we're talking exclusively about the use of WMD's.
Nope, you just don't get it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Prestor Jon wrote: Is there reason to believe that Trump's missile salvo will have a lasting tangible impact on the further use of chemical weapons? Is this the action that finally teaches Assad or his generals the lesson not to do it again or do we think we'll see chemical weapons deployed again in the future?
I can tell you for certain how not responding has worked.*
Are they more horrific? Moreso than burning alive? Moreso than bleeding to death for hours with ruptured organs and shattered bones from gunfire? Moreso than having your body torn to pieces by explosives? Moreso than being bulldozed or run over by a tank while alive? Moreso than starving to death amidst the corpses of your friends, family and the rubble of your home? Moreso than being buried alive?
That would seem to be a rather subjective issue in such light.
Do they induce greater suffering? Again, next to the common deaths above...probably not.
Do they kill more people than other weapons? There is 0 data to suppport that position, and lots that says exactly the opposite. Their effect is primarily psychological, not that they kill great loads of people. Casualties ascribed to gas are amongst some of the lowest kill rates of major weapons systems in WW1 for instance. Gas is nasty, but the biggest practical effect is not the casualties, it is forcing the burden of protective measures and their associated costs and enforced inefficiencies that really have thr biggest impact.
So, no, I'm not kidding.
[/b] Are they against more treaties or declarations or statements than any one of tens of thousands of other crimes comitted by Assads regime? Nope.
You're so wrong. There's these other things called "war crimes", equally condemned by the international community and they have a dedicated means of being addressed as well.
aaaand how are those war crimes different than this war crime? This is the fundamental point you are dancing around and not directly addressing. They're all war crimes. What makes chemical weapons use worse than any number of other things Assad has done?
Are those uses of chemical weapons some sort of threat to the US or other nations? Nope.
Unbelievably weak litmus test. Ever heard of the Sarin attacks in Japan?
I have, what does Assads use of such weapons have to do with a gas attack on the other side of the planet 20 years ago?
It's "small scale", so who cares. Say, why not take just a small whiff of Sarin and tell me what you think?
you are intentionally misrepresenting what I meant by "small scale".
My point was that there is no appearance that this was conclusively done by Assad (wouldnt be the first time the US got it wrong on WMD's...), or that it is a coherent and organized method of attack by Assads forces in widespread use and operation as standard procedure. It could be a rogue commander, it could.be a false flag, it could be any number of things, and in long brutal conflicts all sorts of terrible things tend to get used and done at least a few times even if its not on direct higher command from the top.
Unlike dropping barrel bombs on apartment blocks and shelling towns and butchering prisoners and torture by the state security services, all of which are widespread organized practices by the Assad regime, that nobody saw fit to use military force to stop, and all of which are just as much against international law and agreements.
Nope, you just don't get it.
No, you're just refusing to directly address my point by pivoting to moral outrage instead of answering why chemical weapons use is so much worse than just shooting and bombing civilians to death was...
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
As opposed to parroting that 70 year old Big Lie of "isolationism".
The United States has never been, nor ever will be, an "isolationist" nation.
The correct term for our stance prior to World War II was non-interventionist under the guise of neutrality. With some exceptions, like problems south of the border (on our very doorstep), our stance was similar to Switzerland and Sweden on the world stage. As opposed to being like North Korea, the closest thing in the world today to being a true isolationist power.
That being said, if Syria was a signatory nation to any international treaties barring use of chemical warfare, then I would say that this surgical strike was justified. If not, then it was an act of aggression on the part of the United States.
Prestor Jon wrote: Is there reason to believe that Trump's missile salvo will have a lasting tangible impact on the further use of chemical weapons? Is this the action that finally teaches Assad or his generals the lesson not to do it again or do we think we'll see chemical weapons deployed again in the future?
I can tell you for certain how not responding has worked.*
*Please see story behind thread.
So now the argument is that ineffectual $100 million missile salvos are more meaningful than ineffectual economic sanctions? Although it is nice to see you admit that we chose not to respond with cruise missile for any of the previous 8+ chemical attacks over the last 6 years. I guess those attacks were somehow less awful than this one.
Something that concerns me greatly about all this is that we don't know exactly who dropped the gas.
I mean, it was someone with access to fighter jets and weapons-grade chemical weapons, which does eliminate some factions (ISIS, for example).
But the fact that we started bombing before the culprit was determined is pretty irresponsible, to me.
And it's certainly possible the US military knows something I don't about the attack, but from my point of view it seems we started bombing before we knew for certain who did it.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Something that concerns me greatly about all this is that we don't know exactly who dropped the gas.
I mean, it was someone with access to fighter jets and weapons-grade chemical weapons, which does eliminate some factions (ISIS, for example).
But the fact that we started bombing before the culprit was determined is pretty irresponsible, to me.
And it's certainly possible the US military knows something I don't about the attack, but from my point of view it seems we started bombing before we knew for certain who did it.
That issue is going to likely continue, intelligence and military sources are not going to go to open press to tell what and how we know. Targets are usually very carefully selected. Consider also that Russia is present in Syria and in force. They have very capable forces themselves, I would not be at all surprised if they were not only informed ahead of time but also "on board" with the issue. There is just so much that the public will never know about this.
Are they more horrific? Moreso than burning alive? Moreso than bleeding to death for hours with ruptured organs and shattered bones from gunfire? Moreso than having your body torn to pieces by explosives? Moreso than being bulldozed or run over by a tank while alive? Moreso than starving to death amidst the corpses of your friends, family and the rubble of your home? Moreso than being buried alive?
That would seem to be a rather subjective issue in such light.
Do they induce greater suffering? Again, next to the common deaths above...probably not.
Do they kill more people than other weapons? There is 0 data to suppport that position, and lots that says exactly the opposite. Their effect is primarily psychological, not that they kill great loads of people. Casualties ascribed to gas are amongst some of the lowest kill rates of major weapons systems in WW1 for instance. Gas is nasty, but the biggest practical effect is not the casualties, it is forcing the burden of protective measures and their associated costs and enforced inefficiencies that really have thr biggest impact.
So, no, I'm not kidding.
[/b] Are they against more treaties or declarations or statements than any one of tens of thousands of other crimes comitted by Assads regime? Nope.
You're so wrong. There's these other things called "war crimes", equally condemned by the international community and they have a dedicated means of being addressed as well.
aaaand how are those war crimes different than this war crime? This is the fundamental point you are dancing around and not directly addressing. They're all war crimes. What makes chemical weapons use worse than any number of other things Assad has done?
Are those uses of chemical weapons some sort of threat to the US or other nations? Nope.
Unbelievably weak litmus test. Ever heard of the Sarin attacks in Japan?
I have, what does Assads use of such weapons have to do with a gas attack on the other side of the planet 20 years ago?
It's "small scale", so who cares. Say, why not take just a small whiff of Sarin and tell me what you think?
you are intentionally misrepresenting what I meant by "small scale".
My point was that there is no appearance that this was conclusively done by Assad (wouldnt be the first time the US got it wrong on WMD's...), or that it is a coherent and organized method of attack by Assads forces in widespread use and operation as standard procedure. It could be a rogue commander, it could.be a false flag, it could be any number of things, and in long brutal conflicts all sorts of terrible things tend to get used and done at least a few times even if its not on direct higher command from the top.
Unlike dropping barrel bombs on apartment blocks and shelling towns and butchering prisoners and torture by the state security services, all of which are widespread organized practices by the Assad regime, that nobody saw fit to use military force to stop, and all of which are just as much against international law and agreements.
Nope, you just don't get it.
No, you're just refusing to directly address my point by pivoting to moral outrage instead of answering why chemical weapons use is so much worse than just shooting and bombing civilians to death was...
Your "point"? What point? It doesn't exist because your discussion is, at best, OT to this thread. Your obsession with the whole "barrel bombs", "buried alive", "bulldozed" has done nothing but diminish your attempt at any point, if you had one, because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD. Please re-read the title for reference. You think those matters you mention deserve a more stepped up response? Fine, THEN PUT IT IN A DEDICATED THREAD and let's debate it! We're talking EXCLUSIVELY about the thread title response to a specific action. You're throwing around everything but the kitchen sink that's happened in Syria and actually trying to rationally debate...unbelievably...whether other means kill more or cause more suffering than a chemical attack. What the feth! The sheer absurdity of that endeavor boggles my mind, not to mention it has nothing to do with the subject...again!
What is it that you just don't get about the fact that the weapon used relevant to THIS TOPIC was a condemned WMD? The allowing of such weapon usage undermines years of international efforts to eliminate said weapons and sets a precedent for use by other rogue states and dictators down the road. It's that simple, for God's sake.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Something that concerns me greatly about all this is that we don't know exactly who dropped the gas.
I mean, it was someone with access to fighter jets and weapons-grade chemical weapons, which does eliminate some factions (ISIS, for example).
But the fact that we started bombing before the culprit was determined is pretty irresponsible, to me.
And it's certainly possible the US military knows something I don't about the attack, but from my point of view it seems we started bombing before we knew for certain who did it.
That issue is going to likely continue, intelligence and military sources are not going to go to open press to tell what and how we know. Targets are usually very carefully selected. Consider also that Russia is present in Syria and in force. They have very capable forces themselves, I would not be at all surprised if they were not only informed ahead of time but also "on board" with the issue. There is just so much that the public will never know about this.
That's true, I'm sure there's all sorts of things we'll never know about what's going on.
What also concerns me is, while I don't often find myself sympathizing with alt-right news stories, if you put on your tinfoil hat and tilt it juuuuuust right, it is not inconceivable that an anti-assad faction could have carried out such an attack to draw the US onto their side. Because assad is winning, last I checked (at least, he recaptured Aleppo), and reprehensible as gassing civilians is, it could be seen as a desperate move on the part of anti-assad forces to get the US as an unwitting ally.
I would make a certain amount of sense, if you were an awful person.
And I don't know if that's what happened, I'd definitely say it's unlikely. But I sure hope military intelligence knows a whole lot more about who did this than I do.
Kap'n Krump wrote: Something that concerns me greatly about all this is that we don't know exactly who dropped the gas.
I mean, it was someone with access to fighter jets and weapons-grade chemical weapons, which does eliminate some factions (ISIS, for example).
But the fact that we started bombing before the culprit was determined is pretty irresponsible, to me.
And it's certainly possible the US military knows something I don't about the attack, but from my point of view it seems we started bombing before we knew for certain who did it.
That issue is going to likely continue, intelligence and military sources are not going to go to open press to tell what and how we know. Targets are usually very carefully selected. Consider also that Russia is present in Syria and in force. They have very capable forces themselves, I would not be at all surprised if they were not only informed ahead of time but also "on board" with the issue. There is just so much that the public will never know about this.
This. It's a good rule of thumb to live by for those who follow the news on this sort of thing.
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
As opposed to parroting that 70 year old Big Lie of "isolationism".
The United States has never been, nor ever will be, an "isolationist" nation.
The correct term for our stance prior to World War II was non-interventionist under the guise of neutrality. With some exceptions, like problems south of the border (on our very doorstep), our stance was similar to Switzerland and Sweden on the world stage. As opposed to being like North Korea, the closest thing in the world today to being a true isolationist power.
That being said, if Syria was a signatory nation to any international treaties barring use of chemical warfare, then I would say that this surgical strike was justified. If not, then it was an act of aggression on the part of the United States.
There's an extremely fine line between isolationism and non-interventionism, and that line is blurry...at best...in an awful lot of spots. That's a whole other debate that has points on both sides.
As far as Syria and agreements barring chemical weapons. Answered and posted previously in this thread. Hint: The answer is "yes", they've participated and that's not mentioning their agreement...and subsequent, obvious non-compliance...to the terms of the 2013 Russia-brokered agreement that required Syria "not to develop, produce, retain or use chemical weapons or toxic chemicals as weapons."
Are they more horrific? Moreso than burning alive? Moreso than bleeding to death for hours with ruptured organs and shattered bones from gunfire? Moreso than having your body torn to pieces by explosives? Moreso than being bulldozed or run over by a tank while alive? Moreso than starving to death amidst the corpses of your friends, family and the rubble of your home? Moreso than being buried alive?
That would seem to be a rather subjective issue in such light.
Do they induce greater suffering? Again, next to the common deaths above...probably not.
Do they kill more people than other weapons? There is 0 data to suppport that position, and lots that says exactly the opposite. Their effect is primarily psychological, not that they kill great loads of people. Casualties ascribed to gas are amongst some of the lowest kill rates of major weapons systems in WW1 for instance. Gas is nasty, but the biggest practical effect is not the casualties, it is forcing the burden of protective measures and their associated costs and enforced inefficiencies that really have thr biggest impact.
So, no, I'm not kidding.
[/b] Are they against more treaties or declarations or statements than any one of tens of thousands of other crimes comitted by Assads regime? Nope.
You're so wrong. There's these other things called "war crimes", equally condemned by the international community and they have a dedicated means of being addressed as well.
aaaand how are those war crimes different than this war crime? This is the fundamental point you are dancing around and not directly addressing. They're all war crimes. What makes chemical weapons use worse than any number of other things Assad has done?
Are those uses of chemical weapons some sort of threat to the US or other nations? Nope.
Unbelievably weak litmus test. Ever heard of the Sarin attacks in Japan?
I have, what does Assads use of such weapons have to do with a gas attack on the other side of the planet 20 years ago?
It's "small scale", so who cares. Say, why not take just a small whiff of Sarin and tell me what you think?
you are intentionally misrepresenting what I meant by "small scale".
My point was that there is no appearance that this was conclusively done by Assad (wouldnt be the first time the US got it wrong on WMD's...), or that it is a coherent and organized method of attack by Assads forces in widespread use and operation as standard procedure. It could be a rogue commander, it could.be a false flag, it could be any number of things, and in long brutal conflicts all sorts of terrible things tend to get used and done at least a few times even if its not on direct higher command from the top.
Unlike dropping barrel bombs on apartment blocks and shelling towns and butchering prisoners and torture by the state security services, all of which are widespread organized practices by the Assad regime, that nobody saw fit to use military force to stop, and all of which are just as much against international law and agreements.
Nope, you just don't get it.
No, you're just refusing to directly address my point by pivoting to moral outrage instead of answering why chemical weapons use is so much worse than just shooting and bombing civilians to death was...
Your "point"? What point?
The point I have reiterated in every post, what made the use of gas special and worthy of military response when other actions, equally horrific and illegal and often conducted on larger scales, did not? And, implied in that question is what is such action actually going to accomplish, and what might the repercussions be given that we still havent extricated ourselves from the last middleast WMD fiasco.
It doesn't exist because your discussion is, at best, OT to this thread.
Again, you are avoiding directly addressing my argument, and are just declaring it something you feel comfortable handwaving away.
Your obsession with the whole "barrel bombs", "buried alive", "bulldozed" has done nothing but diminish your attempt at any point, if you had one, because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD.
That thread discussing illegal acts of war inviting a military response? I would think asking why one instance invites the response but others do not is perfectly suitable for such discussion.
I'm not the one that entered the conversation tossing insults and accusations of cowardice at people who wondered if military action was appopriate. That is what I am attempting to debate.
Please re-read the title for reference. You think those matters you mention deserve a more stepped up response? Fine, THEN PUT IT IN A DEDICATED THREAD! We're talking EXCLUSIVELY about the thread title response to a specific action.
If you feel that way then hit the report button and let a mod take care of it. Capslock is also not a great argumentation tool.
You're throwing around everything but the kitchen sink that's happened in Syria and actually trying to rationally debate...unbelievably...whether other means kill more or cause more suffering than a chemical attack. What the feth! The sheer absurdity of that endeavor boggles my mind
Perhaps because you're caught up in far more emotion about this.
People are being killed by weapons in Syria.
Nobody is denying this.
We are now engaging in military action in Syria because of one specific type of weapon used in small scale attacks for which we have very limited information.
Engaging in military action in Syria has potentially gigantic consequences, from another decade or more of Iraq-esque quagmire up to and including nuclear confrontation with other interested powers. What makes the type of weapon used for killing people in Syra in these instances so outrageous over other weapons and acts committed by Syria that it necessitates risking those consequences where those others did not?
I have not seen any response except "but treaties" which didnt seem good enough for other atrocities in violation of such, and, as above, simple apoplexy assuming the truth of your own premise that does not actually address any of the points on the horrific nature, battlefield effectiveness, etc of such illicit weapons, that other weapons and acts used and committed daily in Syria possess.
What is it that you just don't get about the fact that the weapon used relevant to THIS TOPIC was a condemned WMD?
I have never refuted that. I feel like I've said this before.
The allowing of such weapon usage undermines years of international efforts to eliminate said weapons and sets a precedent for use by other rogue states and dictators down the road. It's that simple, for God's sake.
And my counterpoint is that we have very little trustable information on this incident, and nobody seemed to think any number of other horrific acts just as unilaterally condemned and committed on far wider scales was worth fighting over, and what makes this incident more special than those?
So Trumps motivation for giving the ok on this? Being charitable, his briefing probably included video footage(apparently he doesn't like lots of reading and responds well to TV) of the victims just after the attack. This brought home the reality the situation in Syria to him and he decided to act.
Being less charitable Trump and his advisers saw an opportunity for a domestic distraction even better than tweeting about wire taps
Kap'n Krump wrote: Something that concerns me greatly about all this is that we don't know exactly who dropped the gas.
I mean, it was someone with access to fighter jets and weapons-grade chemical weapons, which does eliminate some factions (ISIS, for example).
But the fact that we started bombing before the culprit was determined is pretty irresponsible, to me.
And it's certainly possible the US military knows something I don't about the attack, but from my point of view it seems we started bombing before we knew for certain who did it.
That issue is going to likely continue, intelligence and military sources are not going to go to open press to tell what and how we know. Targets are usually very carefully selected. Consider also that Russia is present in Syria and in force. They have very capable forces themselves, I would not be at all surprised if they were not only informed ahead of time but also "on board" with the issue. There is just so much that the public will never know about this.
That's true, I'm sure there's all sorts of things we'll never know about what's going on.
What also concerns me is, while I don't often find myself sympathizing with alt-right news stories, if you put on your tinfoil hat and tilt it juuuuuust right, it is not inconceivable that an anti-assad faction could have carried out such an attack to draw the US onto their side. Because assad is winning, last I checked (at least, he recaptured Aleppo), and reprehensible as gassing civilians is, it could be seen as a desperate move on the part of anti-assad forces to get the US as an unwitting ally.
I would make a certain amount of sense, if you were an awful person.
From what reporting is saying, the attack would have had to come from an aircraft (the Soviets did at one time have shells capable of attacks for launching gas, and I believe but am not certain that the bulk of chemical attacks in WW1 were also artillery launched) which would mean an aircraft capable of launching them (which is admittedly just about anything that can fly) but would most likely be either a Russian or Syrian Air Force plane. I do not think the Russians would do it. The Syrian Air Force is capable since they fly similar planes. The Flogger, Fitter, and some Fishbed are able to do ground attack. I think the chemical strike was a miscalculation (unfortunately a LOT of bad wars are started that way) or perhaps even a test of resolve. The response being "proportional" would be the destruction of the airfield that launched the attack, but airfields are not critical to operations, most of those planes are just fine using a long stretch of highway. If I were a betting man, I would say likely an L-39 Albatross dropped the round, assuming it hit with any accuracy the intended target, which for iron bombs could be grossly inaccurate, the L-39 is a slow plane. It is also likely that target they were aiming at (maybe an insurgent or ISIS held area nearby) was missed. I would like to see more come out, especially without the rhetoric of the right and left.
They have indisputable proof that it came from a Syrian plane.
What makes the use of sarin gas so heinous is what it does...
It stops the enzyme that breaks down a nerve-signaling molecule from working, so nerves keep on firing all over the body.
Clinically, this results in a slow heart rate, plus liquids coming out of every orifice they can: vomit, urine, diarrhea, tears, drool. What kills you is the asphyxiation.
To be clear: it doesn't cause unconsciousness. You'd be awake as you're peeing, pooping, and slowly suffocating.
It's use is truly barbaric and it's damage is more than just conventional weapons... its use is to terrorizethe people.
Are they more horrific? Moreso than burning alive? Moreso than bleeding to death for hours with ruptured organs and shattered bones from gunfire? Moreso than having your body torn to pieces by explosives? Moreso than being bulldozed or run over by a tank while alive? Moreso than starving to death amidst the corpses of your friends, family and the rubble of your home? Moreso than being buried alive?
That would seem to be a rather subjective issue in such light.
Do they induce greater suffering? Again, next to the common deaths above...probably not.
Do they kill more people than other weapons? There is 0 data to suppport that position, and lots that says exactly the opposite. Their effect is primarily psychological, not that they kill great loads of people. Casualties ascribed to gas are amongst some of the lowest kill rates of major weapons systems in WW1 for instance. Gas is nasty, but the biggest practical effect is not the casualties, it is forcing the burden of protective measures and their associated costs and enforced inefficiencies that really have thr biggest impact.
So, no, I'm not kidding.
[/b] Are they against more treaties or declarations or statements than any one of tens of thousands of other crimes comitted by Assads regime? Nope.
You're so wrong. There's these other things called "war crimes", equally condemned by the international community and they have a dedicated means of being addressed as well.
aaaand how are those war crimes different than this war crime? This is the fundamental point you are dancing around and not directly addressing. They're all war crimes. What makes chemical weapons use worse than any number of other things Assad has done?
Are those uses of chemical weapons some sort of threat to the US or other nations? Nope.
Unbelievably weak litmus test. Ever heard of the Sarin attacks in Japan?
I have, what does Assads use of such weapons have to do with a gas attack on the other side of the planet 20 years ago?
It's "small scale", so who cares. Say, why not take just a small whiff of Sarin and tell me what you think?
you are intentionally misrepresenting what I meant by "small scale".
My point was that there is no appearance that this was conclusively done by Assad (wouldnt be the first time the US got it wrong on WMD's...), or that it is a coherent and organized method of attack by Assads forces in widespread use and operation as standard procedure. It could be a rogue commander, it could.be a false flag, it could be any number of things, and in long brutal conflicts all sorts of terrible things tend to get used and done at least a few times even if its not on direct higher command from the top.
Unlike dropping barrel bombs on apartment blocks and shelling towns and butchering prisoners and torture by the state security services, all of which are widespread organized practices by the Assad regime, that nobody saw fit to use military force to stop, and all of which are just as much against international law and agreements.
Nope, you just don't get it.
No, you're just refusing to directly address my point by pivoting to moral outrage instead of answering why chemical weapons use is so much worse than just shooting and bombing civilians to death was...
Your "point"? What point?
The point I have reiterated in every post, what made the use of gas special and worthy of military response when other actions, equally horrific and illegal and often conducted on larger scales, did not? And, implied in that question is what is such action actually going to accomplish, and what might the repercussions be given that we still havent extricated ourselves from the last middleast WMD fiasco.
It doesn't exist because your discussion is, at best, OT to this thread.
Again, you are avoiding directly addressing my argument, and are just declaring it something you feel comfortable handwaving away.
Your obsession with the whole "barrel bombs", "buried alive", "bulldozed" has done nothing but diminish your attempt at any point, if you had one, because it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD.
That thread discussing illegal acts of war inviting a military response? I would think asking why one instance invites the response but others do not is perfectly suitable for such discussion.
I'm not the one that entered the conversation tossing insults and accusations of cowardice at people who wondered if military action was appopriate. That is what I am attempting to debate.
Please re-read the title for reference. You think those matters you mention deserve a more stepped up response? Fine, THEN PUT IT IN A DEDICATED THREAD! We're talking EXCLUSIVELY about the thread title response to a specific action.
If you feel that way then hit the report button and let a mod take care of it. Capslock is also not a great argumentation tool.
You're throwing around everything but the kitchen sink that's happened in Syria and actually trying to rationally debate...unbelievably...whether other means kill more or cause more suffering than a chemical attack. What the feth! The sheer absurdity of that endeavor boggles my mind
Perhaps because you're caught up in far more emotion about this.
People are being killed by weapons in Syria.
Nobody is denying this.
We are now engaging in military action in Syria because of one specific type of weapon used in small scale attacks for which we have very limited information.
Engaging in military action in Syria has potentially gigantic consequences, from another decade or more of Iraq-esque quagmire up to and including nuclear confrontation with other interested powers. What makes the type of weapon used for killing people in Syra in these instances so outrageous over other weapons and acts committed by Syria that it necessitates risking those consequences where those others did not?
I have not seen any response except "but treaties" which didnt seem good enough for other atrocities in violation of such, and, as above, simple apoplexy assuming the truth of your own premise that does not actually address any of the points on the horrific nature, battlefield effectiveness, etc of such illicit weapons, that other weapons and acts used and committed daily in Syria possess.
What is it that you just don't get about the fact that the weapon used relevant to THIS TOPIC was a condemned WMD?
I have never refuted that. I feel like I've said this before.
The allowing of such weapon usage undermines years of international efforts to eliminate said weapons and sets a precedent for use by other rogue states and dictators down the road. It's that simple, for God's sake.
And my counterpoint is that we have very little trustable information on this incident, and nobody seemed to think any number of other horrific acts just as unilaterally condemned and committed on far wider scales was worth fighting over, and what makes this incident more special than those?
I'll go slowly and address the crux of your...position. Your whole position, as stated very clearly in your closing sentence...and it summizes the whole "but this, that, everything else in Syria" salad...presupposes, erroneously, that "nobody seemed to think any number of other horrific acts just as unilaterally condemned and committed on far wider scales was worth fighting over, and what makes this incident more special than those?" and that this action...the one in the thread title...was "arbitrary" in your view.
To the first part of your assertion. Let me just cover the bases here. You are aware we were already engaged, militarily, in Syria, right? Why, exactly, do you suppose we have gotten involved in supporting anti-Assad rebels? Why, exactly, do you suppose we have supplied forces to fight alongside said insurgents? Why, exactly, do you suppose we have, not so subtly, sought regime change as an aside to defeating ISIS in Syria? Do you think that maybe, j-u-u-u-u-s-t maybe, that's because we...and the world...actually do find all those "horrific acts" unacceptable and something is being done about it?! Those acts that you speak of as being, what, ignored in comparison to the subject at hand? I wouldn't call the commitment we have made in Syria, which I just reiterated, as being in line with "nobody seemed to think...was worth fighting over...", except of course, for the fact that we already are fighting for exactly those reasons. Really? That's essentially the core of your stance and it's not holding any water. Sorry.
As far as the "...what makes this incident more special than those?", man, if you still don't get that, then, well, then you just don't get it. Maybe if you read Whembly's post above this, you'll get an idea why the WORLD, with all it's differences and disagreements, universally condemns chemical weapons and categorizes them as WMD's and why "this incident is more special than those".
If anyone thinks for a second that something that aligns hillary clinton, bill kristol and trump isn't fishy as hell, well, best of luck to you. Trudeau wen't from wanting more answers as to who actually used the weapons straight to supporting the us strike. All warfare is based on deception and if you believe assad is this stupid, you've been deceived IMO.
That issue is going to likely continue, intelligence and military sources are not going to go to open press to tell what and how we know. Targets are usually very carefully selected. Consider also that Russia is present in Syria and in force. They have very capable forces themselves, I would not be at all surprised if they were not only informed ahead of time but also "on board" with the issue. There is just so much that the public will never know about this.
Which is a problem in its own right because the list of institutions I would trust with limitless power over life and death is quite short and certainly doesn't include ones with histories of invasions and torture. So when the US armed forces or the CIA or whoever tries to tell us that they've got secret evidence for why they absolutely must bomb Syria my reply is "tough luck, donkey-caves, cough it up".
whembly wrote: They have indisputable proof that it came from a Syrian plane.
What makes the use of sarin gas so heinous is what it does...
It stops the enzyme that breaks down a nerve-signaling molecule from working, so nerves keep on firing all over the body.
Clinically, this results in a slow heart rate, plus liquids coming out of every orifice they can: vomit, urine, diarrhea, tears, drool. What kills you is the asphyxiation.
To be clear: it doesn't cause unconsciousness. You'd be awake as you're peeing, pooping, and slowly suffocating.
It's use is truly barbaric and it's damage is more than just conventional weapons... its use is to terrorizethe people.
That's why sarin is the most popular agent in chemical weapon stockpiles. Chemical weapons are essentially the "poor man's WMD", with sarin and VX being the most effective of the bunch. Out of the two, any Third World hole can easily produce sarin and handle it. And it holds up well to long term storage (VX requires a better developed chemical weapons program to handle).
And you are absolutely correct about the last. Chemical weapons are of limited effectiveness against military targets nowadays. But in a total war war scenario (gassing entire cities or facilities so they can be taken intact, without resorting to nukes or bio-weapons), against unprepared low-tech forces, or to simply break the morale of the oppositions civilian support structure (terror weapon), they are still of some use. One, or both, of the last two are probably what the Syrians were aiming for.
That issue is going to likely continue, intelligence and military sources are not going to go to open press to tell what and how we know. Targets are usually very carefully selected. Consider also that Russia is present in Syria and in force. They have very capable forces themselves, I would not be at all surprised if they were not only informed ahead of time but also "on board" with the issue. There is just so much that the public will never know about this.
Which is a problem in its own right because the list of institutions I would trust with limitless power over life and death is quite short and certainly doesn't include ones with histories of invasions and torture. So when the US armed forces or the CIA or whoever tries to tell us that they've got secret evidence for why they absolutely must bomb Syria my reply is "tough luck, donkey-caves, cough it up".
Then we are fortunate we don't have to care what hypocritical Europeans want. These institutions are not going to share their resources with nations who are not our friends.
Then we are fortunate we don't have to care what hypocritical Europeans want. These institutions are not going to share their resources with nations who are not our friends.
How is it hypocritical of me to not trust people who claim secret evidence as the reason they must be allowed to kill and torture?
Then we are fortunate we don't have to care what hypocritical Europeans want. These institutions are not going to share their resources with nations who are not our friends.
How is it hypocritical of me to not trust people who claim secret evidence as the reason they must be allowed to kill and torture?
Because your country does it as well, but you jump right at the CIA and US armed forces.
Then we are fortunate we don't have to care what hypocritical Europeans want. These institutions are not going to share their resources with nations who are not our friends.
How is it hypocritical of me to not trust people who claim secret evidence as the reason they must be allowed to kill and torture?
Because your country does it as well, but you jump right at the CIA and US armed forces.
This thread is about the US launching missiles at a Syrian base. The US is the driving actor behind the campaign to bomb Syria. The US being one of the main topics of discussion in this thread is why I bring up the past and current conduct of the US.
Then we are fortunate we don't have to care what hypocritical Europeans want. These institutions are not going to share their resources with nations who are not our friends.
How is it hypocritical of me to not trust people who claim secret evidence as the reason they must be allowed to kill and torture?
Because your country does it as well, but you jump right at the CIA and US armed forces.
This thread is about the US launching missiles at a Syrian base. The US is the driving actor behind the campaign to bomb Syria. The US being one of the main topics of discussion in this thread is why I bring up the past and current conduct of the US.
But the US is not the driving factor, we are in full accordance with our allies, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the other Sunni monarchies supporting the anti Assad and anti ISIS factions.
Then we are fortunate we don't have to care what hypocritical Europeans want. These institutions are not going to share their resources with nations who are not our friends.
How is it hypocritical of me to not trust people who claim secret evidence as the reason they must be allowed to kill and torture?
Because your country does it as well, but you jump right at the CIA and US armed forces.
This thread is about the US launching missiles at a Syrian base. The US is the driving actor behind the campaign to bomb Syria. The US being one of the main topics of discussion in this thread is why I bring up the past and current conduct of the US.
But the US is not the driving factor, we are in full accordance with our allies, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the other Sunni monarchies supporting the anti Assad and anti ISIS factions.
None of which have attacked Syrian government facilities. The US most definitely is the driving factor here.
Then we are fortunate we don't have to care what hypocritical Europeans want. These institutions are not going to share their resources with nations who are not our friends.
How is it hypocritical of me to not trust people who claim secret evidence as the reason they must be allowed to kill and torture?
Because your country does it as well, but you jump right at the CIA and US armed forces.
This thread is about the US launching missiles at a Syrian base. The US is the driving actor behind the campaign to bomb Syria. The US being one of the main topics of discussion in this thread is why I bring up the past and current conduct of the US.
But the US is not the driving factor, we are in full accordance with our allies, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the other Sunni monarchies supporting the anti Assad and anti ISIS factions.
None of which have attacked Syrian government facilities. The US most definitely is the driving factor here.
most of them do not have the means to do so, so they back the US and if you do not or had not heard, they have all been calling for it for a while.
I'll go slowly and address the crux of your...position. Your whole position, as stated very clearly in your closing sentence...and it summizes the whole "but this, that, everything else in Syria" salad...presupposes, erroneously, that "nobody seemed to think any number of other horrific acts just as unilaterally condemned and committed on far wider scales was worth fighting over, and what makes this incident more special than those?" and that this action...the one in the thread title...was "arbitrary" in your view.
To the first part of your assertion. Let me just cover the bases here. You are aware we were already engaged, militarily, in Syria, right? Why, exactly, do you suppose we have gotten involved in supporting anti-Assad rebels? Why, exactly, do you suppose we have supplied forces to fight alongside said insurgents? Why, exactly, do you suppose we have, not so subtly, sought regime change as an aside to defeating ISIS in Syria? Do you think that maybe, j-u-u-u-u-s-t maybe, that's because we...and the world...actually do find all those "horrific acts" unacceptable and something is being done about it?!
There is a difference there. In most instances, it is not US weapons fired from US ships on Syrian government targets after being declared openly with suggestions of deeper commitment. Providing air support for rebels as they fight ISIS is one thing, as is supplying rebels with small arms and intelligence, particularly when of late it has been more focused on fighting ISIS than Assad. Knee-jerk attacks by US forces against the Syrian government (as opposed to ISIS) in an act of war that can threaten to escalate and potentially involve other powers however is another thing.
As far as the "...what makes this incident more special than those?", man, if you still don't get that
I get that people *see* them as such, but there aren't any counterarguments in support of that position being presented. When I talk about the actual effects of what other weapons do, the kinds of deaths people die every day in Syria that are equally horrific, your counter response has not been to debate on that, but to either call it off-topic or point to the fact that "basically everyone says they're bad". Well, ok, but that's rather circular logic.
, then, well, then you just don't get it. Maybe if you read Whembly's post above this,
I get that. I understand what these things do. However, they are not unique in being mind bogglingly terrible, and there's plenty of other weapons that kill or can kill in ways that will be just as excruciating and horrific, possibly even moreso.
Is choking to death on your own vomit while you go into grand mal seizures and you bleed from the eyes awful? Yes. That is a horrific way to die and you'll get no argument from me.
Is it qualitatively more awful than bleeding to death over many hours from multiple bullet wounds from an AK tossing a burst your way, sustaining multiple bone fractures and shatters, massive organ destruction and tissue devastation? Is it worse than any number of other things? Can you tell me dying to an AK like that is a better death than the gassing death above? Or a barrel bomb dropped by helicopter onto your apartment building, blowing your legs and genitals off while collapsing the building on top of you to suffocate you after hours of claustrophobic entombment? Is it worse than being run over by a tank or a bulldozer and smeared all over the street? Is it worse than being tortured for weeks and then crammed into a cell with thirty other people and gunned down indiscriminately with AK's at point blank range with hand grenades thrown in to finish off survivors?
If given a choice between Sarin gas and one of these other deaths, would you really chose one of the non-gas deaths unhesitatingly every time?
If not, then why are we treating gas as so special, when the other have been going on every single day for five years? Had the victims of that gas attack been killed by explosives, the end result would be the same, they'd still have died horrible deaths, but we wouldn't be having this conversation, their deaths wouldn't even be on our radar, most of us would never know they existed and they'd just be more numbers for the statistics to gather later. The righteous indignation over their deaths would never have materialized, but they'd be dead all the same, and likely their deaths would not have been any less awful. Likewise, if Assad's forces had used tear gas, as cover for assault troops who just gunned all those people down, would there be a similar outcry? Almost certainly not despite the use of a chemical agent in violation of laws of war, and again, the same result of dead innocents.
All statistics point to the actual effective lethality of chemical weapons in war being lower than that of conventional weapons in actual practice. They are primarily weapons of psychological value (as noted by both Whembly and myself). That's where you get all the hub-bub about them. But when you sit down and actually look at what weapons do, what they can do, how they're used and how effective they are, chemical weapons and gas like Sarin really isn't any worse than most conventional weapons, often less so. It has a big psychological factor, it plays on the mind. That's really where most of its impact comes from. Aside from that, these weapons are very dangerous to handle and deploy, require lots of planning to use properly to avoid contamination back onto your own forces, and generally just entail a lot of hassle for very little practical gain, which is the most fundamental reason they're generally "banned", because they're a drag on all sides, not because of how starkly horrifying they are. Biological weapons similarly aren't banned because smallpox or the like is so awful in and of itself, but because they can rapidly spiral out of control and usually take far too much time to work on a tactical or operational level. They're awful without having solid tangible, practical battlefield benefits that can be immediately acted upon, unlike say, artillery shelling.
you'll get an idea why the WORLD, with all it's differences and disagreements, universally condemns chemical weapons and categorizes them as WMD's and why "this incident is more special than those".
And again...the world has done so in many other instances, it was against international law, many treaties, declarations, etc to bombard, starve, torture, etc civilians, nobody seemed to think that direct military strikes like this were necessary there...and those are things that Assad has far more definitively perpetrated, and on much larger scales, and we have not responded in kind then. Why is gas different? Yes, I acknowledge the world has portrayed them as "WMDs", but that's just a label, gas is no more "mass destructive" than high explosive shells or cluster bombs or many other weapons, the actual ultimate results of these weapons in practice aren't really any worse or better than many other conventional weapons that have been in common use for years in this conflict, and is a label that has dragged the US into a stupid quagmire before that we still haven't extricated ourselves from nearly 15 years later...
TL;DR Yes, chemical weapons are awful. In practice they aren't really worse than what other weapons do but have a special psychological hold on people and Assad has done much worse things that nobody thought required direct US military relaliation. Yes the US has been involved in Syria but this latest act represents a hard shift in policy in a very short time period and an escalation of the kind that can turn out very ugly for all involved, with no clear gameplan other than being a knee-jerk immediate reaction, and we've seen where that can lead.
If this were the opening weeks of the conflict, I'd be much more on board with you. A use of such weapons then would have had much more ground to act on, representing a dramatic escalation of the conflict before it became as insanely brutal as it is now, and a much better opportunity to intervene before everything became entrenched and large numbers of outside parties became as entangled as they are. But this far into a conflict this barbarous and destructive with this many interested parties and a nation as fractured as Syria has become, in practical terms using gas really isn't any worse than what they're already doing on a daily basis to each other (and have been for years) aside from the psychological effect, and the consequences of a US mis-step are much greater, and there appears to be no real gameplan here.
EDIT: I will bow out for now, after realizing how the size of my text wall I don't think I'm going to be successful in explaining my point of view any further on this point for the time being so I'll kick it for a while.
You're absolutely right! A bulldozer = an internationally banned WMD. Why didn't I see this before! Just as by the same "logic" you've presented, Manslaughter = Murder because the result is the same. I mean, hell, let's let them go full Monty and use a battlefield tactical nuke, I mean, as there's no difference in the result, there's apparently no difference in degree of measurement by your yardstick...the absolute failure in logic is tragic.
whembly wrote: They have indisputable proof that it came from a Syrian plane.
What makes the use of sarin gas so heinous is what it does...
It stops the enzyme that breaks down a nerve-signaling molecule from working, so nerves keep on firing all over the body.
Clinically, this results in a slow heart rate, plus liquids coming out of every orifice they can: vomit, urine, diarrhea, tears, drool. What kills you is the asphyxiation.
To be clear: it doesn't cause unconsciousness. You'd be awake as you're peeing, pooping, and slowly suffocating.
It's use is truly barbaric and it's damage is more than just conventional weapons... its use is to terrorizethe people.
I'm not disputing anything in your post when my bit none of it addresses why, after 6 years of conflict and at least 8-10 previous instances of attacks with chemical weapons that this time is somehow different and requires us to start a war with Syria without laying out any kind of end game strategy to Congress or the public.
whembly wrote: They have indisputable proof that it came from a Syrian plane.
What makes the use of sarin gas so heinous is what it does...
It stops the enzyme that breaks down a nerve-signaling molecule from working, so nerves keep on firing all over the body.
Clinically, this results in a slow heart rate, plus liquids coming out of every orifice they can: vomit, urine, diarrhea, tears, drool. What kills you is the asphyxiation.
To be clear: it doesn't cause unconsciousness. You'd be awake as you're peeing, pooping, and slowly suffocating.
It's use is truly barbaric and it's damage is more than just conventional weapons... its use is to terrorizethe people.
I'm not disputing anything in your post when my bit none of it addresses why, after 6 years of conflict and at least 8-10 previous instances of attacks with chemical weapons that this time is somehow different and requires us to start a war with Syria without laying out any kind of end game strategy to Congress or the public.
The simple answer?
Trump happened.
I'm not even sure it's the correct decision... I think it is, but forcasting the reprecussions is foolhardy.
You are totally right that Trump needs to go to Congress with an endgame if we do facilitate a regime change.
But the US is not the driving factor, we are in full accordance with our allies, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the other Sunni monarchies supporting the anti Assad and anti ISIS factions.
I only want to point out that Saudi Arabia its one of the most radical islamic states of the world (They still executed people for being homosexual and lapidate women for adultery) and that they are actively funding ISIS and other fundamentalist islamic groups.
The only reason Saudi Arabia its a "trusted ally" of USA and all the European Countrys its because of Oil. For Example, many weapons (Rifles and grenades, rocket launchers, etc...) made in Spain have been encounter in Islamic terrorist groups, and """"moderate rebels""""" in Syria. Weapons that first were sold to Saudi Arabia.
So no, Saudi Arabia its not our ally, shouldn't they be, and they don't support the anti ISIS factions. The fact that we bringed down Sadam Hussein but just let the Saudi Arabia Monarchies reign free commiting the same or worse human attrocities its one of the worse hypocrisies that both USA and Europe has done in the recent years.
Turkey and the islamic radicalization that Erdogan its doing its too other of the reasons they shouldn't be our allies. Just the idea of a radical islamic Turkey joining the Europe Union make me sick.
Freakazoitt wrote: Ok then, I have to to remember, what I still had not time to do in life before nuclear armageddon happen and is it possible to do it now
Whether or not I think trump is a doofus assclown, I know Putin is not, I wouldn't be afraid of nuclear war.
BigWaaagh wrote: The only thing worse than inhaling chemical gas used in an attack on civilians is inhaling the stench of appeasement, in the face of such barbarianism, spewed from isolationist cowards living comfortably across the world.
Right, it makes so much more sense for us to send our troops over to be subjected to chemical weapon attacks and be killed and maimed while waging a fight against virtually everyone in a multi faction civil war in a country whose regime is allied with a nuclear power in order to create a power vacuum and unwinnable peace that would require decades of bloodshed and trillions of dollars in a rebuilding effort if we somehow accomplished the task without starting a nuclear war. I don't want a govt that represents ME to send my fellow citizens out to fight and die in some far away land in a conflict I would never send my children out to fight. I'm not one of the people who would be risking their lives in the name of Syrian regime change and I'm not going to saber rattle to send others to fight futile battles that I wouldn't fight. There are multiple veterans who live in my neighborhood, they're great guys and I wouldn't want a single one of them to have been sent out to die in the streets in Syria and I don't want a single American that's currently in the service to die in Syria either.
Once again, try and read the message before you knee jerk with the isolationist rhetoric. There needed to be a response to this horrific breach of international protocol and there was. You're already at WWIII. Take a pill.
As opposed to parroting that 70 year old Big Lie of "isolationism".
The United States has never been, nor ever will be, an "isolationist" nation.
The correct term for our stance prior to World War II was non-interventionist under the guise of neutrality. With some exceptions, like problems south of the border (on our very doorstep), our stance was similar to Switzerland and Sweden on the world stage. As opposed to being like North Korea, the closest thing in the world today to being a true isolationist power.
That being said, if Syria was a signatory nation to any international treaties barring use of chemical warfare, then I would say that this surgical strike was justified. If not, then it was an act of aggression on the part of the United States.
There's an extremely fine line between isolationism and non-interventionism, and that line is blurry...at best...in an awful lot of spots. That's a whole other debate that has points on both sides.
As far as Syria and agreements barring chemical weapons. Answered and posted previously in this thread. Hint: The answer is "yes", they've participated and that's not mentioning their agreement...and subsequent, obvious non-compliance...to the terms of the 2013 Russia-brokered agreement that required Syria "not to develop, produce, retain or use chemical weapons or toxic chemicals as weapons."
Agreed. It can be a blurry distinction oftentimes. Our supplying Britain with goods and raw materials during World War One, under the guise of neutrality, is a good example. And we kept on doing it despite Imperial German warnings to neutral nations of their upcoming U-boat campaign against shipping traffic, including neutral vessels, trading with the British Empire and France. We were "unofficially" involved in the war since the beginning. But that came from Wilson looking for any excuse to get actively involved despite campaign promises to the contrary. And the Kaiser's high command took the bait, giving him the excuse needed to ask Congress for a declaration of war against the Central Powers.
And thank you for answering one of the questions on my mind regarding this ruckus. Since Assad's government signed a binding agreement, then turned around and broke it, they were asking for a cruise missile up their asses.
Frazzled wrote: Its strange that no other major power is launching strikes. Evidently only the US is supposed to go to war for this.
Well, there are no other major powers, but yes. It's much better to be able to applaud from the sidelines now, as everyone seems to be doing, while retaining the flexibility to condemn US imperialist warmongering nation-building in ten years if needed.
Oh god I know I said I stayed out but then the whiskey came out, apologies in advance.
BigWaaagh wrote: You're absolutely right! A bulldozer = an internationally banned WMD.
Again, you seem to fixate on this designation without taking any thought as to what meaning it actually has. I acknowledge the designation, yet again, but just because it has been called that doesn't fundamentally mean anything relevant.
Labels in and of themselves don't have inherent merit.
If these people had died from conventional bombing, as happens every day in Syria, no need for Sarin to make that happen, your righteous indignation would not exist. You wouldn't be calling people isolationist cowards or making accusations of appeasement. We would not be having this conversation. You would never have known these people were alive or that they were now dead. They would have never mattered to you.
They would still be dead though.
Their deaths would not likely have been meaningfully less unpleasant.
Their families would still be grieving.
Nothing would be materially different.
Ergo, either the value you place on the abstract designation of "WMD" in and of itself is...dramatically over-inflated, or this whole thing is just a canard being used as an excuse to go into Syria for whatever other reasons one might desire.
If there were some organized and methodical usage of gas weapons on a large scale, with a clear delivery plan and conscious effort to direct the spread of the gas in a coherent manner, designed to intentionally produce large numbers of civilian casualties in a densely populated area, I'd be on board. That would be an application of a "weapon of mass destruction" on a clearly non-military target and in a manner that conventional weapons would have trouble matching. There would be a point then. However, that is not the case. As is, with little in the way of clear information on who, what, how, and why, and casualties that could easily be induced by normal daily conventional attacks and just a couple isolated incidents on record, it becomes more difficult to justify involving ourselves when other much more heinous events did not. And, as much as I don't want to sound like a broken record...we've been down the "WMD" rabbit hole before, and does anything think that was a terribly positive result?
Why didn't I see this before! Just as by the same "logic" you've presented, Manslaughter = Murder because the result is the same.
Hrm, you've just illustrated the break in your logic. Manslaughter vs Murder is a matter of intent, not the tool. If I kill someone during a fight they picked with me, that's Manslaughter. If I follow them home and kill them in their bed two weeks later instead, that's premeditated murder. Doesn't matter if I stick 'em with a pool cue, gas them with Raid and pepper spray, shoot 'em, or beat them to death with my bare hands, intent and circumstance decide these crimes, not the tool.
I'm not arguing that these people were not murdered. They absolutely were. I'm arguing that the type of weapon used is irrelevant.
What you're arguing is that if I go out and deliberately kill someone with a gun, it's not as bad as if I deliberately go out and gas someone to death. A forceful reaction is only drawn from the latter but not the former. That is the stance you have been arguing.
My point is that, no, regardless of the weapon in question, the act and intent and outcome are all the same, premeditated murder, why are we all hot and bothered with prosecuting one but let the other happen on a daily basis and have never addressed it similarly?
Vaktathi wrote: Oh god I know I said I stayed out but then the whiskey came out, apologies in advance.
BigWaaagh wrote: You're absolutely right! A bulldozer = an internationally banned WMD.
Again, you seem to fixate on this designation without taking any thought as to what meaning it actually has. I acknowledge the designation, yet again, but just because it has been called that doesn't fundamentally mean anything relevant.
Labels in and of themselves don't have inherent merit.
If these people had died from conventional bombing, as happens every day in Syria, no need for Sarin to make that happen, your righteous indignation would not exist. You wouldn't be calling people isolationist cowards or making accusations of appeasement. We would not be having this conversation. You would never have known these people were alive or that they were now dead. They would have never mattered to you.
They would still be dead though.
Their deaths would not likely have been meaningfully less unpleasant.
Their families would still be grieving.
Nothing would be materially different.
Ergo, either the value you place on the abstract designation of "WMD" in and of itself is...dramatically over-inflated, or this whole thing is just a canard being used as an excuse to go into Syria for whatever other reasons one might desire.
If there were some organized and methodical usage of gas weapons on a large scale, with a clear delivery plan and conscious effort to direct the spread of the gas in a coherent manner, designed to intentionally produce large numbers of civilian casualties in a densely populated area, I'd be on board. That would be an application of a "weapon of mass destruction" on a clearly non-military target and in a manner that conventional weapons would have trouble matching. There would be a point then. However, that is not the case. As is, with little in the way of clear information on who, what, how, and why, and casualties that could easily be induced by normal daily conventional attacks and just a couple isolated incidents on record, it becomes more difficult to justify involving ourselves when other much more heinous events did not. And, as much as I don't want to sound like a broken record...we've been down the "WMD" rabbit hole before, and does anything think that was a terribly positive result?
Why didn't I see this before! Just as by the same "logic" you've presented, Manslaughter = Murder because the result is the same.
Hrm, you've just illustrated the break in your logic. Manslaughter vs Murder is a matter of intent, not the tool. If I kill someone during a fight they picked with me, that's Manslaughter. If I follow them home and kill them in their bed two weeks later instead, that's premeditated murder. Doesn't matter if I stick 'em with a pool cue, gas them with Raid and pepper spray, shoot 'em, or beat them to death with my bare hands, intent and circumstance decide these crimes, not the tool.
I'm not arguing that these people were not murdered. They absolutely were. I'm arguing that the type of weapon used is irrelevant.
What you're arguing is that if I go out and deliberately kill someone with a gun, it's not as bad as if I deliberately go out and gas someone to death. A forceful reaction is only drawn from the latter but not the former. That is the stance you have been arguing.
My point is that, no, regardless of the weapon in question, the act and intent and outcome are all the same, premeditated murder, why are we all hot and bothered with prosecuting one but let the other happen on a daily basis and have never addressed it similarly?
The whiskey certainly explains a lot. Did you read what you just typed?
" you seem to fixate on this designation" - Sorry, it's the world that does, actually. It's also at the crux and causation of the action this thread covers.
"I acknowledge the designation, yet again, but just because it has been called that doesn't fundamentally mean anything relevant." - So let me get this right. You acknowledge the designation, but in your own words, the world's designation of Chemical Weapons as a WMD doesn't really mean anything? What!?
"abstract designation of "WMD" - That's classic! Actually, it's a fact, nothing abstract about it. I'm sorry but your a la carte approach to this continues to fail you. It's not my, or your, or Dave from down the street's "abstract" opinion. It's a globally accepted designation and delineation, and that is...wait for it...a fact. Do you see the theme, here, you're debating a fact.
"That is the stance you have been arguing." - No, I'm just done listening to you throw out ludicrous comparisons of bulldozers = Sarin Gas air strikes. It's an absurdity only worthy of an SNL skit.
"why are we all hot and bothered with prosecuting one but let the other happen on a daily basis and have never addressed it similarly?" - And here it is again. We've never addressed Syria? So the 26K bombs dropped by us, the US, last year, the largest majority being deployed in Syria, is not "addressing it similarly"? Arming anti-Assad rebels is, what, just passing the time? Special Forces on the ground...on leave, maybe? I'd say it's pretty obvious that we're quite actively addressing it, wouldn't you? As to the "hot and bothered" comment, I nailed this early, you just don't get the fact that there's a drawn, accepted delineation with regards to WMD use. This isn't up for debate. Not to mention the little fact regarding Assad's violation of the 2013 agreement that Syria agreed to which stated they would not store, produce, or use Chemical Weapons. I've now said at least 20 times, while citing accepted international convention and tenents ...something you still seem unwilling, or unable to grasp, with your repetition that WMD's being construed as uniquely categorized is just some "abstract" concept...WMD, in this case Chemical Weapon use, is a form of war prosecution that is, de facto, set apart from conventional means and is viewed as uniquely unacceptable by the world community, period. Outcome notwithstanding for even a second. Again, you're debating a fact and there's just no debate on this matter.
JUST IN: Shares of Tomahawk cruise missile maker Raytheon up 2.1 percent in premarket trade after U.S. missile strike in Syria.
..ain't life grand eh /
So the USA has spent somewhere between $30-60 Million dollars and, apparently, failed to do any significant damage or really stop what was happening.
Presumably no one in the Trump administration was naive enough to think that having -- sensibly -- told the Russians that missiles were coming that this information wouldn't ....hmm..... "leak" ... to Syria in some fashion....
so Trump looks Presidential -- well .. ish. More so anyway.
even whilst staying at his weekend holiday home again.
Deflects from the ongoing investigations and news with regards to Russia and the election, amazed that anyone could sensibly claim that these actions counter any of the accusations thus far, but we've seen it argued.
Obligatory oil price surge that always happens.
And Russia gets to flog more weapons etc etc to Syria.
Tidy eh ?
I've read conflicting reports with regards to how many of the missiles hit the intended target(s).
One appreciates that the reality of warfare like this is much more difficult than fiction would have us believe but it strikes one as odd that the missiles seemed to have only a 50-60% hit rate.
I'm not throwing conspiracy stuff around with regards to this, just a little surprised that the weapon is as inaccurate as it appears to be.
Not really sure the USA is getting value for money there really.
THE BABY AND THE BAATH WATER
Thursday 16 June 2011, 19:00
What is happening in Syria feels like one of the last gasps of the age of the military dictators. An old way of running the world is still desperately trying to cling to power, but the underlying feeling in the west is that somehow Assad's archaic and cruel military rule will inevitably collapse and Syrians will move forward into a democratic age.
That may, or may not, happen, but what is extraordinary is that we have been here before. Between 1947 and 1949 an odd group of idealists and hard realists in the American government set out to intervene in Syria. Their aim was to liberate the Syrian people from a corrupt autocratic elite - and allow true democracy to flourish. They did this because they were convinced that "the Syrian people are naturally democratic" and that all that was neccessary was to get rid of the elites - and a new world of "peace and progress" would inevitably emerge.
What resulted was a disaster, and the consequences of that disaster then led, through a weird series of bloody twists and turns, to the rise to power of the Assad family and the widescale repression in Syria today.
I thought I would tell that story.
In 1968 a CIA agent called Miles Copeland wrote a book called 'The Game of Nations' that revealed what went on in 1947. Back then Copeland was part of a mangement consulting team in Washington who were working out how America should contain the threat of communism in the Middle East, now the old European Empires had gone. This was before the CIA existed, and Copeland describes how they got together an odd group of diplomats, secret agents left over from the war, advertising men from Madison Avenue, and "pipe-smoking owls" (which is what intellectuals were called in those days).
Copeland describes an impassioned lecturer telling this group that their aim should be to change the leadership in the countries in the Middle East:
"Politicians in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt seem to have been elected into power, but what elections! The winners were all candidates of foreign powers, old land-owners who tell their tenants and villagers how to vote, or rich crooks who can buy their votes. But peoples of these countries are intelligent, and they have a natural bent for politics. If there is a part of the world which is crying for the democratic process the Arab World is it."
They decided to start with Syria.
Compared to what was to come, it was all very sweet and innocent. Elections were due in Syria in 1947, and the Americans decided to give "a discreet nudge here and there". This involved warning landowners, employers, ward bosses and police chiefs not to intimidate the voters. The American oil companies were paid to put up big posters telling the Syrians to "vote for the candidate of your choice" (apparently this baffled all the Syrians because the posters didn't mention any candidates by name). Hundreds of taxis were hired to take voters to the polls free of charge. And the Americans brought in automatic, tamper-proof voting machines.
It didn't go as expected. The landowners and other elites ignored all the warnings and intimidated everyone. There were massive gun fights and scores of people were killed. The taxi-drivers bonded together and sold themselves to different candidates - promising to make their passengers vote the "right" way. The voting machines didn't work properly because of irregularities in the electric current, or were sabotaged. Two did work - but the losing candidates refused to accept the verdict of "imperialist technology" - and got recounts by hand, which strangely made them win.
And worst of all, most of the pro-American candidates defected to other foreign powers. The Americans had nobly refused to give them any money - so the Russians, the French and the British stepped in and bribed them - and the candidates changed their allegiances.
The Americans were upset. So they decided they would have to go further. The chief diplomat in Damascus was called James Keeley. The solution he said was to find a way of "quarantining" the Syrians from the corrupting forces that had wrecked the election so they would become more self-confident. More "naturally democratic". Here is a picture of James Keeley.
And the way to create this "quarantine" was by engineering a military coup. According to Copeland, Keeley believed that America should get rid of the present elected leaders, bring in a short period of dictatorship which would protect the Syrian people and thus allow them to develop self-confidence and stronger personalities, and within a few years a real independent democracy would emerge.
And that is what the Americans did. In 1949 a "Political Action Team" was set up that went and made friends with the head of the Syrian army, Husni al-Za'im. Copeland was part of the team and he is completely open about what they did.
"The political action team suggested to Za'im the idea of a coup d'etat, advised him how to go about it, guided him through the intricate preparations in laying the groundwork for it...Za'im was 'the American boy'. "
Here is a picture of the American boy - General Za'im and his limousine.
And Za'im promised the Americans he would throw all the corrupt politicians in jail, reform the country, recognise the new state of Israel, and then bring in proper democracy. All the Americans were convinced that it was a brilliant plan - except for one man, a young political officer called Deane Hinton. Copeland describes a moment when they were out in Damascus planning the coup when Hinton turned to the rest of the group and said:
"I want to go on record as saying that this is the stupidest, most irresponsible action a diplomatic mission like ours could get itself involved in, and that we've started a series of these things that will never end."
Deane was promptly kicked out of the group and ostracised. The coup happened in March 1949. It was the first post-war military coup in the Middle East. It was a great success and the American celebrated "opening the door to Peace and Progress"
But then Za'im immediately went back on all his promises and turned into a violent tyrant. He got so bad that five months later a group of his subordinates surrounded his house and shot him to bits. And then they mounted another violent coup, this time with no promises. As Copeland noted - Hinton had been right. The Americans had started something - they had "opened the door to the Dark Ages" in Syria.
Here is Copeland interviewed in 1969. He is reflecting ruefully on the disaster they had created in Syria. His is the voice of a generation of Americans who had tried to intervene to bring democracy to the Middle East - not just in Syria but later in Iran and in Nasser's Egypt. The "Game" he refers to is a management game-playing exercise the CIA did in the 1950s when planning the interventions. It's aim was to predict how all the "players" in the country would behave.
As a result Syria was torn apart by miltary coups throughout the early 1950s. Then in 1954 the parliamentary system was restored. The politicians - and most of the Syrian people - were now terrified of America, not just because of the interventions and the coup, but also because of their support for Israel. In response the new government turned to the Soviet Union for economic aid and friendship.
Here is a fascinating film made in 1957. The BBC reporter, Woodrow Wyatt, goes to Syria with the aim of proving that everyone there is a communist. But repeatedly they tell him that this is not true. Both students and millionaire businessmen insist they are not a Soviet satellite, that they like capitalism. They just fear America because of its plots - and they have turned to the Soviets as a message to America. They also see Israel as America's agent.
Just before Woodrow Wyatt arrived the Syrians had uncovered yet another CIA plot to overthrow the government. Three CIA men had been expelled, and even Wyatt has to admit in the commentary that the evidence for the plot is strong.
In fact it was true. The Americans had been planning another military coup, code-named Operation Wappen. The CIA man in charge was called Howard "Rocky" Stone, and he terrified the Syrians because he always stared intensely at them. But Stone did this because he was almost completely deaf - and he was trying to read their lips.
But while all the Syrians interviewed in the film dislike America, they also all have a hero. He is President Nasser of Egypt. What inspires them is Nasser's dream of a united Arab world that would be strong enough to challenge America and the western powers.
But Syria also had its own fast-growing version of Nasser's Pan-Arabism - and it was even more epic in its vision. It was called the Baath party. It had been started by a Syrian Christian called Michel Aflaq - and Aflaq's dream was to rouse the Arabs from what he considered a living death. To free them from the shackles of tribalism, sectarianism, the oppression of women and the cruel autocracies of landowners. All these made the Arabs feel inferior - and that was then exploited by the Western empires, and now by America. In the process they had turned the Arab people into powerless zombies.
Here are some pictures of Aflaq.
Baath meant rebirth - and that was what Aflaq wanted to bring about. His aim was freedom not just from America and the old empires, but he also wanted to bring about personal liberation from mental and social chains that were holding the Arabs back. It was an extraordinary fusion of Arab nationalism, grand ideas from the French Revolution, and modern socialist theories which wanted to transcend the deep sectarian divisions in the Arab world.
Then, in 1958, Syria and Egypt merged as countries to become the United Arab Republic, led by President Nasser. Aflaq believed that is was the beginning of a united Arab world and under pressure from Nasser he agreed to dissolve the Baath party as a separate entity. But he and the other Baathists quickly discovered that Nasser wanted to use the opportunity to destroy the Baath party because he saw it as a rival to his pan-Arab vision.
Here is part of a film shot in Syria in 1961 at the very moment when the UAR was falling apart. It records the growing hatred of Nasser among the Syrians. I particularly like the posters of American Hollywood starlets - with Nasser's face stuck on them. He's just as bad as the Americans now.
Faced with growing chaos in Syria, five young Baath party members who were also army officers decided they would save the country. They set up a secret committee within the army and planned to bring about the Baath vision in Syria. They would create a united Arab world where Nasser had failed. One of them was a young Hafez al-Assad.
And the Baath idea was spreading. At the same time, a group of Baathists in Iraq were plotting to bring down the nationalist ruler of the country - General Qassim. And in February 1963 they struck first. But the coup they mounted wasn't all that it seemed - and the reason was that yet again the Americans had got involved.
The Baath party had emerged and risen to popularity precisely because it promised to liberate the Arab people from foreign intervention and control. But in the strange twists and turns of Middle Eastern power struggles the Baath in Iraq ended up coming to power in a coup that was in large part organised and funded by the CIA. And one of the CIA's "assets" in that coup was a lowly member of the conspiracy - Saddam Hussein.
The reason the Americans got involved was simple. General Qassim depended on the Iraqi communists for power. The Baath party hated the communists because they saw International Marxism as their biggest rival to their dream of uniting the Arab world. And the CIA wanted to get rid of the communists in Iraq. So Bingo - why not help the Baath party? And that included giving them a list of the communists in Iraq that they should kill. (The elimination list was given to them by a Time Magazine correspondent who was really a CIA agent - and it was out of date)
This is a photograph of a group of some of the Iraqi Baathists of that time - including a young Saddam.
Here is a section from the film I made called It Felt Like a Kiss. It tells the story of Saddam's involvement in the Baath-CIA coup of 1963 set to music and images, and also sets it in the wider context of a growing uncertainty within America itself at the time.
But the Syrian Baathists weren't going to be outclassed. A month later they mounted their coup, and this time without the CIA's help. Hafez al-Assad was one of the leaders. Everything went fine until Assad arrived outside one of Syria's main airbases to take it over. The officers refused to let him in because they said he wasn't really a Baathist, he was a Nasserist. Assad stood for hours shouting "I'm not a Nasserist, I'm a Baathist" at the airmen. The revolution was held up as they argued over the niceties of Pan-Arab theory.
But it succeeded. And it now looked as if the Baath vision might really spread across the Arab world. Nasser was furious - he used everyone's favourite political insult. He called them "fascists".
Here is a comedy sketch the BBC programme That Was The Week That Was did two days after the 1963 coup in Syria. It's not very funny, but it is interesting because of the prism through which it sees the coup. The "joke" is that the coup will only happen when the western media arrive. The plotters are waiting for the Panorama reporter to turn up because they know that coup will not be real until it is reported by the west.
It is an early example of the techno-orientalism that is being repeated today in the media's firm belief that it is the western social media networks that made possible the rebellions in Tunisia and Egypt.
The dream of Baathism was to overcome the sectarianism that had always riven the Arab world, to create a secular society in which everyone was included. But now, as Assad and his four friends on the secret committee took power, that sectarianism rose up to possess and distort their revolution.
Of the five conspirators, three of them - including Assad - came from the Alawite sect. They were a Shia sect who lived in the western mountains of Syria. The two others were Ismailis - another branch of Shia Islam. Traditionally power in Syria had resided with the old Sunni landowning and merchant class of the plains who also made up the bulk of the population. The seizing of power by Assad and his conspirators was a dramatic reversal. It was the triumph of a low-class peasant population and lower middle class urbanites against the old metropolitan elites. And the Sunnis hated it.
The hatred went deep because when the French ruled the country they had practiced a programme of divide and rule which deliberately fomented and exaggerated the sectarian divisions in the country. Faced with this, Assad began to follow a logic that would destroy the very core of Michel Aflaq's dream of a united Arab world. Assad wasn't a sectarian, but he moved through the army and the institutions of state ruthlessly installing those he trusted into positions of power - while removing, often bloodily, Sunnis, Druze and other members of the old elite Syrian class. And many of those he installed were Alawites, like him.
In the process Assad also came into conflict with the other four members of the secret committee behind the revolution. So he destroyed them too. Until, by 1969, there were only two men left - Assad and an austere General called Salah Jadid. Assad couldn't get rid of Jadid because he was protected by the ruthless Bureau of National Security. So Assad sent troops to the one petrol station where all the security bureau jeeps refuelled - and grabbed them one by one. When the head of the bureau realised that he was defeated, he rang one of Assad's allies and then shot himself so that his enemy could hear the gunshot.
Here is some footage - beginning with the celebration from the early days of the revolution among the urban poor - as the Baath party free them from the old bosses. Followed by images of the strange Baath state that Assad then created in Syria. It was centred round countless images of Assad as a the heroic leader of the nation. It is very odd because, unlike Saddam who was doing the same sort of thing in Iraq, in every image and statue Assad looks like a middle manager.
Assad believed that this ruthless exercise of power was necessary because of the deep sectarian divisions. It was a strange echo of the American diplomat in 1949 who believed that a military coup was needed to "quarantine" the Syrian people - because Assad believed that the naked exercise of power by an elite was necessary to enforce a genuinely plural society. To quarantine the Syrians from their sectarian past.
And many Syrians greeted it with a sigh of relief after the relentless chaos and violence of the past twenty years. They welcomed the stable state Assad created for fear of the alternative - and as a result he became popular with millions of Syrians.
But what he had also created was a repressive state that resorted to violence and fear to maintain its rule.
Here are some unedited rushes - shot in 1977 - of the city of Hama. They are labelled Stockshots in the BBC archive. But since 1982 they have become more than that. They are one of the few film records that remain of a city that was practically destroyed by Assad as he struggled to put down an uprising by the disgruntled Sunnis, led by the Muslim Brotherhood, who dominated the town. The accepted estimate is that Assad's security forces killed 10,000 people - and bulldozed many of the buildings - to try and wipe away yet more of his enemies.
But he wasn't successfull, Hama is yet again one of the main centres of the revolt against Assad's son's regime.
Nobody knows what is going to happen in Syria today. The optimistic view is that a new generation is emerging who really want a proper representative democracy in which all groups can negotiate with each other without violence. The pessimistic view is that those sectarian divisions, encouraged by the French - and then incubated further by the Assad family - will re-emerge. In truth no-one knows.
But there is a terrible naivety in the West's view of the ongoing revolt in Syria. It forgets its own history and the role it played in helping create the present situation.
Back in the 1950s America set out to create democracy in Syria, but it led to disaster. It was by no means the only factor that led to the violence and horror of the Assad dictatorship, but its unforeseen consequences played an important role in shaping the feverish paranoia in Syria in the late 1950s - which helped the Baath party come to power. And while the Western powers no longer remember this history, the Syrians surely do.
The man who had originally created the Baath vision, Michel Aflaq, was forced into exile in Iraq. He died in 1989 - a sad man, convinced that Assad had destroyed his dream of a united, confident Arab world.
The Iraqi Baaths hated the Syrian Baaths and they embraced the exiled Aflaq. After he died they built a grand mausoleum for him in Bagdhad. Here is a photo of what had happened to the mausoleum by 2006. It had been turned into a gym for the invading American troops. You can see Aflaq's tomb behind the weights and the table football.
One idea of personal transformation had been replaced by another.
In 1968 a CIA agent called Miles Copeland wrote a book called 'The Game of Nations' that revealed what went on in 1947
CIA? I knew it. I knew it. I feel a rant coming on. Somebody get me a soapbox!
That may, or may not, happen, but what is extraordinary is that we have been here before. Between 1947 and 1949 an odd group of idealists and hard realists in the American government set out to intervene in Syria. Their aim was to liberate the Syrian people from a corrupt autocratic elite - and allow true democracy to flourish. They did this because they were convinced that "the Syrian people are naturally democratic" and that all that was necessary was to get rid of the elites - and a new world of "peace and progress" would inevitably emerge.
For a long time, the USA had similar delusions about China before it went Communist.
JUST IN: Shares of Tomahawk cruise missile maker Raytheon up 2.1 percent in premarket trade after U.S. missile strike in Syria.
..ain't life grand eh /
So the USA has spent somewhere between $30-60 Million dollars and, apparently, failed to do any significant damage or really stop what was happening.
Presumably no one in the Trump administration was naive enough to think that having -- sensibly -- told the Russians that missiles were coming that this information wouldn't ....hmm..... "leak" ... to Syria in some fashion....
so Trump looks Presidential -- well .. ish. More so anyway.
even whilst staying at his weekend holiday home again.
Deflects from the ongoing investigations and news with regards to Russia and the election, amazed that anyone could sensibly claim that these actions counter any of the accusations thus far, but we've seen it argued.
Obligatory oil price surge that always happens.
And Russia gets to flog more weapons etc etc to Syria.
Tidy eh ?
I've read conflicting reports with regards to how many of the missiles hit the intended target(s).
One appreciates that the reality of warfare like this is much more difficult than fiction would have us believe but it strikes one as odd that the missiles seemed to have only a 50-60% hit rate.
I'm not throwing conspiracy stuff around with regards to this, just a little surprised that the weapon is as inaccurate as it appears to be.
Not really sure the USA is getting value for money there really.
I don't think it's a matter of cruise missiles being inaccurate I think it's a matter of advancements in anti missile defense systems. The US, EU, Israel, China and Russia all have anti missile defense systems that are capable of taking out a good number of incoming missiles. We know Russia has been sending their S-300 anti missile batteries to Syria since 2013. Our cruise missile salvo was likely also a test of the air defense systems in place in Syria as well as a token reprisal in retaliation to the chemical weapon attack.
The BBC News website profiles Russia's S-300 surface-to-air missile system, components of which have been delivered to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government.
In September, Russian President Vladimir Putin said shipments had been suspended, but that if the US and its allies intervened militarily in Syria, Moscow would "think how we should act in the future".
The S-300 is a series of highly capable, long-range surface-to-air missile complexes first deployed in the USSR in 1979 and later modified by the Russian armed forces.
As well as targeting aircraft, the fully mobile units have the capacity to engage ballistic missiles.
reds8n wrote: Yeah I'd heard/read that they didn't activate any of their ... AA -- is that still the right term here ? -- systems.
Of course one has to be a wee bit skeptical about claims like that.
The missile system used _tomahawks or whathaveyou -- are they still the standard/good as it gets or are they on the verge of being outdated ?
The advantage of tomahawks is illustrated best here:
The radio horizon of AA systems describes the angle they can achieve over the curve of the earth and terrain features. The maximum detection ranges reference the distances for targets high enough to be seen.
A tomahawk flies very low (~100 ft) and very slow (500-600 mph depending on the leg of its flight...it speeds up toward the target due to fuel depletion). It can fly below the radio horizon of pretty much any AA system so that it's only detected a few minutes away, and it takes an S300 about 6 minutes to get ready to move out.
There have been several iterations of the tomahawk. The newer versions display some incredible capabilities, such as the ability to dynamically select new targets in flight, loiter over a battlefield waiting for a target, transmit reconnaissance data collected via its camera, and an injection system for pushing unspent fuel into the warhead to turn it into a thermobaric weapon.
Long story short, the tomahawk is still state of the art and it's actually a terrifying weapon. The US Military's decision to use (WASTE) 50+ of them on this location was very poor IMO.
As for the claim that the Russians didn't activate their systems despite advance warning, there are a few reasons. The most realistic I can offer is that they didn't want us to be able to study the success rate of the system against tomahawks, given that it really doesn't perform well against them at all.
Ahtman wrote: For some reason I keep thinking of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
OK, I'll bite. Why?
If I knew for sure why I wouldn't have said "for some reason". It just keeps popping up when I hear about this. Best guess is because at the time it was used as a pretext for conflict but later became very questionable about what really happened, but the two aren't completely analogous in the specifics. I just hope we are doing the right thing for the right reasons. I have zero faith in Trump to do that and every reason to believe he would do it to deflect from other issues. Yet on the other hand SoD Mattis and the Joint Chiefs I do have more faith in to not totally screw us or our servicemen.
Ahtman wrote: For some reason I keep thinking of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
OK, I'll bite. Why?
If I knew for sure why I wouldn't have said "for some reason". It just keeps popping up when I hear about this. Best guess is because at the time it was used as a pretext for conflict but later became very questionable about what really happened, but the two aren't completely analogous in the specifics. I just hope we are doing the right thing for the right reasons. I have zero faith in Trump to do that and every reason to believe he would do it to deflect from other issues. Yet on the other hand SoD Mattis and the Joint Chiefs I do have more faith in to not totally screw us or our servicemen.
Misplaced faith, imo. Not to sound too bitter, but I don't trust any of them to do right. They're all part of the same bs machine.
Ahtman wrote: For some reason I keep thinking of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
OK, I'll bite. Why?
If I knew for sure why I wouldn't have said "for some reason". It just keeps popping up when I hear about this. Best guess is because at the time it was used as a pretext for conflict but later became very questionable about what really happened, but the two aren't completely analogous in the specifics. I just hope we are doing the right thing for the right reasons. I have zero faith in Trump to do that and every reason to believe he would do it to deflect from other issues. Yet on the other hand SoD Mattis and the Joint Chiefs I do have more faith in to not totally screw us or our servicemen.
Out of curiosity given Hilary's open statement that she wanted military action against Syria what would your opinion have been had she launched the same attack? If there are differences then why.
Ahtman wrote: For some reason I keep thinking of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
OK, I'll bite. Why?
If I knew for sure why I wouldn't have said "for some reason". It just keeps popping up when I hear about this. Best guess is because at the time it was used as a pretext for conflict but later became very questionable about what really happened, but the two aren't completely analogous in the specifics. I just hope we are doing the right thing for the right reasons. I have zero faith in Trump to do that and every reason to believe he would do it to deflect from other issues. Yet on the other hand SoD Mattis and the Joint Chiefs I do have more faith in to not totally screw us or our servicemen.
Out of curiosity given Hilary's open statement that she wanted military action against Syria what would your opinion have been had she launched the same attack? If there are differences then why.
I would have been skeptical as well since I don't care for HRC much either, but it would have been a different context. I'm not a fan but I also don't buy the ridiculous narratives many on the right tried to paint on her and there would be less questions as to nepotism, ethics breaches, and possible connections with foreign powers. She is what is wrong with politicians in the US but he is what is wrong with humanity in general. Luckily even a broken clock is right twice a day so SoD Mattis got in but for each Mattis we have several Devos. So like I said I would still be skeptical but not in the same way. We should always be wary of why we do things just as we should be wary of how we do them.
It's really hard to know how to feel about this. My feeling has always been thats it's not a good idea to get involved in Syria because I don't think we can improve that situation. There are just too many moving parts, and we don't have the political will to truly commit. And why would we have the political will? There really are no good guys. We're functionally helping out ISIL, ffs.
What does sending over a bunch of cruise missiles actually accomplish? Does this just mean that Assad won't use chemical weapons anymore? I guess it's back to killing hundreds of thousands with bombs and bullets, I guess.
I'm not unsympathetic, though - Assad needs to get got. So I think I'm in a weird place where I don't think it's a good idea, but I can't find it strongly enough in myself to really be bothered if the US does get involved to a greater degree, either. I will mention, of course, just as I did under Obama several times: The president needs to get a AUMF within 60 days if this is to continue. As ambivalent as I am about Syria, I am concrete on having enough on the executive being nearly totally unchecked in it's authority to engage in wars.
reds8n wrote: Yeah I'd heard/read that they didn't activate any of their ... AA -- is that still the right term here ? -- systems.
Of course one has to be a wee bit skeptical about claims like that.
The missile system used _tomahawks or whathaveyou -- are they still the standard/good as it gets or are they on the verge of being outdated ?
Why would one have to be a wee bit skeptical about claims like that? We'd love it if they lit up their S-300s to intercept Tomahawks. They know we'd love it.
Tomahawks are still the standard, and 58 of 59 hit what they were supposed to hit, so I have to confess that I'm not sure where this, "Boo hoo, we didn't do any damage!" narrative comes from - aside from RT, that is.
reds8n wrote: Yeah I'd heard/read that they didn't activate any of their ... AA -- is that still the right term here ? -- systems.
Of course one has to be a wee bit skeptical about claims like that.
The missile system used _tomahawks or whathaveyou -- are they still the standard/good as it gets or are they on the verge of being outdated ?
Why would one have to be a wee bit skeptical about claims like that? We'd love it if they lit up their S-300s to intercept Tomahawks. They know we'd love it.
Tomahawks are still the standard, and 58 of 59 hit what they were supposed to hit, so I have to confess that I'm not sure where this, "Boo hoo, we didn't do any damage!" narrative comes from - aside from RT, that is.
Aye. They seem to have the airbase running but the armoured shelters are burned out and have holes blasted through thr roof.
So I'm not sure to say if its destroyed but its not unharmed and fully effective and before. US seems to have claimed the target was support infrastructure like maintaining, fuel, aircraft storage and base infrastructure related to keeping aircraft in combat.
And yes. It also gives away what kind of capability they have if they fire, expendeds there supply of S300 missiles and also forces Assad ro light up his radars etc. It gives away where they are etc. He could be wanting to hide his capacity..
Ouze wrote: It's really hard to know how to feel about this. My feeling has always been thats it's not a good idea to get involved in Syria because I don't think we can improve that situation. There are just too many moving parts, and we don't have the political will to truly commit. And why would we have the political will? There really are no good guys. We're functionally helping out ISIL, ffs.
What does sending over a bunch of cruise missiles actually accomplish? Does this just mean that Assad won't use chemical weapons anymore? I guess it's back to killing hundreds of thousands with bombs and bullets, I guess.
I'm not unsympathetic, though - Assad needs to get got. So I think I'm in a weird place where I don't think it's a good idea, but I can't find it strongly enough in myself to really be bothered if the US does get involved to a greater degree, either. I will mention, of course, just as I did under Obama several times: The president needs to get a AUMF within 60 days if this is to continue. As ambivalent as I am about Syria, I am concrete on having enough on the executive being nearly totally unchecked in it's authority to engage in wars.
The USA has been on a permanent war footing since 2001 IMO, and in that time, a trillion dollars has been spent, and thousands of US servicemen and woman have died, and no offence to any American dakka members, but it's accomplished the square root of gak all.
Iraq is a Iran satellite and Afghanistan is well...Afghanistan...
And now here we are with Syria...
Nobody really expects anything from Trump, an appalling man in my book, but the chance to redeem himself is here. Do your nation a huge service Mr Trump, and pull the plug on this gak storm and draw a line under 16 years of gak poor American military adventures.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Compare and contrast to FDR. It's the 1930s, and FDR gets word of Japanese atrocities in China.
Let's send in the US army airforce and bomb Japanese targets in retaliation, said FDR, on no occasion...
Well the US did start imposing trade restrictions in the 1930s. And mounting such a bombing operation in the 1930's wasn't as practical as it is today and the US didn't have the most powerful military in the world then either, they would have had to tangle with the Japanese Navy and/or found a land base within bombing range (and they only had 100 or so B17's at that time) and tangled with the Japanese air power which certainly wasn't anything to sneeze at, given the US didn't have any fighters capable of escorting the B17's prior to mid 1941 with the P38 Lightning.
How the US responded to Japanese atrocities would be more comparable to how the US would respond now to Chinese or Russian atrocities (less powerful but still major players).
reds8n wrote: Yeah I'd heard/read that they didn't activate any of their ... AA -- is that still the right term here ? -- systems.
Of course one has to be a wee bit skeptical about claims like that.
The missile system used _tomahawks or whathaveyou -- are they still the standard/good as it gets or are they on the verge of being outdated ?
Why would one have to be a wee bit skeptical about claims like that? We'd love it if they lit up their S-300s to intercept Tomahawks. They know we'd love it.
Tomahawks are still the standard, and 58 of 59 hit what they were supposed to hit, so I have to confess that I'm not sure where this, "Boo hoo, we didn't do any damage!" narrative comes from - aside from RT, that is.
Aye. They seem to have the airbase running but the armoured shelters are burned out and have holes blasted through thr roof.
So I'm not sure to say if its destroyed but its not unharmed and fully effective and before. US seems to have claimed the target was support infrastructure like maintaining, fuel, aircraft storage and base infrastructure related to keeping aircraft in combat.
And yes. It also gives away what kind of capability they have if they fire, expendeds there supply of S300 missiles and also forces Assad ro light up his radars etc. It gives away where they are etc. He could be wanting to hide his capacity..
There was also an estimated 20 aircraft destroyed. That alone was more then the value of those missiles. While the air base may still be "operational", don't think for a second that it's not limping along right now. Nothing short of a full on bombing mission would have taken that thing out.
Ahtman wrote: For some reason I keep thinking of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
OK, I'll bite. Why?
If I knew for sure why I wouldn't have said "for some reason". It just keeps popping up when I hear about this. Best guess is because at the time it was used as a pretext for conflict but later became very questionable about what really happened, but the two aren't completely analogous in the specifics. I just hope we are doing the right thing for the right reasons. I have zero faith in Trump to do that and every reason to believe he would do it to deflect from other issues. Yet on the other hand SoD Mattis and the Joint Chiefs I do have more faith in to not totally screw us or our servicemen.
Out of curiosity given Hilary's open statement that she wanted military action against Syria what would your opinion have been had she launched the same attack? If there are differences then why.
well first you'd have to wonder, she wanted a no fly zone over syria. If she had gotten it, would the attacks have even occurred?
If they had, either A, the planes & copters launching the chemical attacks might have been shot down, or in retaliation, I bet her war machine at least would have crippled the air field and probably assads house as well. How many missiles does it take to knock out the tower & radar systems, and turn the airstrip into any highway in Michigan. (full of pot holes) far less than 60. Which more than likely would have stopped the second attack. Also she would have went to the UN for support and probably gotten it.
Bombing runways is very unproductive. I'm good friends with one of the lead targeteers for one of the services and as he puts it "The first thing I teach when we go over airfields is you don't target runways'.
They are too easily and quickly repaired to be worth the munitions in most cases (the exception being if you MUST have a specific airfield runway unusable for a specific window of time to enable some other operation).
The fact we didn't turn the runways into "any highway in Michigan" speaks directly to the professionalism of the targeteers and weaponeers who planned the strike. They knew what they were doing.
I have to laugh at the idea that cratering the runway would have stopped a second attack. No. It would have delayed a second attack from that particular airstrip. Maybe for a couple days, tops. Unless we actively conducted strikes at the repair operations, which kind of would negated the one time punishment strike intent of the operation...
CptJake wrote: Bombing runways is very unproductive. I'm good friends with one of the lead targeteers for one of the services and as he puts it "The first thing I teach when we go over airfields is you don't target runways'.
They are too easily and quickly repaired to be worth the munitions in most cases (the exception being if you MUST have a specific airfield runway unusable for a specific window of time to enable some other operation).
The fact we didn't turn the runways into "any highway in Michigan" speaks directly to the professionalism of the targeteers and weaponeers who planned the strike. They knew what they were doing.
I have to laugh at the idea that cratering the runway would have stopped a second attack. No. It would have delayed a second attack from that particular airstrip. Maybe for a couple days, tops. Unless we actively conducted strikes at the repair operations, which kind of would negated the one time punishment strike intent of the operation...
I did say start with the tower & radars, airports don't run very well without air traffic control. Then since you have 58ish missiles left, might as well drop some on the runway.
days later is still better than the very next day. days gives time for negotiations to happen, you know that diplomacy stuff. As it is now that whole operation really looks like a giant failure, with even russia & syria now issuing the US ultimatums. So now we get to wait and see if trump backs down and makes us look even weaker.
CptJake wrote: Bombing runways is very unproductive. I'm good friends with one of the lead targeteers for one of the services and as he puts it "The first thing I teach when we go over airfields is you don't target runways'.
They are too easily and quickly repaired to be worth the munitions in most cases (the exception being if you MUST have a specific airfield runway unusable for a specific window of time to enable some other operation).
The fact we didn't turn the runways into "any highway in Michigan" speaks directly to the professionalism of the targeteers and weaponeers who planned the strike. They knew what they were doing.
I have to laugh at the idea that cratering the runway would have stopped a second attack. No. It would have delayed a second attack from that particular airstrip. Maybe for a couple days, tops. Unless we actively conducted strikes at the repair operations, which kind of would negated the one time punishment strike intent of the operation...
I did say start with the tower & radars, airports don't run very well without air traffic control. Then since you have 58ish missiles left, might as well drop some on the runway.
days later is still better than the very next day. days gives time for negotiations to happen, you know that diplomacy stuff. As it is now that whole operation really looks like a giant failure, with even russia & syria now issuing the US ultimatums. So now we get to wait and see if trump backs down and makes us look even weaker.
What we targeted was done for good reasons you can't find open source, and we hit what we aimed at. Dropping munitions on those runways would have been a waste of resources.
I've been reading this and the earlier posts in the US Politics thread, and I am kind of surprised about the debate going on. Even more surprising is that my girlfriend is Iranian (been in the US for her 3rd year now), and how drastically she saw things differently than I did. But I expect that. I also expect debate between supporters of Assad against non-supporters, but I am even more surprised by those within the non-supporters of Assad, like shown in this thread.
I think you can actually chart the train of thought in these debates, and branch them out like a tree.
I believe the first instinctual thought we all have really boils down to how far you would go to help others. Some witness a terrible car accident as its happening, and some immediately stop to see if they can provide assistance, and others say wow that sucks and keep driving. A lot of people do keep driving. That's just the way many people are.
The second debate falls into how far someone will go to help someone. Some will provide the shirt off their back, others limited. The same goes with the expectations they have in their country for those outside their country. If you feel it should be active in helping others, when you are okay with the government taking taking action, if you are not, you rather it wouldn't. Sort of, 'its up to them to sort out'.
And of course, there is the level of how badly these others are suffering too. The worse it gets the more motivated we naturally are the more we want it stopped.
I think that every side of every argument we are having here begins with those thoughts.
Now, history has shown that ALL countries involved have done some pretty shady things, if not flat out wrong, in the last 100 years. The US and Russia each have conspired and in some cases actually been instrumental in overthrowing governments that were not supportive of them, or support those that did, but were terrible to their own people. Whether its the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe or Afghanistan, or the US in Central/South America and the Middle East. Shady things have been done, and are still being done.
Its easy to say 'its their problem' or 'we shouldn't get involved' or 'we should be doing something'. In the end, most of us are all good people and we all hope that everyone could have the same benefits many of us enjoy, but unfortunately don't. Some people what to help spread democracy for example, believing the world will be a better place, and others view that as too idealistic, and don't want to get involved. There are valid arguments on both sides.
I think if we've learned anything about the rights and wrongs the US and Russia has done, especially in the Cold War, is that supporting repressive governments that mistreats its own people is wrong. We wouldn't want that on ourselves, and we deep down hate to see that happening to others too. The Syrian Civil war began with the Arab Spring/Iranian Green movements, and for a reason. Assad is a real piece of gak. There is no justification of supporting or even liking that man. If you are from a country that is supporting that guy by keeping him in power, your government is wrong. Its that simple. They should be supporting the people as a whole.
Sure Syria has been an ally of Russia for some time, but I think Russia's only real interest is to have some kind of influence in the region, as well as being able to keep their little naval facility in Tartus. For the Iranians its different. When Saddam invaded Iran (which the US supported to some degree), Syria was the ONLY Arab country to criticize and not support Iraq. So Iran genuinely sees Assad's government as a friend.
Now I despise Assad, Putin, and Ayatollah Khamenei. I might be more willing to listen to their side if all three granted their OWN people the same benefits and rights that all people should enjoy, but they don't. They are all piece of gak thugs. The Syrian people began their revolution because conditions inside Syria drove them to. The world should have been on their side. Russia and Iran support the minority side that the people were rebelling from to begin with.
Now (after previous instances and an agreement NOT to do something like this again), Assad has gassed his own people. The US Military can track every pigeon flying in Syria right now, and they can track the fighter taking off from that airbase to the site where the gas was dropped, and its return to that base. That is why that air base was bombed. That is enough proof for me. You are probably never going to see a written order, or a pilot confess, as proof that Assad's forces carried this out. You are going to either believe that they are capable of doing this AGAIN, or you aren't no matter what.
So then this becomes a situation like I started out with, like witnessing an accident in progress. Or even better, a crime. Some get involved, others don't.
In my mind, something needed to be done. A message had to have been sent, because if none had, this would have happened again. And if it does, then this strike will look like it wasn't strong enough, and a greater strike will follow until these actions are stopped. If Assad were allowed to continue gassing his own people, then you will start seeing this behavior spread all around the world.
Finally, when my girlfriend (again who is Iranian) learned of the strike she went into an emotional rage. Now she has no love for her government, hates them rather, but is very pro Persian. She has a friend in school here who's family is in Damascus, and her friend was very upset. My girlfriend now assumed the US would do the same to Syria as they had done to Iraq and Afghanistan, which I found very hypocritical considering that the war in Syria had been going on for 7 years now, and I didn't see her get anywhere near upset over the gas attacks themselves. Which left me baffled. And I have seen this all over the internet. Assad bombs his own people, its a news story. The US bombs an evacuated air base as a warning to stop doing that, and the world loses its gak.
Her parents back in Iran btw, thought Trump bombing Syria was a great thing, something I also found surprising considering Iran's involvement in Syria. But they are not supportive of Assad gassing his own people either.
Yes bullets kill, so do bombs and missiles, and many, many children have already died in this war, and will continue doing so. But lines can be crossed even in horrific conditions as those, and certain things cannot be allowed to become standard. It doesn't matter if you are from the US, UK, Russia, Syria, the Moon or Mars, gassing your OWN people is about as heinous as it gets. You have to agree that is wrong, or there is just something wrong with you. Now the argument on what to do about it, after diplomacy fails can be debated, but doing nothing is just going to give Assad a green light to continue, which can't happen. And keep in mind, the planet has 7 billion people living on it. If it were motivated, it could stop what is happening in 15 minutes if it wanted, but too many people don't want to get involved, which is a tragedy itself.
Now Trump's travel ban affects me personally. It has prevented my girlfriend's parents from visiting, and it also means she can't leave the country and then come back. I have never had a US President have a direct impact on a relationship I was in before, and its pissed me off (not to mention all the stress its cause my GF, which I have to deal with). But I was glad to see Trump do something on this. It showed, that despite all of his other issues, that deep down he can look at a terrible situation, and at least try to do something to stop it, which in my mind, is a thousand times better than doing nothing. Everything else, from long term strategy or relations with others, can be debated later. At the end of the day, Russia and Iran have supported a guy willing to gas innocent women and children, and that will be their legacy in this. The majority of the world which has sat back and done nothing, well, that will be their legacy. Trump at least, has tried to do something.
Actually, in many cases, in first-aid for example, they teach you to do nothing if you aren't sure you will help, because many times, trying to help without knowing how to help, can make things worse.
I'm not saying this to devaluate what you have said. I think that its obvius that something has to be done in Syria. I'm only pointing this out to remember that, in some cases, the act of not acting, its the better option.
Now, in the Syrian civil war... the problem here its that the legitimate democratic opposition that Assad has at the begining of the conflict has been totally crushed by both ISIS and other fundamentalistic islamic forces, the "moderate rebels" as they call them... ugh, (That have been financed by Europe and USA) and the regimen of Assad (That receive help of Russia and Iran)
So, now, whoever wins, the people of Syria will lose.
So then this becomes a situation like I started out with, like witnessing an accident in progress. Or even better, a crime. Some get involved, others don't.
Nope
Nope
Nope
You missed it completely. I am against it because:
1. Every time we have intervened things have gotten worse. THIS IS NOT A CAR WRECK THIS IS A MULTIFACTION CIVIL WAR. It will not win until one faction wins. The longer it takes the bloodier it will be.
2. I am sick and tired of politicians sending off men and women to die for #1.
KTG17 wrote: Well okay then, you've convinced me. I am all for Assad gassing as many people as he likes. As well as any other despot who wishes to do the same.
And if gassing will end the war quicker, why not just give Assad a nuke. I am sure he'll use it. And things will get over real quickly.
Well you could go and join one of the rebel groups fighting. Might be killed for being a Christian of course.
Its not that we are "all for it" its that its not a compelling interest of the US,and we need to quit bombing people all over the place.
I've been reading this and the earlier posts in the US Politics thread, and I am kind of surprised about the debate going on. Even more surprising is that my girlfriend is Iranian (been in the US for her 3rd year now), and how drastically she saw things differently than I did. But I expect that. I also expect debate between supporters of Assad against non-supporters, but I am even more surprised by those within the non-supporters of Assad, like shown in this thread.
I think you can actually chart the train of thought in these debates, and branch them out like a tree.
I believe the first instinctual thought we all have really boils down to how far you would go to help others. Some witness a terrible car accident as its happening, and some immediately stop to see if they can provide assistance, and others say wow that sucks and keep driving. A lot of people do keep driving. That's just the way many people are.
The second debate falls into how far someone will go to help someone. Some will provide the shirt off their back, others limited. The same goes with the expectations they have in their country for those outside their country. If you feel it should be active in helping others, when you are okay with the government taking taking action, if you are not, you rather it wouldn't. Sort of, 'its up to them to sort out'.
And of course, there is the level of how badly these others are suffering too. The worse it gets the more motivated we naturally are the more we want it stopped.
I think that every side of every argument we are having here begins with those thoughts.
Now, history has shown that ALL countries involved have done some pretty shady things, if not flat out wrong, in the last 100 years. The US and Russia each have conspired and in some cases actually been instrumental in overthrowing governments that were not supportive of them, or support those that did, but were terrible to their own people. Whether its the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe or Afghanistan, or the US in Central/South America and the Middle East. Shady things have been done, and are still being done.
Its easy to say 'its their problem' or 'we shouldn't get involved' or 'we should be doing something'. In the end, most of us are all good people and we all hope that everyone could have the same benefits many of us enjoy, but unfortunately don't. Some people what to help spread democracy for example, believing the world will be a better place, and others view that as too idealistic, and don't want to get involved. There are valid arguments on both sides.
I think if we've learned anything about the rights and wrongs the US and Russia has done, especially in the Cold War, is that supporting repressive governments that mistreats its own people is wrong. We wouldn't want that on ourselves, and we deep down hate to see that happening to others too. The Syrian Civil war began with the Arab Spring/Iranian Green movements, and for a reason. Assad is a real piece of gak. There is no justification of supporting or even liking that man. If you are from a country that is supporting that guy by keeping him in power, your government is wrong. Its that simple. They should be supporting the people as a whole.
Sure Syria has been an ally of Russia for some time, but I think Russia's only real interest is to have some kind of influence in the region, as well as being able to keep their little naval facility in Tartus. For the Iranians its different. When Saddam invaded Iran (which the US supported to some degree), Syria was the ONLY Arab country to criticize and not support Iraq. So Iran genuinely sees Assad's government as a friend.
Now I despise Assad, Putin, and Ayatollah Khamenei. I might be more willing to listen to their side if all three granted their OWN people the same benefits and rights that all people should enjoy, but they don't. They are all piece of gak thugs. The Syrian people began their revolution because conditions inside Syria drove them to. The world should have been on their side. Russia and Iran support the minority side that the people were rebelling from to begin with.
Now (after previous instances and an agreement NOT to do something like this again), Assad has gassed his own people. The US Military can track every pigeon flying in Syria right now, and they can track the fighter taking off from that airbase to the site where the gas was dropped, and its return to that base. That is why that air base was bombed. That is enough proof for me. You are probably never going to see a written order, or a pilot confess, as proof that Assad's forces carried this out. You are going to either believe that they are capable of doing this AGAIN, or you aren't no matter what.
So then this becomes a situation like I started out with, like witnessing an accident in progress. Or even better, a crime. Some get involved, others don't.
In my mind, something needed to be done. A message had to have been sent, because if none had, this would have happened again. And if it does, then this strike will look like it wasn't strong enough, and a greater strike will follow until these actions are stopped. If Assad were allowed to continue gassing his own people, then you will start seeing this behavior spread all around the world.
Finally, when my girlfriend (again who is Iranian) learned of the strike she went into an emotional rage. Now she has no love for her government, hates them rather, but is very pro Persian. She has a friend in school here who's family is in Damascus, and her friend was very upset. My girlfriend now assumed the US would do the same to Syria as they had done to Iraq and Afghanistan, which I found very hypocritical considering that the war in Syria had been going on for 7 years now, and I didn't see her get anywhere near upset over the gas attacks themselves. Which left me baffled. And I have seen this all over the internet. Assad bombs his own people, its a news story. The US bombs an evacuated air base as a warning to stop doing that, and the world loses its gak.
Her parents back in Iran btw, thought Trump bombing Syria was a great thing, something I also found surprising considering Iran's involvement in Syria. But they are not supportive of Assad gassing his own people either.
Yes bullets kill, so do bombs and missiles, and many, many children have already died in this war, and will continue doing so. But lines can be crossed even in horrific conditions as those, and certain things cannot be allowed to become standard. It doesn't matter if you are from the US, UK, Russia, Syria, the Moon or Mars, gassing your OWN people is about as heinous as it gets. You have to agree that is wrong, or there is just something wrong with you. Now the argument on what to do about it, after diplomacy fails can be debated, but doing nothing is just going to give Assad a green light to continue, which can't happen. And keep in mind, the planet has 7 billion people living on it. If it were motivated, it could stop what is happening in 15 minutes if it wanted, but too many people don't want to get involved, which is a tragedy itself.
Now Trump's travel ban affects me personally. It has prevented my girlfriend's parents from visiting, and it also means she can't leave the country and then come back. I have never had a US President have a direct impact on a relationship I was in before, and its pissed me off (not to mention all the stress its cause my GF, which I have to deal with). But I was glad to see Trump do something on this. It showed, that despite all of his other issues, that deep down he can look at a terrible situation, and at least try to do something to stop it, which in my mind, is a thousand times better than doing nothing. Everything else, from long term strategy or relations with others, can be debated later. At the end of the day, Russia and Iran have supported a guy willing to gas innocent women and children, and that will be their legacy in this. The majority of the world which has sat back and done nothing, well, that will be their legacy. Trump at least, has tried to do something.
I think all of us here agree that Assad is bad. The problem however lies in the fact that the situation is not simply black and white. It is incredibly complicated. For example, while Assad is bad he nowhere near as bad as some of the other groups that vie for power in Syria, who among other things massacre or enslave entire towns or villages simply because its inhabitants have a slightly different religion. Therefore, many people reason that doing anything that harms Assad is bad, because it harms his ability to keep those even worse forces at bay and prolongs the suffering of the people that have fallen under control of those groups. So yes, while this missile strike could maybe prevent further gas attacks, it may also lead to ISIS or Ahrar-al-Sham being able to capture and exterminate more 'infidel' villages. Is 'making a statement' really a good thing if it leads to much greater suffering than that it prevents?
And what if Assad simply fails to heed this statement? Will this strike still have been a good thing then, even if it had no effect beyond just killing even more people?
Wars are bad, normally they haven't good or bad, and even then, a War its a War, and all the participants make bad things in it.
But a Civil War its a totally different matter, its even worse, and more complicated, because the reasons for that War can vary drastically from country to country and normally its very hard for a external army to intervene knowing exactly the relations and causes for that Civil War.
So we need to stop putting "bad guys" and "good guys" labels into a Civil War, with totally different values than us. That isn't gonna help to resolve things to the better.
No, you have me convinced. If Assad has to break a few eggs to make an omelet that's fine with me.
If presented with a opportunity to do something, its best we just sit back and allow it, maybe even encourage it, as the faster it wraps up the better, regardless of who is in charge after. Maybe give poison gas to all sides, then it will equal things out a bit and make it more fair. I mean, imagine if all sides managed to kill each other off, then we wouldn't have any issues there at all, as no one would be left. That's why I think we can just move aside the gas and hand out just enough nukes to kill everyone in the area. I know some of you would be okay with this but just don't want to admit it publicly.
As long as it doesn't affect us directly. I can just as surely sit back and shrug my shoulders while watching CNN with you. As a matter of fact, since I live in Florida, I don't even have to care what's going on in Georgia or Alabama. I am good just thinking about us in Florida. As a matter of fact, I don't even have to worry about whats going on in the state, I only care about my county. Actually I dont have to worry about my county, I just care about the town I live in. Actually, thinking more about that, I don't even have to care about the town, I only care about my neighborhood. Actually, I sort of care about the neighbors, I am more concerned about my house.
So the whole world can go to gak so long as I am left alone in my house, I really don't care.
KTG17 wrote: No, you have me convinced. If Assad has to break a few eggs to make an omelet that's fine with me.
If presented with a opportunity to do something, its best we just sit back and allow it, maybe even encourage it, as the faster it wraps up the better, regardless of who is in charge after. Maybe give poison gas to all sides, then it will equal things out a bit and make it more fair. I mean, imagine if all sides managed to kill each other off, then we wouldn't have any issues there at all, as no one would be left. That's why I think we can just move aside the gas and hand out just enough nukes to kill everyone in the area. I know some of you would be okay with this but just don't want to admit it publicly.
As long as it doesn't affect us directly. I can just as surely sit back and shrug my shoulders while watching CNN with you. As a matter of fact, since I live in Florida, I don't even have to care what's going on in Georgia or Alabama. I am good just thinking about us in Florida. As a matter of fact, I don't even have to worry about whats going on in the state, I only care about my county. Actually I dont have to worry about my county, I just care about the town I live in. Actually, thinking more about that, I don't even have to care about the town, I only care about my neighborhood. Actually, I sort of care about the neighbors, I am more concerned about my house.
So the whole world can go to gak so long as I am left alone in my house, I really don't care.
Sounds awesome.
You left out the part where your version of caring is sending someone else's son or daughter to go die for your feelz.
If they signed up to serve to defend America's interests, then yes.
Don't be naive and think that the US Armed Forces only exist to defend the homeland.
But don't worry, I am not on board with that. Just crossing my fingers that everyone in Syria can be killed so we all can move on from this. Lord knows I am sick of hearing about it in the news.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There is that huge humanitarian crisis in South Sudan too. People actually starving to death. And no one is doing anything about it. That is the poster right there to show what turning away and not getting involved can accomplish. Maybe a whole generation of South Sudanise can be killed off and we won't have to hear about South Sudan anymore either.
KTG17 wrote: If they signed up to serve to defend America's interests, then yes.
But they aren't defending US interests. They are defending your feelz.
Don't be naive and think that the US Armed Forces only exist to defend the homeland.
I'm not. Imagine all the wars we would have avoided though.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There is that huge humanitarian crisis in South Sudan too. People actually starving to death. And no one is doing anything about it. That is the poster right there to show what turning away and not getting involved can accomplish. Maybe a whole generation of South Sudanise can be killed off and we won't have to hear about South Sudan anymore either.
KTG17 wrote: If they signed up to serve to defend America's interests, then yes.
Don't be naive and think that the US Armed Forces only exist to defend the homeland.
But don't worry, I am not on board with that. Just crossing my fingers that everyone in Syria can be killed so we all can move on from this. Lord knows I am sick of hearing about it in the news.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There is that huge humanitarian crisis in South Sudan too. People actually starving to death. And no one is doing anything about it. That is the poster right there to show what turning away and not getting involved can accomplish. Maybe a whole generation of South Sudanise can be killed off and we won't have to hear about South Sudan anymore either.
Darfur doesn't get the coverage that it used to, that's true. And the situation in Sudan is still terrible. Of course we don't hear much about rebuilding Haiti after the earthquake in 2010 and there's still suffering there, same goes for the flooding in Pakistan in 2010 that created a humanitarian crisis, the ongoing violence in central Africa, the ongoing recovery from drought in Somalia, the current Ebola virus outbreak in west Africa. There's quite a long list of humanitarian crisis in the world that the US hasn't gone out and single handedly solved. Of course we still haven't fixed all of our domestic crisis either, New Orleans is still rebuilding from Katrina, the massive flooding in the Midwest from last year is still being cleaned up, the repercussions from Super Storm Sandy are still evident in the Northeast.
Hey no one solved those first two problems so what was the point in trying, right? Why do anything at all? I don't see genocide still going on in Bosnia so they one of three is still better than zero out of three.
But seriously, you don't have to convince me. I was just thinking about all the violence in Chi-town (that's Chicago to you international homies). What do I care that mostly black gang bangers are shooting up their neighborhoods? I don't live there. The sooner they kill every man woman and child, the faster those crime stats go down.
There are a whole slew of areas we can avoid and let those who can't help themselves spin further down the spiral so long as it doesn't affect us directly.
And if I find out that a portion of my federal taxes is being used to prevent crime in Illinois then I am writing my congressman.
KTG17 wrote: I've been reading this and the earlier posts in the US Politics thread, and I am kind of surprised about the debate going on. Even more surprising is that my girlfriend is Iranian (been in the US for her 3rd year now), and how drastically she saw things differently than I did. But I expect that. I also expect debate between supporters of Assad against non-supporters, but I am even more surprised by those within the non-supporters of Assad, like shown in this thread.
I think you can actually chart the train of thought in these debates, and branch them out like a tree.
I believe the first instinctual thought we all have really boils down to how far you would go to help others. Some witness a terrible car accident as its happening, and some immediately stop to see if they can provide assistance, and others say wow that sucks and keep driving. A lot of people do keep driving. That's just the way many people are.
Lets be fair, there are a lot of good reasons for people to keep driving in most instances. If they dont have any meaningful way to help, may not have any helpful equipment, dont know the situation, dont know how to help, there may be some other danger present, or they may have other even more pressing problems, help may not be wanted, or any number of other things, then it's best for them not to stop. Stopping to help is not just a matter of willingness, you have to have the means, knowledge, ability and opportunity as well.
Same thing with Syria. Except in this case the people stuck in the side of the road are also actively fighting each other in the nastiest ways, and half a dozen other people have also pulled over to "help" their particular chosen rider, and they're all armed, and all have competing interests. Helping, in a truly meaningful way, becomes very difficult in that kind of situation.
Now (after previous instances and an agreement NOT to do something like this again), Assad has gassed his own people. The US Military can track every pigeon flying in Syria right now, and they can track the fighter taking off from that airbase to the site where the gas was dropped, and its return to that base. That is why that air base was bombed. That is enough proof for me. You are probably never going to see a written order, or a pilot confess, as proof that Assad's forces carried this out. You are going to either believe that they are capable of doing this AGAIN, or you aren't no matter what.
Well, the problem you see is that the same government that is assuring us that this actually happened, and happened the way they say it did, is the same government that outright lied about these exact same things before, citing a vast array of supposed intelligence, that got us stuck into a neighboring nation for the last 14 years, costing us trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of local dead, for what ultimately turned out to be an outright fabrication and very little in terms of positive outcomes and we *still* havent resolved that debacle.
Even if they are capable of doing it again (which by all accounts is the case) the scale and results of the incidents thus far are not any different than could be accomplished with conventional explosive bombs, so the question then must also be asked, what are we reacting to that they arent already doing anyway that we otherwise allow?
In my mind, something needed to be done. A message had to have been sent, because if none had, this would have happened again.
We come to a conundrum here. Innocent people are killed in large numbers every day in equally horrific ways in this conflict, and have been for *years. We only seem to care when one abstract rule is *allegedly* broken, despite the ultimate results being no different from daily occurrences which are equally "illegal" and horrifying.
If you didnt care enough about innocent people being shelled, bombed, shot, stabbed, buried alive, tortured, burned, etc, to demand military action before, why do you suddenly care about them being gassed so much more that it is suddenly worth a military strike?
More to the point, ultimately, what is our nine digit investment (for this single attack) buying for the people of Syria in this instance? By our own admission, according to McMaster, these attacks did not destroy Assad's ability to do this again. The airfield is still operational. People are still dying in horrific ways. The only people that paid a price were those working at the airfield that didnt get an evacuation notice, little people like technicians and loaders and maintenance workers in all likelihood. The Russians were forwarned and we must assume that Assad was as well via Russia, and that anything of true value had attempts made to preserve it. We have not shaken Assad's position, we have not destroyed the chemical attack capability, we have not changed anything important on the ground, not changed the strategic, operational, or even tactical landscape of the war. We spent a large sum to slap Assad on the wrist and break a few of his toys in order to feel better about ourselves for one arbitrarily chosen act of excess barbarism out of tens of thousands of such barbarous acts.
Doing something is not automatically the same thing as helping, and when we're willing to sit by and allow heinous and illegal acts to happen on a daily basis, and only act in very specific exceptions which have no material difference in outcome to thousands of other acts, and even then not act in any truly decisive manner (and such may not be possible without risk of dangerous escalation) then our response comes off as either selective self righteous chest beating to soothe or own moral qualms ("yay we did something, we're helping see?!"), or cover for an ulterior motive.
KTG17 wrote: Hey no one solved those first two problems so what was the point in trying, right? Why do anything at all? I don't see genocide still going on in Bosnia so they one of three is still better than zero out of three.
But seriously, you don't have to convince me. I was just thinking about all the violence in Chi-town (that's Chicago to you international homies). What do I care that mostly black gang bangers are shooting up their neighborhoods? I don't live there. The sooner they kill every man woman and child, the faster those crime stats go down.
There are a whole slew of areas we can avoid and let those who can't help themselves spin further down the spiral so long as it doesn't affect us directly.
And if I find out that a portion of my federal taxes is being used to prevent crime in Illinois then I am writing my congressman.
That's def going to take some longer thought, and I highly doubt we'll ever see a whole Syria in our lifetimes again. More likely it will be loosely tied together under a name, but areas will be controlled by different factions for years to come. That doesn't mean to green light the use of poison gas in the meantime!
I am not saying Syria isn't f***ed. I am saying that the same people who don't want to get involved over the use of chemical weapons are also many of the same people who didn't want to get involved earlier, allowing only the most radical groups to succeed. Not properly supporting the moderates isn't far off from not doing anything about the use of chemical weapons.
Are you seriously going to be okay with everyone using those? Cause that is where we would be heading if that is allowed to continue.
KTG17 wrote: Hey no one solved those first two problems so what was the point in trying, right? Why do anything at all? I don't see genocide still going on in Bosnia so they one of three is still better than zero out of three.
But seriously, you don't have to convince me. I was just thinking about all the violence in Chi-town (that's Chicago to you international homies). What do I care that mostly black gang bangers are shooting up their neighborhoods? I don't live there. The sooner they kill every man woman and child, the faster those crime stats go down.
There are a whole slew of areas we can avoid and let those who can't help themselves spin further down the spiral so long as it doesn't affect us directly.
And if I find out that a portion of my federal taxes is being used to prevent crime in Illinois then I am writing my congressman.
OK smart guy, who do we back?
How do we back them?
How is that different then now?
the answer there is the hard way, it's easy to back someone to help kill the other ones. violence is never a solution, it always just brings more violence. It's time for just some good ol fashioned diplomacy. Sit down all the players in a room and actually talk to all of them to find out what they each want, and see if some common ground emerges for a compromise.
And let's imagine Assad continues to stock like those weapons, and he should lose a bunch. God forbid that happens. Imagine terrorists getting their hands on some of those weapons and setting them off at a train station or mall in Europe.
KTG17 wrote: That's def going to take some longer thought, and I highly doubt we'll ever see a whole Syria in our lifetimes again. More likely it will be loosely tied together under a name, but areas will be controlled by different factions for years to come. That doesn't mean to green light the use of poison gas in the meantime!
I am not saying Syria isn't f***ed. I am saying that the same people who don't want to get involved over the use of chemical weapons are also many of the same people who didn't want to get involved earlier, allowing only the most radical groups to succeed. Not properly supporting the moderates isn't far off from not doing anything about the use of chemical weapons.
Are you seriously going to be okay with everyone using those? Cause that is where we would be heading if that is allowed to continue.
I noticed you didn't answer my question. Who would you back;? How would you back them? What if Russia carpet bombs them?
One group we backed defected and joined up with Al Nusra. Another shot it out with a third group we were backing.
sirlynchmob wrote: the answer there is the hard way, it's easy to back someone to help kill the other ones. violence is never a solution, it always just brings more violence. It's time for just some good ol fashioned diplomacy. Sit down all the players in a room and actually talk to all of them to find out what they each want, and see if some common ground emerges for a compromise.
Actually sometimes violence is the answer. If I have no intention of talking, or taking the talks seriously, what are you going to do? It's a nice theory and works sometimes, but sometimes you also do have to kill people unfortunately. But if you are going to kill people, be sure it's for the right cause.
KTG17 wrote: That's def going to take some longer thought, and I highly doubt we'll ever see a whole Syria in our lifetimes again. More likely it will be loosely tied together under a name, but areas will be controlled by different factions for years to come. That doesn't mean to green light the use of poison gas in the meantime!
I am not saying Syria isn't f***ed. I am saying that the same people who don't want to get involved over the use of chemical weapons are also many of the same people who didn't want to get involved earlier, allowing only the most radical groups to succeed. Not properly supporting the moderates isn't far off from not doing anything about the use of chemical weapons.
Are you seriously going to be okay with everyone using those? Cause that is where we would be heading if that is allowed to continue.
I noticed you didn't answer my question. Who would you back;? How would you back them? What if Russia carpet bombs them?
One group we backed defected and joined up with Al Nusra. Another shot it out with a third group we were backing.
Yes I did answer, I said I would need a whole lot more time to think about it, and then ended it with saying that's no reason to allow for the continued use of poison gas.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of the extremists and Assad's forces killing each other off. What I do have a problem with is dropping chemical weapons on civilians.
CptJake wrote: Bombing runways is very unproductive. I'm good friends with one of the lead targeteers for one of the services and as he puts it "The first thing I teach when we go over airfields is you don't target runways'.
They are too easily and quickly repaired to be worth the munitions in most cases (the exception being if you MUST have a specific airfield runway unusable for a specific window of time to enable some other operation).
The fact we didn't turn the runways into "any highway in Michigan" speaks directly to the professionalism of the targeteers and weaponeers who planned the strike. They knew what they were doing.
I have to laugh at the idea that cratering the runway would have stopped a second attack. No. It would have delayed a second attack from that particular airstrip. Maybe for a couple days, tops. Unless we actively conducted strikes at the repair operations, which kind of would negated the one time punishment strike intent of the operation...
I did say start with the tower & radars, airports don't run very well without air traffic control. Then since you have 58ish missiles left, might as well drop some on the runway.
days later is still better than the very next day. days gives time for negotiations to happen, you know that diplomacy stuff. As it is now that whole operation really looks like a giant failure, with even russia & syria now issuing the US ultimatums. So now we get to wait and see if trump backs down and makes us look even weaker.
Syrian military assets: Fuel, hardened bunkers, munitions and a Russian-made surface-to-air missile system were targeted by the strikes.
Syrian planes: The Pentagon believes about 20 Syrian aircraft were destroyed, though it is hard to say exactly how many were taken out, as some planes were inside bunkers that were destroyed.
Asked to assess how losing those planes would degrade Assad’s military, the official declined to offer a figure but noted that “20 aircraft out of their inventory is going to make an impact.”
What wasn’t targeted
Chemical warfare bunkers: The Pentagon was careful to avoid hitting anything they believed to be storage for chemical warfare materials, in order to not unleash those weapons.
The runway: Shyrat has a 10,000-foot runway, but that wasn’t targeted in the strike. Asked why, the officials said that didn’t fit into the “proportionality” they were going for and noted that, as they were using Tomahawks, “it would have been a waste of a munition on the airfield.”
Russia: The Pentagon believes there are up to 100 Russian personnel on the base, and the mission plan was created specifically so the strikes would not target Russian citizens or assets. Ahead of the strikes, Russia was warned the Tomahawks were incoming so they would not “read the attack” wrong, the second official said.
KTG17 wrote: That's def going to take some longer thought, and I highly doubt we'll ever see a whole Syria in our lifetimes again. More likely it will be loosely tied together under a name, but areas will be controlled by different factions for years to come. That doesn't mean to green light the use of poison gas in the meantime!
I am not saying Syria isn't f***ed. I am saying that the same people who don't want to get involved over the use of chemical weapons are also many of the same people who didn't want to get involved earlier, allowing only the most radical groups to succeed. Not properly supporting the moderates isn't far off from not doing anything about the use of chemical weapons.
Are you seriously going to be okay with everyone using those? Cause that is where we would be heading if that is allowed to continue.
ISIS already has chemical weapons and has used them 52 times in Iraq and Syria (and that was the tally in November 2016, 4 months ago)
Credit Bryan Denton for The New York Times
WASHINGTON — The Islamic State has used chemical weapons, including chlorine and sulfur mustard agents, at least 52 times on the battlefield in Syria and Iraq since it swept to power in 2014, according to a new independent analysis.
More than one-third of those chemical attacks have come in and around Mosul, the Islamic State stronghold in northern Iraq, according to the assessment by the IHS Conflict Monitor, a London-based intelligence collection and analysis service.
The IHS conclusions, which are based on local news reports, social media and Islamic State propaganda, mark the broadest compilation of chemical attacks in the conflict. American and Iraqi military officials have expressed growing alarm over the prospect of additional chemical attacks as the allies press to regain both Mosul and Raqqa, the Islamic State capital in Syria.
I don't think having the US moderately damage an airfield with cruise missiles is going to prevent the usage of chemical weapons in Syria.
The conflict has been going on for six years and so far nobody has managed to propose a comprehensive workable solution to ending it. Yes it's terrible that there are millions suffering in Syria but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for the US to do something just for the sake of doing something. While I have confidence in General Mattis' abilities as Secretary of Defense I don't think he can come up with a plan for intervention wherein the US military invades and occupies Syria, deposes Assad, negates Russian influence in the country, eliminates ISIS and other fundamentalist terrorist factions as a military and political threat, installs a new government that is allied with US interests and expends the enormous effort and expense to support that new government for the decades it will take to rebuild and unify the country. We couldn't unify Afghanistan under a new regime, we didn't have the political will to stay in Iraq until it was completely stabilized and self sufficient, I don't see us accomplishing both in Syria and I certainly don't think Donald Trump is the leader who should be trying to do it.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States has concluded Russia knew in advance of Syria's chemical weapons attack last week, a senior U.S. official said Monday.
The official said a drone operated by Russians was flying over a hospital as victims of the attack were rushing to get treatment. Hours after the drone left, a Russian-made fighter jet bombed the hospital in what American officials believe was an attempt to cover up the usage of chemical weapons.
The official said the presence of the surveillance drone over the hospital couldn't have been a coincidence, and that Russia must have known the chemical weapons attack was coming and that victims were seeking treatment.
The official, who wasn't authorized to speak publicly on intelligence matters and demanded anonymity, didn't give precise timing for when the drone was above the northern Syrian town of Khan Sheikhtoun, where more than 80 people were killed. He also didn't provide all the details for the military and intelligence information that form the basis of what he said the Pentagon has now concluded.
The allegation is grave, even by the standards of the currently dismal U.S.-Russian relations.
Although Russia has steadfastly supported Syrian President Bashar Assad's government, and they've coordinated military attacks together, Washington has never previously accused Moscow of complicity in any attack that involved the gassing of innocent civilians, including children. The former Cold War foes even worked together in 2013 to remove and destroy more than 1,300 tons of Syrian chemical weapons and agents.
Until Monday, U.S. officials had said they weren't sure whether Russia or Syria operated the drone. The official said the U.S. is now convinced Russia controlled the drone. The official said it still isn't clear who was flying the jet that bombed the hospital, because the Syrians also fly Russian-made aircraft.
U.S. officials previously have said Russians routinely work with Syrians at the Shayrat air base where the attack is supposed to have originated. U.S. officials say the chemical weapons were stored there.
Those elements, the senior official said, add to the conclusion that Russia was complicit in the attack.
Last Thursday 59 Tomahawk missiles were fired on the government-controlled base in the United States' first direct military action against Assad's forces.
The U.S. has been focusing its military action in Syria on defeating the Islamic State group.
On Monday, Col. John J. Thomas, a U.S. military spokesman, said the U.S. has taken extra defensive precautions in Syria in case of possible retaliation against American forces for the cruise missile attack.
Thomas told reporters at the Pentagon that the increased emphasis on defensive measures to protect U.S. troops on the ground in Syria led to a slight and temporary decline in offensive U.S. airstrikes against IS in Syria.
There has been no Syrian retaliation so far for the cruise missile attack, which destroyed or rendered inoperable more than 20 Syria air force planes, he said.
Thomas said the U.S. intends to return to full offensive air operations against IS as soon as possible.
One of the better videos I've seen showing damage to the airfield.
Note the penetrating hits on specific bunkers and destruction of what was in them, targeting of auxiliary/maintenance equipment and so on.
Yeah, they were able to sweep the runways clear. Doesn't go towards mitigating the loss of 20 or so aircraft, a huge chunk of their air to air ordinance, and some of the specialized machinery and so on that they lost.
The chem stuff was deliberately not targeted according to the article I posted above.
Part of the intent here was to show how good our targeting is and how accurate the weapons are, and how even without endangering our pilots how precise we can be.
Folks wanting to claim the strike was a failure really don't know what they are talking about. We wanted to hit specific things, and did so.
One of the better videos I've seen showing damage to the airfield.
Note the penetrating hits on specific bunkers and destruction of what was in them, targeting of auxiliary/maintenance equipment and so on.
Yeah, they were able to sweep the runways clear. Doesn't go towards mitigating the loss of 20 or so aircraft, a huge chunk of their air to air ordinance, and some of the specialized machinery and so on that they lost.
The chem stuff was deliberately not targeted according to the article I posted above.
Part of the intent here was to show how good our targeting is and how accurate the weapons are, and how even without endangering our pilots how precise we can be.
Folks wanting to claim the strike was a failure really don't know what they are talking about. We wanted to hit specific things, and did so.
The note about showing our ability to hit whatever targets we desire is actually a very good one, but I think most people were arguing that the sum total of the damage is not a tremendous blow to Assad's war machine that's going to make a critical difference in the conduct of the war. Assad lost an entire airfield along with many aircraft to an IS ground offensive some time ago (2014/2015), resulting in a far larger loss of actual warfighting capability than this recent strike by all accounts (and which has since been leveled by US led airstrikes post-facto), and found that lots of the aircraft weren't airworthy and hadn't been for some time. We don't know how functional those aircraft we hit were, how many pilots they have to run them, etc. Likewise, in Yugoslavia and Iraq (both times) there were an appreciable percentage of airstrikes that claimed destroyed aircraft or tanks or other such equipment that was either outright dummy equipment or nonfunctional in the first place, resulting in dramatically higher estimations of equipment losses than was actually incurred, meaning it's often very difficult to ascertain the true nature of the results of such strikes, particularly when both sides have reason to distort the truth in both directions for different audiences.
If they were in those bunkers, it's likely they were functional. Almost immediately, I saw a news story pointing out five aircraft sitting in a grassy field lined up, and insinuated that the US strikes were FUBAR because we didn't hit those.
I'd bet my next pay check that those aircraft were not at all capable of getting into the air. We've spent the last few years closely watching the Syrian forces. We knew what aircraft where operational, and which ones weren't.
The strike (right or wrong) was NOT designed to destroy Assad's war fighting capability, or even to significantly hurt it.
It was designed to show "Hey, chuck chem around and we'll spank you and you won't be able to stop us or even defend against it. Here is a sample."
It also showed the Russians, if you want to keep Assad, you better keep him in check.
It sent several messages. As intended.
Really the strike did exactly what it was designed to do, and I've seen too many folks (not just here) claiming it was a failure. When we nailed every target but one (the missile that went down), did exactly the damage we wanted, it is hard for me to see their position as valid.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote: If they were in those bunkers, it's likely they were functional. Almost immediately, I saw a news story pointing out five aircraft sitting in a grassy field lined up, and insinuated that the US strikes were FUBAR because we didn't hit those.
I'd bet my next pay check that those aircraft were not at all capable of getting into the air. We've spent the last few years closely watching the Syrian forces. We knew what aircraft where operational, and which ones weren't.
Bingo.
I know one of the targeteers. The strike did exactly what they wanted. Each impact point was chosen for a reason.
KTG17 wrote: If they signed up to serve to defend America's interests, then yes.
But they aren't defending US interests. They are defending your feelz.
Or, alternatively, they would be taking responsibility for the actions of your government, which, over the last 60 years, as at least plotted 3 times to overthrow the established syrian government, only to either fail utterly, or install a psychopatic monster instead of the previous government.
CptJake wrote: The strike (right or wrong) was NOT designed to destroy Assad's war fighting capability, or even to significantly hurt it.
Though as I have heard it, the damage amounts to around 20% of Assads airforce. That's definitely what I would call significant, at least from his point of view.
CptJake wrote: The strike (right or wrong) was NOT designed to destroy Assad's war fighting capability, or even to significantly hurt it.
Though as I have heard it, the damage amounts to around 20% of Assads airforce. That's definitely what I would call significant, at least from his point of view.
Syria was estimated to have about 460 combat aircraft at the start of the war. They'd have had to have suffered more then 75% casualties before this strike, for that number to reflect accurately. 75% casualties is basically a dead force.
Grey Templar wrote: Well I wasn't sure about the accuracy of that report, just that I had heard it and if true it would be significant.
Of those 460 aircraft, how many are actually operational?
All of them.
Hey, we got at least one!
Spoiler:
To be honest trey look like they where piled like scrap metal or dumped outside and signs of rust?
There not stored pr look like you would store precision military parts to hold basicaly deadly chemicals and use them with rust piled outside a hanger.
They could be old containers. Active ones would not have rust on them surely. If you wanted to hold things as deadly as sarin...
Grey Templar wrote: Well I wasn't sure about the accuracy of that report, just that I had heard it and if true it would be significant.
Of those 460 aircraft, how many are actually operational?
All of them.
Hey, we got at least one!
Spoiler:
To be honest trey look like they where piled like scrap metal or dumped outside and signs of rust? There not stored pr look like you would store precision military parts to hold basicaly deadly chemicals and use them with rust piled outside a hanger.
They could be old containers. Active ones would not have rust on them surely. If you wanted to hold things as deadly as sarin...
These are not chemical weapon containers. Chemical weapons are usually stored in much more secure containers than those flimsy things. They are generic storage containers that can be found in huge numbers on any Russian airbase. They can contain ammunition, but also simple cargo, supplies or equipment. In this case, they may have contained RBK-500 cluster bomb pellets as other parts of RBK cluster bombs can be seen in the picture mixed in with the containers. That said, the Russian (and Soviet before them) air force stuffs about anything they can dream of in those containers, so it is quite possible that some of them held chemical ammunition. Either way, generic storage containers can not be used as evidence for anything.
I already posted this on the ISIS thread, but may as well put it here since it deals with the US bombing, Syria and chemical weapons.
Syria released this yesterday:
Army Command: Hundreds, including many civilians, killed in int’l coalition’s airstrike on ISIS toxic materials depot
Damascus, SANA- The General Command of the Army and Armed Forces said on Thursday that hundreds were killed, including a large number of civilians, due to an air strike carried out by aircrafts of the so-called US-led international coalition against a huge depot for ISIS terrorist organization that includes toxic materials in the village of Hatla in the eastern countryside of Deir Ezzor province.
In a statement on Thursday, the General Command said aircrafts of the international coalition carried out between 17:30 and 17:50 pm on Wednesday an air strike against a position of ISIS terrorists that includes a large number of foreign mercenaries in the village of Hatla to the east of Deir Ezzor, causing a white cloud that soon turned into yellow as a result of the explosion of a huge depot that includes a large amount of toxic materials.
The General Command said that a fire erupted as a result of the strike that lasted until 22:30 pm, while hundreds of people were killed, including a large number of civilians, due to suffocation caused by the inhalation of toxic materials.
The Army’s Command noted that this incident confirms the truth of the coordination between the terrorist organizations and the countries supporting them to find pretexts and to accuse the Syrian Arab Army of using chemical weapons, adding that this incident also confirms that the terrorist organizations, mainly ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, possess chemical weapons and have the ability to obtain, transfer, store and use those weapons with the help of well-known countries in the region.
“This is what Syria has warned of every time terrorist groups used chemical weapons against the civilians and Syrian Arab Armed Forces,” the statement added.
The command reiterated its assertion that it neither possess any types of chemical weapons, nor has it used any, warning of the dangers of continued use of chemical weapons by the terrorist groups against civilians, particularly after the messages these groups have recently received which provide cover to their actions and allow them to escape punishment.
aldo wrote: I already posted this on the ISIS thread, but may as well put it here since it deals with the US bombing, Syria and chemical weapons.
Syria released this yesterday:
Army Command: Hundreds, including many civilians, killed in int’l coalition’s airstrike on ISIS toxic materials depot
Damascus, SANA- The General Command of the Army and Armed Forces said on Thursday that hundreds were killed, including a large number of civilians, due to an air strike carried out by aircrafts of the so-called US-led international coalition against a huge depot for ISIS terrorist organization that includes toxic materials in the village of Hatla in the eastern countryside of Deir Ezzor province.
In a statement on Thursday, the General Command said aircrafts of the international coalition carried out between 17:30 and 17:50 pm on Wednesday an air strike against a position of ISIS terrorists that includes a large number of foreign mercenaries in the village of Hatla to the east of Deir Ezzor, causing a white cloud that soon turned into yellow as a result of the explosion of a huge depot that includes a large amount of toxic materials.
The General Command said that a fire erupted as a result of the strike that lasted until 22:30 pm, while hundreds of people were killed, including a large number of civilians, due to suffocation caused by the inhalation of toxic materials.
The Army’s Command noted that this incident confirms the truth of the coordination between the terrorist organizations and the countries supporting them to find pretexts and to accuse the Syrian Arab Army of using chemical weapons, adding that this incident also confirms that the terrorist organizations, mainly ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra, possess chemical weapons and have the ability to obtain, transfer, store and use those weapons with the help of well-known countries in the region.
“This is what Syria has warned of every time terrorist groups used chemical weapons against the civilians and Syrian Arab Armed Forces,” the statement added.
The command reiterated its assertion that it neither possess any types of chemical weapons, nor has it used any, warning of the dangers of continued use of chemical weapons by the terrorist groups against civilians, particularly after the messages these groups have recently received which provide cover to their actions and allow them to escape punishment.
Defense Ministry: No complaints about chemical incidents in Syria's Idlib
World
April 18, 14:35 UTC+3
Spokesman for Russia’s Defense Ministry says neither citizens of Khan Shaykhun nor experts of the White Helmets group have complained about poisoning
MOSCOW, April 18. /TASS/. Neither citizens of Khan Shaykhun, in Syria’s Idlib Governorate, nor experts of the White Helmets group have complained about poisoning over the past two weeks since reports about the alleged chemical attacks, official spokesman for Russia’s Defense Ministry said on Tuesday.
"The city lives its own life. There haven’t been any requests for assistance by special medications, antidotes and deactivation for citizens and also pseudo-rescuers," Igor Konashenkov said. "The only ‘evidence’ of using chemical weapons is these two videos of the White Helmets," the general said.
Konashenkov noted that neither participant of the rescue operation nor the alleged victim appeared on the American or European TV channels later. So far, no contamination zone was defined from where local citizens should have been evacuated, he said.
"At the same time, every day the number of unbiased experts grows, especially in Western countries, who ask these evident questions. These specialists, who have the knowledge and experience, cannot explain how these representatives of the White Helmets could work in the contamination zone for so long remaining alive without any gas masks and special uniform," Konashenkov noted.
"These doubts of professionals reduce to zero numerous accusations of Western politicians and diplomats, who immediately found the one to blame without simply checking the data of social networks and carrying out an impartial investigation," he said.
It is clear that those behind these accusations are not planning to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident, and this reminds of the situation in Iraq and Libya, Konashenkov said.
The incident in Syria’s Khan Shaykhun, where chemical weapons were allegedly used, occurred on April 4. Russia’s Defense Ministry said on that day the Syrian aircraft hit the workshops where terrorists were producing munitions with chemical agents. Washington accused Damascus of using chemical weapons. Following an order of US President Donald Trump, the US military fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from its warships in the Mediterranean on an air base in the Syrian Homs Governorate in early hours of April 7. The missile strike targeted what Washington claims was a starting location for the chemical attack.
[joke]Wake up sheeple![/joke]
Again, Russia, so take with your prescribed amount of salt 'cause Putin and Assad are evil liars etc...
Now, what could possibly be Trumps reaction if he decides that he has been fooled by the Syrian rebels? Not if it is discovered, because truth doesn't matter anymore, but if he decides to believe that.
Defense Ministry: No complaints about chemical incidents in Syria's Idlib
World
April 18, 14:35 UTC+3
Spokesman for Russia’s Defense Ministry says neither citizens of Khan Shaykhun nor experts of the White Helmets group have complained about poisoning
MOSCOW, April 18. /TASS/. Neither citizens of Khan Shaykhun, in Syria’s Idlib Governorate, nor experts of the White Helmets group have complained about poisoning over the past two weeks since reports about the alleged chemical attacks, official spokesman for Russia’s Defense Ministry said on Tuesday.
"The city lives its own life. There haven’t been any requests for assistance by special medications, antidotes and deactivation for citizens and also pseudo-rescuers," Igor Konashenkov said. "The only ‘evidence’ of using chemical weapons is these two videos of the White Helmets," the general said.
Konashenkov noted that neither participant of the rescue operation nor the alleged victim appeared on the American or European TV channels later. So far, no contamination zone was defined from where local citizens should have been evacuated, he said.
"At the same time, every day the number of unbiased experts grows, especially in Western countries, who ask these evident questions. These specialists, who have the knowledge and experience, cannot explain how these representatives of the White Helmets could work in the contamination zone for so long remaining alive without any gas masks and special uniform," Konashenkov noted.
"These doubts of professionals reduce to zero numerous accusations of Western politicians and diplomats, who immediately found the one to blame without simply checking the data of social networks and carrying out an impartial investigation," he said.
It is clear that those behind these accusations are not planning to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident, and this reminds of the situation in Iraq and Libya, Konashenkov said.
The incident in Syria’s Khan Shaykhun, where chemical weapons were allegedly used, occurred on April 4. Russia’s Defense Ministry said on that day the Syrian aircraft hit the workshops where terrorists were producing munitions with chemical agents. Washington accused Damascus of using chemical weapons. Following an order of US President Donald Trump, the US military fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles from its warships in the Mediterranean on an air base in the Syrian Homs Governorate in early hours of April 7. The missile strike targeted what Washington claims was a starting location for the chemical attack.
[joke]Wake up sheeple![/joke]
Again, Russia, so take with your prescribed amount of salt 'cause Putin and Assad are evil liars etc...
Now, what could possibly be Trumps reaction if he decides that he has been fooled by the Syrian rebels? Not if it is discovered, because truth doesn't matter anymore, but if he decides to believe that.
What Trump would do? Same thing he and the US have been doing for decades. Just shout "Alternative facts!" really loudly and cite say they have "evidence" (but which no one has ever seen) from unkown and unverifiable sources which we just have to trust because the US says so. The US is a bigger liar than Putin, Assad and about full half of all world leaders put together. It was the same thing in Yugoslavia, Iraq and Libya. Syria won't be any different.
The U.S. military launched fresh air strikes against pro-Assad forces in Syria, officials told Fox News Thursday.
The American strikes were the first against Assad positions since the Pentagon rained 57 Tomahawk missiles on the Shayrat air base near Homs. But the strikes confirmed Thursday were believed to be the first targeting Syrian personnel. According to the defense official, the coalition strikes targeted pro regime units operating in the vicinity of At-Tnaf. After a show of force to try to stop the pro regime forces was ignored, the strikes were mounted.
"The coalition commander assessed the threat and after shows of force didn't stop the regime forces and those forces refused to move out of the deconfliction zone, the commander on the ground called for the air strike as a matter of force protection," a senior US defense official told Fox News.
But the attack on forces does not reflect an escalation, the official said.
"There is no change in policy," the official said.
Iron_Captain wrote: I think it is about time Russia puts a stop to US terrorism.
I think it is time Russia remembers the US is run by a wounded politician who may be looking for a wag the dog situation.
^
Also, what exactly would Russia do? Russia is outmatched dramatically in every conceviable conventional warfare sense, meaning that Russia's only option in a conflict is nuclear escalation which would work out for...nobody.
We should also note, the Russians have been continuously bombing US backed rebels. No difference except its getting more hairy and weird there. The worry this will get out of control, increases.
But I have faith that NK will reliably interject itself right now and may get a very very nasty surprise.
Iron_Captain wrote: I think it is about time Russia puts a stop to US terrorism.
I think it is time Russia remembers the US is run by a wounded politician who may be looking for a wag the dog situation.
^
Also, what exactly would Russia do? Russia is outmatched dramatically in every conceviable conventional warfare sense, meaning that Russia's only option in a conflict is nuclear escalation which would work out for...nobody.
Not in Syria. Russia's military position there is greatly superior to that of the US.
We could shoot down a US aircraft or two. Purely by "accident" of course. Not much the US can do back against that aside from escalating into a full war (which they definitely do not want to do) There is thousands of things you can do before it comes to full-blown war. The US does not want war with Russia, such a war would be unwinnable for the US and is dramatically not in US interests. Neither does Russia want war with the US, for the same reason. Therefore you can provoke the other side quite a lot as long as you take care not to push it too far.
A somewhat more realistic and less extreme way to send a message to the US would be for Russia to destroy the US-supported rebel forces in Syria. Or we could supply advanced anti-air and anti-ship missiles to Syrian forces...
Of course Russia can also quite clearly send a strong message just by threatening with military force. A bit of saber-rattling will hopefully make even that dense mr. Trump think twice.
Iron_Captain wrote: I think it is about time Russia puts a stop to US terrorism.
Totally agree. Maybe Russia can tow its smokey aircraft carrier back into the region.
Nah, it'd probably sink. Missiles are more reliable.
So WWIII, then?
A few little pinpricks won't cause a world war. Not when both sides are unwilling to commit to total war. Just a few skirmishes and highly raised tensions most likely, a limited war at worst. But deterrence is probably more important than actual action.
Iron_Captain wrote: I think it is about time Russia puts a stop to US terrorism.
I think it is time Russia remembers the US is run by a wounded politician who may be looking for a wag the dog situation.
^
Also, what exactly would Russia do? Russia is outmatched dramatically in every conceviable conventional warfare sense, meaning that Russia's only option in a conflict is nuclear escalation which would work out for...nobody.
Not in Syria. Russia's military position there is greatly superior to that of the US.
Hrm, even if we accept that such is true within the boundaries of Syria itself, between air and sea assets that can reach the region in hours or days, the forces in Iraq, a NATO ally next door, etc, I would suspect this would not be productive.
We could shoot down a US aircraft or two. Purely by "accident" of course. Not much the US can do back against that aside from escalating into a full war (which they definitely do not want to do) There is thousands of things you can do before it comes to full-blown war. The US does not want war with Russia, such a war would be unwinnable for the US and is dramatically not in US interests. Neither does Russia want war with the US, for the same reason. Therefore you can provoke the other side quite a lot as long as you take care not to push it too far.
the problem is that the US has unstable leadership and there are escalation measures in place that may be defaulted to by all sides in very short order.
A somewhat more realistic and less extreme way to send a message to the US would be for Russia to destroy the US-supported rebel forces in Syria.
Sure, but if this were within Russia's power they would have done so already long ago.
Or we could supply advanced anti-air and anti-ship missiles to Syrian forces...
Russia has, and could do more, but that likely would just result in Syria becoming a black smear on the map after they sink the first US destroyer. The US is perfectly able and willing to squander billions in munitions in response, and I dont think either Russia or Syria could match that.
Of course Russia can also quite clearly send a strong message just by threatening with military force. A bit of saber-rattling will hopefully make even that dense mr. Trump think twice.
Trump typically responds to direct provocation with escalation, thats a big chunk of his current problems.
And watch every aircraft you have in Syria accidentally explode. Or maybe St. Petersberg. Our Pres is closer to NK on the Daffy the Duck scale than to Putin right now.
Iron_Captain wrote: I think it is about time Russia puts a stop to US terrorism.
I think it is time Russia remembers the US is run by a wounded politician who may be looking for a wag the dog situation.
^
Also, what exactly would Russia do? Russia is outmatched dramatically in every conceviable conventional warfare sense, meaning that Russia's only option in a conflict is nuclear escalation which would work out for...nobody.
Not in Syria. Russia's military position there is greatly superior to that of the US.
Hrm, even if we accept that such is true within the boundaries of Syria itself, between air and sea assets that can reach the region in hours or days, the forces in Iraq, a NATO ally next door, etc, I would suspect this would not be productive.
Said NATO ally isn't on very friendly terms with the US currently and is highly unlikely to be willing to risk itself in order to help the US out. US forces in Iraq aren't really available for re-deployment. And if needed, Russia can move reinforcements to the area much faster than the US can. Syria is not very far from the Russian border and within striking range of pretty much every bomber and missile. That gives Russia a bit of an edge when rattling sabres.
We could shoot down a US aircraft or two. Purely by "accident" of course. Not much the US can do back against that aside from escalating into a full war (which they definitely do not want to do) There is thousands of things you can do before it comes to full-blown war. The US does not want war with Russia, such a war would be unwinnable for the US and is dramatically not in US interests. Neither does Russia want war with the US, for the same reason. Therefore you can provoke the other side quite a lot as long as you take care not to push it too far.
the problem is that the US has unstable leadership and there are escalation measures in place that may be defaulted to by all sides in very short order.
I think you underestimate the US leadership. They are not stupid people. Not even Trump. They are not going into a full-scale war that will plunge the US and likely most of the rest of the world into destruction over a bit of gunboat diplomacy.
A somewhat more realistic and less extreme way to send a message to the US would be for Russia to destroy the US-supported rebel forces in Syria.
Sure, but if this were within Russia's power they would have done so already long ago.
No. normally, that'd not be in Russian interests. It would risk antagonising the US, with which Russia is currently trying to build better relations. Russia has actively tried to avoid hitting US-supported targets for the most part, and has encouraged Syria to do the same. Seems Russian pressure on Syria was not strong enough in this case.
Or we could supply advanced anti-air and anti-ship missiles to Syrian forces...
Russia has, and could do more, but that likely would just result in Syria becoming a black smear on the map after they sink the first US destroyer. The US is perfectly able and willing to squander billions in munitions in response, and I dont think either Russia or Syria could match that.
Maybe, for a bit. But after the second, third and fourth destroyers are sunk? The US has to rely on its ships to bring its power to bear, and ships are notoriously vulnerable. Russia and Syria are in a much more comfy position here, a fact that has not eluded the Pentagon, I am sure.
Of course Russia can also quite clearly send a strong message just by threatening with military force. A bit of saber-rattling will hopefully make even that dense mr. Trump think twice.
Trump typically responds to direct provocation with escalation, thats a big chunk of his current problems.
Unrestrained, sure. But he is no fool. Nor are the people around him.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:Without getting too political, are you willing to wager Russia's very existence on President Trump's sense of scale and restraint?
Oh, but Trump doesn't have that much power. Russia will never be destroyed. It has too many remote locations, too many deep fortifications and hiding places and people spread all over the world. Even a nuclear world war would not be a threat to the existance of Russia. As long as there is Russians, there is Russia. Russia has endured for a thousand years through a thousand troubles, and it will endure for a thousand more after Trump is long gone and forgotten. But will the same be true for the United States?
Frazzled wrote:And watch every aircraft you have in Syria accidentally explode. Or maybe St. Petersberg. Our Pres is closer to NK on the Daffy the Duck scale than to Putin right now.
The US doesn't currently have the means to attack Russian aircraft in Syria without having its own planes shot down even faster. And attacking St. Petersburg means the US is gone thanks to the wonders of mutually assured destruction.
We could shoot down a US aircraft or two. Purely by "accident" of course. Not much the US can do back against that
Yeah. If the Israelis can bomb a military airport outside of Damascus, and the Syrian and Russian IADS couldn't knock them out of the sky, no way in hell you can handle our strike packages.
Iron_Captain wrote: A somewhat more realistic and less extreme way to send a message to the US would be for Russia to destroy the US-supported rebel forces in Syria. Or we could supply advanced anti-air and anti-ship missiles to Syrian forces...
Yeah. You can't generate enough air sorties to cover Assad's crappy offenses. Anything with more defense than a civilian hospital gives you guys trouble. The bombing in question was because his allies came too close to the guys we're helping (and incidentally our advisors on the ground).
We could shoot down a US aircraft or two. Purely by "accident" of course. Not much the US can do back against that
Yeah. If the Israelis can bomb a military airport outside of Damascus, and the Syrian and Russian IADS couldn't knock them out of the sky, no way in hell you can handle our strike packages.
There is a difference between having the ability to do something and being willing to do something. Shooting down an Israeli aircraft is not something Russia is willing to do as it would create diplomatic problems that Russia does not want. If they want to hit Hezbollah, that is too bad, but so be it. It is not like Russia cares about Hezbollah.
Iron_Captain wrote: A somewhat more realistic and less extreme way to send a message to the US would be for Russia to destroy the US-supported rebel forces in Syria.
Or we could supply advanced anti-air and anti-ship missiles to Syrian forces...
Yeah. You can't generate enough air sorties to cover Assad's crappy offenses. Anything with more defense than a civilian hospital gives you guys trouble.
The bad quality of Assad's forces is not really of concern to Russia. Again, they are useful puppets, but nothing more. But at least Russia's proxy forces have been far more effective than those of the US so far. And if you have any knowledge of military affairs (and I believe you do) then you know your second statement is false.
CptJake wrote: The bombing in question was because his allies came too close to the guys we're helping (and incidentally our advisors on the ground).
Yes, and after Russian diplomatic efforts tried to dissuade them from advancing failed. It seems the Syrian government doesn't have as much control over its forces as it would like to have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BigWaaagh wrote: The sheer stupidity of this "We could destroy you.", "Nuh-uh, we could destroy you." prattle is mind numbing.
Yeah. It is.
Apparently some people don't understand that use of force can be more subtle than immediately trying to destroy your enemy.
CptJake wrote:Russia does care about Hez, Hez is providing a good chunk of the offensive ground capability.
But Hezbollah is not under Russian control, and therefore a liability as much as an asset. Hezbollah is more of an Iranian tool, and Russian and Iranian interests do not always align even if they share some common rivals.
The U.S. military launched fresh air strikes against pro-Assad forces in Syria, officials told Fox News Thursday.
The American strikes were the first against Assad positions since the Pentagon rained 57 Tomahawk missiles on the Shayrat air base near Homs. But the strikes confirmed Thursday were believed to be the first targeting Syrian personnel. According to the defense official, the coalition strikes targeted pro regime units operating in the vicinity of At-Tnaf. After a show of force to try to stop the pro regime forces was ignored, the strikes were mounted.
"The coalition commander assessed the threat and after shows of force didn't stop the regime forces and those forces refused to move out of the deconfliction zone, the commander on the ground called for the air strike as a matter of force protection," a senior US defense official told Fox News.
But the attack on forces does not reflect an escalation, the official said.
"There is no change in policy," the official said.
Wow. That is some mighty careful and selective wording used to describe that particular action.
I have read enough posts by Iron_Captain to see that he is blinded by the memories of the glorious Soviet Russia to have any grasp of reality today. The only people he could possibly be impressing are the ignorant.
Turkey shot a Russian plane down. Russia's response? Stopped tourists from visiting Turkey.
Israel of all people, bombed Syria, and Russia sat back and watched.
The US destroys an airfield while GIVING Russia a heads up, and they still do nothing to stop it except run like hell to get out of there.
The idea that Russia is going to do anything to really antagonize or even really stand up to the West in Syria is pure fantasy. If the US wanted the lights out in Syria and Russian forces eliminated, it would all probably be over in a week. And while you talk of shooting down a plane or two, give me a break, even the Iraqi's did that in Desert Storm, and look how that turned out.
Putin is trying to put on a show to the world that Russia is still a relevant, elite military power when in fact he is just showing the opposite. Instead the world has witnessed Russian forces killing more civilians than ISIS, shown disgust at supporting a leader who gases his own people, rolled its eyes at its smokey aircraft carrier and its accompanying tug boat, and watched Russian personnel run from tomahawks and making no attempt to stop them, if they even could.
Russia isn't impressing anyone. The glory days are long gone, and it will be a long long time before anything like them come back. But keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
KTG17 wrote: I have read enough posts by Iron_Captain to see that he is blinded by the memories of the glorious Soviet Russia to have any grasp of reality today. The only people he could possibly be impressing are the ignorant.
Turkey shot a Russian plane down. Russia's response? Stopped tourists from visiting Turkey.
Israel of all people, bombed Syria, and Russia sat back and watched.
The US destroys an airfield while GIVING Russia a heads up, and they still do nothing to stop it except run like hell to get out of there.
The idea that Russia is going to do anything to really antagonize or even really stand up to the West in Syria is pure fantasy. If the US wanted the lights out in Syria and Russian forces eliminated, it would all probably be over in a week. And while you talk of shooting down a plane or two, give me a break, even the Iraqi's did that in Desert Storm, and look how that turned out.
Putin is trying to put on a show to the world that Russia is still a relevant, elite military power when in fact he is just showing the opposite. Instead the world has witnessed Russian forces killing more civilians than ISIS, shown disgust at supporting a leader who gases his own people, rolled its eyes at its smokey aircraft carrier and its accompanying tug boat, and watched Russian personnel run from tomahawks and making no attempt to stop them, if they even could.
Russia isn't impressing anyone. The glory days are long gone, and it will be a long long time before anything like them come back. But keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
Plus Putin may not want to reveal his AA capabilities.
Even if they could, pr could not. They pose a more stronger hand as a wild card and as a unknown quantity. If you know someone's ability you cam calculate. A unknown you cannot. At worst not expose your own bluff.
Its carrier is rather the relic but the nuclear battle cruser with its massive AA batterys and 20 + heavy anti ship missiles is a solid foe.
It was a potant fleet defense unit when it was deployed. Its heavy crew required meant it was withdrawn pretty quickly.
KTG17 wrote: I have read enough posts by Iron_Captain to see that he is blinded by the memories of the glorious Soviet Russia to have any grasp of reality today. The only people he could possibly be impressing are the ignorant.
I have read enough posts by KTG17 to see that he is blinded by the memories of US world hegemony to have any grasp of reality today. The only people he could possibly be impressing are the ignorant.
KTG17 wrote: Turkey shot a Russian plane down. Russia's response? Stopped tourists from visiting Turkey.
Of course. What else should Russia have done? Russia is not interested in a fight with Turkey. On the contrary, it is in Russia's interests to create a strong relationship with Turkey. Sanctions were strong enough of a message to make the Turks apologise eventually. The Russian government handled that situation very well and diplomatically.
If Turkey had shot a US plane down, their response would have been the same or most likely even weaker.
KTG17 wrote: Israel of all people, bombed Syria, and Russia sat back and watched.
Israel bombed Hezbollah. Israel can bomb Hezbollah any day of the week without Russia caring in the slightest. Also, Israel has a huge ethnic Russian population. The Russian government considers maintaining good relations with Israel a very high priority.
Also, I don't get why Israel doing bombings in Syria should be any more notable than the US or Saudi Arabia doing so.
KTG17 wrote: The US destroys an airfield while GIVING Russia a heads up, and they still do nothing to stop it except run like hell to get out of there.
Why risk antagonising the US? Again, Russia is interested in better relations with the US. Russia has the equipment in place to stop a strike like that, but Russia saw Trump's presidency as an opportunity to build better relations. Shooting down Trump's missiles would have ruined that opportunity. It is elementary diplomacy.
Also, the US did not destroy an airfield, it just damaged it a bit.
KTG17 wrote: The idea that Russia is going to do anything to really antagonize or even really stand up to the West in Syria is pure fantasy.
What you don't seem to get is that military force is a tool of diplomacy. You only use military force when it serves a diplomatic interest. So far, using direct military force against the West has not been in Russia's interests. Russia wants to peacefully co-exist with the West, it does not want war. However, that can change if the West pushes it too far.
KTG17 wrote: If the US wanted the lights out in Syria and Russian forces eliminated, it would all probably be over in a week.
Sooner, given the vulnerability of US forces in the area.
KTG17 wrote: And while you talk of shooting down a plane or two, give me a break, even the Iraqi's did that in Desert Storm, and look how that turned out.
The Iraqi's managed to shoot down US planes? Lol. What an embarrassment.
KTG17 wrote: Putin is trying to put on a show to the world that Russia is still a relevant, elite military power when in fact he is just showing the opposite. Instead the world has witnessed Russian forces killing more civilians than ISIS,
Blatant lies are blatant. But I have to say it is not surprising to see such support for ISIS in the US. Tell me, do you like being on the terrorists' side? What do you think you are gaining from it?
KTG17 wrote: shown disgust at supporting a leader who gases his own people,
Who somehow still manages to retain the support of a large portion of his people and offer an all-around better post-war future for Syria than anything the West has been able to come up with.
KTG17 wrote: rolled its eyes at its smokey aircraft carrier and its accompanying tug boat,
Smokey or not, it is still deadly enough. Though it is really the nuclear missile cruisers and submarines that you should be watching out for. Those are the deadliest parts of the Russian navy.
KTG17 wrote: and watched Russian personnel run from tomahawks and making no attempt to stop them, if they even could.
No Russian personnel was present. Little running was done. The US would have never launched a strike if it risked hitting Russian personnel. War with Russia is one of the last things the US wants.
KTG17 wrote: Russia isn't impressing anyone. The glory days are long gone, and it will be a long long time before anything like them come back.
For a country that isn't impressing anyone, the rest of the world still seems awfully afraid of it, judging from the many fearful articles in the US and Western press. Russia is growing stronger, the US is weakening. Russia's power has waxed and waned for over a thousand years. It did so long before the US existed and it will still do so long after the US is gone. We are a patient people. We will wait.
hole can easily produce sarin and handle it. And it holds up well to long term storage (VX requires a better developed chemical weapons program to handle).
I don't think I'm going to be successful in explaining my point of view any further on this point for the time being so I'll kick it for a while.
