Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'm confused here. Do we back the Syrian Army and its dictator, who is a Russian and Iranian ally, or do we continue to back the Free Syrian Army with its ties to Al-Queda?

Or better yet, do we leave them to it because no matter what we do we'll get blamed anyway?

Guess which one I'm hoping for

Someone who understands. If we get involved, no matter who we back, we lose.

And, as Baron mentioned, if we do nothing we also lose.

Frankly, as long as we get the UN's blessing so we're not going in solo, I'd rather pick the option that lets me sleep at night as an American citizen and save innocents if at all possible.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Or we could leave it alone, and be blamed by all the people that survive for having been able to stop it and done nothing.

It's lose, lose, lose. I'd prefer to lose doing the thing that saves the most people from horrific deaths.

If we intervene in Assad's favour and we get accused of supporting a dictator, war crimes and helping Russia and Iran get a firmer grip on the region and have the international community bleat at us
If we side with the FSA then we get accused of imperialism, war crimes etc. we get to help AQ in the region get stronger, and give people ammunition for saying that we've always been in cahoots with AQ, and have the international community bleat at us
(we'll probbaly get accused of going in to steal whatever natural resources they have too)
If we sit out and do nothing then we don't get accused of war crimes, don't risk our own troops etc. and have the international community bleating at us


Well, if you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, why do? Same result for less effort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Someone who understands. If we get involved, no matter who we back, we lose.

Yup, as they say in Alien vs Predator "Whoever Wins, We Lose"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
A lot of countries could stop it, if they really wanted to. I don't see the Germans or the French or the British or the Canadians suiting up. Or the Turks, for that matter. It's happening right next door to them. They could do it, if they chose.

They also had a jet shot down by Assad's forces and intercepted a Russian shipment of hard currency, as well as dealing with the refugees.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 darkPrince010 wrote:
And, as Baron mentioned, if we do nothing we also lose.

Frankly, as long as we get the UN's blessing so we're not going in solo, I'd rather pick the option that lets me sleep at night as an American citizen and save innocents if at all possible.

This isn't a black and white issue, its a damn sight more complex.
Your solution is that we intervene to help a group with strong ties to a global terror movement responsible for the worst atrocity on US soil, a group that will likely set up shop there with training camps and access to whatever weapons and equipment they can get, possibly including Assad's chemical weapons, which they will then use to carry out further attacks on innocent civilians. You'd sleep at night with that outcome?

 darkPrince010 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I'm confused here. Do we back the Syrian Army and its dictator, who is a Russian and Iranian ally, or do we continue to back the Free Syrian Army with its ties to Al-Queda?

Or better yet, do we leave them to it because no matter what we do we'll get blamed anyway?

Guess which one I'm hoping for

Someone who understands. If we get involved, no matter who we back, we lose.

And, as Baron mentioned, if we do nothing we also lose.

Frankly, as long as we get the UN's blessing so we're not going in solo, I'd rather pick the option that lets me sleep at night as an American citizen and save innocents if at all possible.

The UN is irrelevant. We also had its blessing with desert storm. Shortly after Al Qaeda attacks began.

My children have never been alive when we didn't have forces in the Middle East getting shot at, or blown up, or something. Thats just crazy.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 darkPrince010 wrote:
And, as Baron mentioned, if we do nothing we also lose.

Frankly, as long as we get the UN's blessing so we're not going in solo, I'd rather pick the option that lets me sleep at night as an American citizen and save innocents if at all possible.

This isn't a black and white issue, its a damn sight more complex.
Your solution is that we intervene to help a group with strong ties to a global terror movement responsible for the worst atrocity on US soil, a group that will likely set up shop there with training camps and access to whatever weapons and equipment they can get, possibly including Assad's chemical weapons, which they will then use to carry out further attacks on innocent civilians. You'd sleep at night with that outcome?

What's to stop us from going in and destroying the chemical weapon dumps alone, and retaliatory strikes on the airfields or bases that participate in confirmed civilian-only attacks?

Basically break their dangerous toys and give them a slap in the face whenever they shoot at bystanders instead of at the rebels. Not a great solution, but at least basically playing referee might minimize the casualties of innocents.

Besides, regardless of who we back, either side, if they win, will continue to use the gas and other weapons on the innocent civilians if we don't intervene, and I'd rather support the option that prevents current atrocities rather than maybe-possibly-might-happen hypothesized casualties in the future.

 Seaward wrote:

A lot of countries could stop it, if they really wanted to. I don't see the Germans or the French or the British or the Canadians suiting up. Or the Turks, for that matter. It's happening right next door to them. They could do it, if they chose.

You ever hear about the case in New York City (IIRC) where a woman was beaten to death while all her neighbors watched and listened? No one did anything because they all assumed that someone else would call the police or intervene.


Spoiler tags added, please show discretion when posting things like this.
Note you may find the pictures upsetting or unpleasant.
Reds8n



Take a long look. These people died of sarin.

I want you to look at that dead baby in the first one, and tell me that it's OK that it happens again, so long is it doesn't happen to 'one of us' and that it's OK if we wait for someone else to put a stop to it. Because someone will stop it. We just have to wait a little longer and someone else will stand up. So what if more people die horribly in the mean time. I don't know any of them.

*sigh*

Frazz, I've sen a lot of violence and a lot of death and a lot of pain. I've seen men cheer with triumph and weep as their homes burned behind them. I've seen desperate parents throw their children to safety while they stayed and died. I've seen a lot of things.

But I've never seen a Texan afraid to stand up for what was right before.

You think we should have stayed out of WW2 as well? A lot of good men lost their lives in places they couldn't even pronounce, but in the end, they saved a lot more people.




If we're going to be blamed, I'd rather be blamed for saving lives than standing back and watching it all over again.

 darkPrince010 wrote:
What's to stop us from going in and destroying the chemical weapon dumps alone, and retaliatory strikes on the airfields or bases that participate in confirmed civilian-only attacks?

Basically break their dangerous toys and give them a slap in the face whenever they shoot at bystanders instead of at the rebels. Not a great solution, but at least basically playing referee might minimize the casualties of innocents.

Besides, regardless of who we back, either side, if they win, will continue to use the gas and other weapons on the innocent civilians if we don't intervene, and I'd rather support the option that prevents current atrocities rather than maybe-possibly-might-happen hypothesized casualties in the future.

I thought you wanted the backing of the UN ans not go it alone?

You're also assuming that we have sufficient intelligence to put boots on the ground, destroy the chemical weapons (and not release the inadvertently) and get back out without getting bogged down. All this in the middle of a civil war. Also I can't imagine the Russians and the Iranians (who are rumoured to have troops in Syria) will be thrilled, what do you do if they respond and the situation escalates?

Why wait until now, they've already shot and shelled civilians. Where was the courage of your convictions months ago.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Well, if you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, why do? Same result for less effort.

Less risk to do nothing actually. No one ever tried to bomb us because we didn't help a country.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
You think we should have stayed out of WW2 as well? A lot of good men lost their lives in places they couldn't even pronounce, but in the end, they saved a lot more people.

You mean WW2, were the US stayed out of the conflict until the Japanese attacked them? That WW2?

So what happens when collateral damage happens, and it will? Will you tell us to pull out because civilians have died?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Why wait until now, they've already shot and shelled civilians. Where was the courage of your convictions months ago.

I said the same thing some months back (so did Frazz, come to think of it.) Now look where waiting, hands off, has gotten people. We'll tear a nation apart that might have WMDs but we'll sit on our hands when it comes to one that's currently using them on civilians, if they don't have oil enough.

I think we should just nuke Syria. Problem solved. Let'em glow.

Send someone who gives a feth, there's no one in the middle east worth me burying more Marines for.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

*sigh*

Frazz, I've sen a lot of violence and a lot of death and a lot of pain. I've seen men cheer with triumph and weep as their homes burned behind them. I've seen desperate parents throw their children to safety while they stayed and died. I've seen a lot of things.

I've seen attack ships on fire off Orion's Belt. Wait, what were talking about again.

But I've never seen a Texan afraid to stand up for what was right before.

*Right by whom?
*You want to do what all the lefties scream about Bush about.
*You want others to do it. No. Again, get a ticket to Turkey then go south. Leave my country out of it.

You think we should have stayed out of WW2 as well?

We weren't involved until we were attacked.

A lot of good men lost their lives in places they couldn't even pronounce, but in the end, they saved a lot more people.

Yea my grandfather died in that shindig. My other grandfather lost an eye. Rich man's war, poor man's fight comes to mind.

If we're going to be blamed, I'd rather be blamed for saving lives than standing back and watching it all over again.

You won't be saving any lives.

Blah blah blah.

No soldiers in there, it's counter productive, the Islamics end up hating us for it. Flatten their military from afar.

Airstrikes against government facilities, drones and missile strikes, sure, let's show the tinpot dictators how we flatten a military base without leaving air conditioned offices.

But no more soldiers on the ground, bring the ones we already have stuck in the deserts home to their families.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Why wait until now, they've already shot and shelled civilians. Where was the courage of your convictions months ago.

I said the same thing some months back (so did Frazz, come to think of it.) Now look where waiting, hands off, has gotten people. We'll tear a nation apart that might have WMDs but we'll sit on our hands when it comes to one that's currently using them on civilians, if they don't have oil enough.

Hey I'm with the lefties and learned my lesson. To paraphrase the Princess Bride "never get in a land war in the Middle East."

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You mean WW2, were the US stayed out of the conflict until the Japanese attacked them? That WW2?

So what happens when collateral damage happens, and it will? Will you tell us to pull out because civilians have died?

No, there will always be innocent bystanders killed in war, it's an unpleasant truth. But there's a world of difference between when someone screws up and innocent people die, and deliberately planning the deaths of innocent people. This is far more horrific than any bombing you can imagine.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I said the same thing some months back (so did Frazz, come to think of it.) Now look where waiting, hands off, has gotten people. We'll tear a nation apart that might have WMDs but we'll sit on our hands when it comes to one that's currently using them on civilians, if they don't have oil enough.

I'm not going to say that Iraq was a well chosen conflict, but if your solution is to intervene in every country that has WMDs then we're going to be very busy, we're going to be bringing a lot of young men and women home maimed, we're going to be presenting a lot of folded flags to families, and we're going to run our country further into debt and for what? The international community to point out our failings yet again when they won't stand up? For people to tell us to p*ss off once we've sorted out their problems again?

The West needs to get more like the Eldar or something, show up from above, grease the military of whichever side we're not cool with and let the rest attend to it's self. Prune out each time a regime crops up that starts murdering children and fanaticising and programming the youth.

And no, not nuke them, you want to drop something on the civilian population, give them books in arabic or whatever, which aren't the koran.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
No, there will always be innocent bystanders killed in war, it's an unpleasant truth. But there's a world of difference between when someone screws up and innocent people die, and deliberately planning the deaths of innocent people. This is far more horrific than any bombing you can imagine.

Going to ignore my point about WW2 then?

So if there will always be innocent bystanders killed why must we intervene? If we do and we kill any innocent civilians then we're going to receive more critiscism than Assad and his forces have. I haven't heard you once make a compelling argument as to why the US in particular should intervene instead of any other country.

Funny we say the same about drone strikes vs. IEDs in the marketplace, but never get the benefit of the doubt.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm not going to say that Iraq was a well chosen conflict, but if your solution is to intervene in every country that has WMDs then we're going to be very busy, we're going to be bringing a lot of young men and women home maimed, we're going to be presenting a lot of folded flags to families, and we're going to run our country further into debt and for what? The international community to point out our failings yet again when they won't stand up? For people to tell us to p*ss off once we've sorted out their problems again?

Every country that has them? No. Every country that uses them innocent men, women, and children? Sure.


People on this board are hot to hang men from the safety of their computer chairs when there's no risk to anyone they might know, but their righteousness seems to shrivel up and vanish when confronted with the possibility that men might die in doing right.

Would men die? Yes. Men die doing right every day. Should firemen not go into a burning building? Should policemen leave you at the mercy of armed robbers? Should ambulance drivers avoid the site of a bomb blast because they might be killed as well? Do you complain that they saved someone you don't know from a horrific death?

Do you complain that these men risk their own death to do the right thing? Do you complain that their work burdens your wallet with taxes in doing good?


I'll give you one good reason: Because if we don't, who will? You can't make people do right, you can only choose to do it yourself.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm not going to say that Iraq was a well chosen conflict, but if your solution is to intervene in every country that has WMDs then we're going to be very busy, we're going to be bringing a lot of young men and women home maimed, we're going to be presenting a lot of folded flags to families, and we're going to run our country further into debt and for what? The international community to point out our failings yet again when they won't stand up? For people to tell us to p*ss off once we've sorted out their problems again?

Every country that has them? No. Every country that uses them innocent men, women, and children? Sure.


People on this board are hot to hang men from the safety of their computer chairs when there's no risk to anyone they might know, but their righteousness seems to shrivel up and vanish when confronted with the possibility that men might die in doing right.

Would men die? Yes. Men die doing right every day. Should firemen not go into a burning building? Should policemen leave you at the mercy of armed robbers? Should ambulance drivers avoid the site of a bomb blast because they might be killed as well? Do you complain that they saved someone you don't know from a horrific death?

Do you complain that these men risk their own death to do the right thing? Do you complain that their work burdens your wallet with taxes in doing good?

Yes very righteous very righteous.
Did you support the Iraq War?

I think this is a good reference:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 darkPrince010 wrote:
What's to stop us from going in and destroying the chemical weapon dumps alone, and retaliatory strikes on the airfields or bases that participate in confirmed civilian-only attacks?

Basically break their dangerous toys and give them a slap in the face whenever they shoot at bystanders instead of at the rebels. Not a great solution, but at least basically playing referee might minimize the casualties of innocents.

Besides, regardless of who we back, either side, if they win, will continue to use the gas and other weapons on the innocent civilians if we don't intervene, and I'd rather support the option that prevents current atrocities rather than maybe-possibly-might-happen hypothesized casualties in the future.

I thought you wanted the backing of the UN ans not go it alone?

You're also assuming that we have sufficient intelligence to put boots on the ground, destroy the chemical weapons (and not release the inadvertently) and get back out without getting bogged down. All this in the middle of a civil war. Also I can't imagine the Russians and the Iranians (who are rumoured to have troops in Syria) will be thrilled, what do you do if they respond and the situation escalates?

I do want the backing of the UN for that process, and I'm not assuming we have the intelligence at all. I'm saying that would be the best way I can figure to save syrian civilians without getting bogged down in fighting on behalf of the rebels or the syrian government.

Plus, as for Russia, it would be akin to the Chinese presence in the Korean War. They might funnel troops in, but provided we don't have a dumbfuck general pressing into Russia itself (Hard to do when it's not an adjacent country), while their presence might make an ensuing fight harder, I doubt they would respond as aggressively as you think.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Why wait until now, they've already shot and shelled civilians. Where was the courage of your convictions months ago.

Nice strawman. I personally have wanted the US to have a similar presence as Libya, if not even stronger, in Syria since their rebellion began. But good try.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Going to ignore my point about WW2 then?

BTW: the US was deeply involved in WW2 long before that point. We even committed troops as 'volunteers'.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Every country that has them? No. Every country that uses them innocent men, women, and children? Sure.

People on this board are hot to hang men from the safety of their computer chairs when there's no risk to anyone they might know, but their righteousness seems to shrivel up and vanish when confronted with the possibility that men might die in doing right.

So are we doing right in disarming Assad? Are we doing right in helping shore up the FSA with its ties to Al-Queda? Are we doing right in helping them gain a foothold in another country? Are we doing right helping them get set up with training camps and access to weapons?
Strange definition of right you have there.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Would men die? Yes. Men die doing right every day. Should firemen not go into a burning building? Should policemen leave you at the mercy of armed robbers? Should ambulance drivers avoid the site of a bomb blast because they might be killed as well? Do you complain that they saved someone you don't know from a horrific death?

Do you complain that these men risk their own death to do the right thing? Do you complain that their work burdens your wallet with taxes in doing good?

There is a world of difference between a firefighter saving someone from a burning building, and sending troops to fight in a conflict that we'll be damned for no matter what we do. What is the point of the US military again? Is it to ensure that the world complies with international law, or is it for defense? How will intervening in Syria help make the US more secure?

You seem to be trying to simplify it and back the issue black an white when all we have are varying shades of very dark grey to work with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 darkPrince010 wrote:
I do want the backing of the UN for that process, and I'm not assuming we have the intelligence at all. I'm saying that would be the best way I can figure to save syrian civilians without getting bogged down in fighting on behalf of the rebels or the syrian government.

So you don't have anything that is either realistic, or workable. You want to send in troops on the basis of some ideal whilst ignoring the very real ramifications.

 darkPrince010 wrote:
Plus, as for Russia, it would be akin to the Chinese presence in the Korean War. They might funnel troops in, but provided we don't have a dumbfuck general pressing into Russia itself (Hard to do when it's not an adjacent country), while their presence might make an ensuing fight harder, I doubt they would respond as aggressively as you think.

Really? You don't think that the Russians might be slightly upset at losing a vital port, a strategic ally and someone buying a lot of their weapons?

 darkPrince010 wrote:
Nice strawman. I personally have wanted the US to have a similar presence as Libya, if not even stronger, in Syria since their rebellion began. But good try.

That word is getting over used on Dakka to the point that its almost meaningless, try reading the definition - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).[4]
Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[3]
Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
BTW: the US was deeply involved in WW2 long before that point. We even committed troops as 'volunteers'.

Yeah, both sides had American volunteers. Doesn't change the fact that the US only got officially involved once it was attacked.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So are we doing right in disarming Assad? Are we doing right in helping shore up the FSA with its ties to Al-Queda? Are we doing right in helping them gain a foothold in another country? Are we doing right helping them get set up with training camps and access to weapons?
Strange definition of right you have there.

We've already been setting them up with guns and training camps. CIA has been backing the rebels for a year now.

I could make several other points, but I know at least one of you would insist that it's a Godwin (despite the fact that we're talking about a totalitarian regime practicing inhuman acts on civilians) to compare it to past events and their repercussions.

So I'll just say this: it would be better for the US and it's allies to replace Assad with the FSA than it would be for this to continue.

Here's a reason that even you might grasp: AQ sees the war in Syria as prime recruiting and training ground for exactly the reason that Assad is doing these things, and the US is seen to be sitting back and letting it happen. They play it up that only they, and not the west, care about the people of Syria.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

There is a world of difference between a firefighter saving someone from a burning building, and sending troops to fight in a conflict that we'll be damned for no matter what we do. What is the point of the US military again? Is it to ensure that the world complies with international law, or is it for defense? How will intervening in Syria help make the US more secure?

How does sending US troops to assist in natural disaster relief make the US more secure?

Do we do it to be more secure, or do we do it because, to do nothing, would be to abandon basic humanity?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Yeah, both sides had American volunteers. Doesn't change the fact that the US only got officially involved once it was attacked.

'Officially' yes. Covertly, however...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers

Baronlveagh, are you/were you a soldier?

I am. And I don't want to help these people. Does it suck they got gassed? Yup, sure does. Does it mean we stick our hands into it? No. Sure we have done it before, but I think we've learned our lesson. Helping the Arab 3rd world countries gets us nowhere. Then we'll just get dragged into another insurgency and we'll stay there for years wasting US lives on a worthless endeavor. We're doing it now, I'm participating, and it sucks.

No thanks, I'll go back to Fort Couch and continue to watch the middle east destroy itself. They're pretty good at it. There is not a single thing you can say to me to convince me otherwise.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
We've already been setting them up with guns and training camps. CIA has been backing the rebels for a year now.

I meant AQ, not the FSA apologies if that was unclear

 BaronIveagh wrote:
So I'll just say this: it would be better for the US and it's allies to replace Assad with the FSA than it would be for this to continue.

Here's a reason that even you might grasp: AQ sees the war in Syria as prime recruiting and training ground for exactly the reason that Assad is doing these things, and the US is seen to be sitting back and letting it happen. They play it up that only they, and not the west, care about the people of Syria.

AQ have been managing to train and get recruits long before Syria's current unrest. Nice try though, I liked the attempt at a thinly veiled insult, bit obvious and unnecessary though for my tastes.
So what you're suggesting is that we help those loyal to AQ so that way instead of AQ getting recruits (not that I believe its a valid reason, but we'll follow your logic) they instead have a sympathetic government that they can obtain arms, training and recruits from, and a country that is rebuilding so they can make off with military hardware and/or establish themselves. So instead of giving them some cheap propaganda (that they'll be spouting in any event) we can now ensure that they receive substantial and material support after.

Oh, and remind us how well just trying to help civilians worked out for us in Somalia. Isn't there an Islamist group there with ties to AQ destabilising the region?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
How does sending US troops to assist in natural disaster relief make the US more secure?

Do we do it to be more secure, or do we do it because, to do nothing, would be to abandon basic humanity?

How does helping out in natural disaster relief male matters worse for the US or increase the power of a terrorist group, or our enemies in a region? That's right, it doesn't. Any more facetious comparisons or examples to make?

Once again. how will intervening in Syria make the United States safer?
Why must the US be the country to intervene, you still have not made a compelling case for out intervention.
Finally why should the United States military risk its men and women in a conflict that will not benefit us, nor make us more secure, just so YOU feel that YOU are doing something good?

 Firehead158 wrote:
Baronlveagh, are you/were you a soldier?

I am. And I don't want to help these people. Does it suck they got gassed? Yup, sure does. Does it mean we stick our hands into it? No. Sure we have done it before, but I think we've learned our lesson. Helping the Arab 3rd world countries gets us nowhere. Then we'll just get dragged into another insurgency and we'll stay there for years wasting US lives on a worthless endeavor. We're doing it now, I'm participating, and it sucks.

No thanks, I'll go back to Fort Couch and continue to watch the middle east destroy itself. They're pretty good at it. There is not a single thing you can say to me to convince me otherwise.

I feel the same way about South America. That said, this is one of the few things that would bring me back to a place like that. I know what poison gas is like. You would not believe how painful it is or how long it hurts if you survive. That someone would give the order to use it on civilians, I can't see myself as a human being without opposing the people who would do it, and stopping them by whatever means necessary.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

People on this board are hot to hang men from the safety of their computer chairs when there's no risk to anyone they might know, but their righteousness seems to shrivel up and vanish when confronted with the possibility that men might die in doing right.

Dang, you may just want to use the detail brush vice the 12 inch roller when you paint this way, Stud.

I suspect a few of us have gone into harm's way more than once, and/or have immediate family members that have and/or will, and have supported various military actions when we did have ass flesh on the line. Believing or not believing involvement in this particular conflict is a good or bad thing is not necessarily related to a person's willingness to accept risk. It may have to do with many other factors.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Firehead158 wrote:
Baronlveagh, are you/were you a soldier?

I am. And I don't want to help these people. Does it suck they got gassed? Yup, sure does. Does it mean we stick our hands into it? No. Sure we have done it before, but I think we've learned our lesson. Helping the Arab 3rd world countries gets us nowhere. Then we'll just get dragged into another insurgency and we'll stay there for years wasting US lives on a worthless endeavor. We're doing it now, I'm participating, and it sucks.

No thanks, I'll go back to Fort Couch and continue to watch the middle east destroy itself. They're pretty good at it. There is not a single thing you can say to me to convince me otherwise.

I feel the same way about South America. That said, this is one of the few things that would bring me back to a place like that. I know what poison gas is like. You would not believe how painful it is or how long it hurts if you survive. That someone would give the order to use it on civilians, I can't see myself as a human being without opposing the people who would do it, and stopping them by whatever means necessary.

What agents have you been exposed to? That is quite a statement to be making saying you have had WMDs/Chemical agents deployed on you before. CS and Chlorine gas doesn't really count as they aren't considered WMDs by the UN(as far as I know).

And for what purpose would sending our soldiers in the face of these same chemicals? I said it before, there is nothing to gain.

Yeah, when have we had guys exposed to Chlorine gas?

Or is this related to special forces training? Which I could believe would expose you to mild amounts of some substances to toughen you up.