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.

So, by sending in troops it will help you sleep at night, knowing we saved people?

So what about our soldiers that die from sarin in the following "help" we give?

Either way, its a lose lose situation, and people will die no matter what the outcome is.
You cant save everyone, as cruel as it sounds, you simply cant.

I'd rather leave another country to get on with it than lose more troops in something that really shouldnt have anything to do with us.
We get involved in too much as it is.

Pretty sure we would send them in with protection. Or simply be very cautious and have a sort of scorched earth policy.

Even with full BA, things happen.
Your never going to be fully covered against it all the time.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

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.

So instead we make it a training and recruiting ground where they get to fight non-muslims, and they still accomplish what they want? Hate to break it to you, but trying to fight an IO campaign against AQ is extremely difficult. They WILL turn it against us, just as the Taliban do to us here in Afghanistan.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

There's a big difference between the steady trickle of recruits they have been getting and the short of recruiting opportunities they have here. Experienced, motivated men are much more dangerous than inexperienced, motivated men.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

Except that position has almost as many assumptions in it as mine,

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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?

Yes, well, when we utterly abandon our former allies, they tend to be a bit ungrateful about it and might just join our enemies. Just ask Fidel Castro.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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.

Are you looking for a specifc ocassion that humanitarian aid went ot back terrorists or just in general?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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?

That's the first good question you've asked. I will admit my own experiences color my judgment on this issue, much as Firehead's do his and probably Frazz's do him.

 Firehead158 wrote:
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.

Did he answer whether or not he was in the military, and in what capacity, or did I miss that?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Firehead158 wrote:
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.

Did he answer whether or not he was in the military, and in what capacity, or did I miss that?

No, he didn't. It is merely implied by the way he is speaking of his "experience", whatever that may be.

He didn't answer.

Adding my own two pffenigs we should avoid going into Syria like the plague. If they want to then the Arab league can get troops together and perform peace keeping ops.

But I suppose the Israelis wouldn't like a unified force getting ground experience in combined operations. And the Arab states have various conflicting interests.....

Which is why they should settle it themselves...
ad infinitum.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
There's a big difference between the steady trickle of recruits they have been getting and the short of recruiting opportunities they have here. Experienced, motivated men are much more dangerous than inexperienced, motivated men.

You mean like those men that are fighting in Afghanistan, in Yemen, in Iraq, that are currently fighting in Syria? Those "inexperienced" men? Do you think that if the FSA wins that the AQ veterans from Syria and those sympathetic to them will beat their Ak-47s into ploughshares?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Except that position has almost as many assumptions in it as mine,

Those assumptions have a pretty firm basis in reality, not a feeling to do something. So what other result do you think is plausible when a government that is sympathetic to terrorist groups takes over? Do you think that they won't reward them, gift them with weapons, allow them to recruit? Do you think that a terrorist group isn't going to take advantage of instability to set up shop (like Afghanistan)? In you need any clues try looking at the Lebanon (right next door to Syria), and all the terrorist training that took place in the Bequaa Valley (including Islamists and the IRA)

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, well, when we utterly abandon our former allies, they tend to be a bit ungrateful about it and might just join our enemies. Just ask Fidel Castro.

And in this case they aren't our allies - the FSA are allies with AQ (the CIA are using them as mercenaries), and Assad is allies with Russia and Iran. When the conflict is over no matter which side wins the US will not be in good standing with them, so why do you want to risk our troops for that?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Are you looking for a specifc ocassion that humanitarian aid went ot back terrorists or just in general?

So now you're shifting the goal posts from "natural disaster relief" to "humanitarian aid" to try and make your point instead of dealing with the question that was asked.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
That's the first good question you've asked. I will admit my own experiences color my judgment on this issue, much as Firehead's do his and probably Frazz's do him.

If its a good question then maybe you'd oblige me with an answer - 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?
Also, if its that important to you will you go to Syria yourself if the United States chooses not to deploy?

Maybe you can answer the other questions that you chose to ignore too;
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
Have you served in the United States military, and if so in what capacity?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Firehead158 wrote:
No, he didn't. It is merely implied by the way he is speaking of his "experience", whatever that may be.

That's what I thought, thanks for confirming it

 Firehead158 wrote:

No, he didn't. It is merely implied by the way he is speaking of his "experience", whatever that may be.

Well, mine doesn't 'count' as it was Chlorine. I hold no official military rank, have done work in the past for an independent military organization as an independent contractor, and non-disclosure shuts my yap beyond that point.


Dreadclaw, your point is well taken. However, I might also ask this question: Got a better idea of how to keep 1k+ tonnes of chemical weapons out of the hands of AQ and Hezbollah? Because if this keeps up, they will get them, no matter who wins.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

... I hold no official military rank, have done work in the past for an independent military organization as an independent contractor, and non-disclosure shuts my yap beyond that point.

Sorry man, I don't know you at all, but that stinks to high heaven. Very poser-ish to say stuff like that, the non-disclosure stuff, and the failing to name names, time frames, or places. I could be wrong, and that's okay because 9 out of 10 people that aren't girls trying to get picked up at a bar, won't believe what you just said.

OMG did he just say he's an "operator?"

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I hold no official military rank, have done work in the past for an independent military organization as an independent contractor, and non-disclosure shuts my yap beyond that point.

Well, if you hold no military rank why the need to wait for the US to decide to send troops in? You could take Frazzled's suggestion and hop a plane to Turkey. That way YOU can feel like YOU are doing something, and the US doesn't have to get involved.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Dreadclaw, your point is well taken. However, I might also ask this question: Got a better idea of how to keep 2k+ tones of chemical weapons out of the hands of AQ and Hezbollah? Because if this keeps up, they will get them, no matter who wins.

Weren't you the one screaming conspiracy in the Boston Bombings thread and telling everyone not to take the official word at face value, and yet here you are jumping in both feet first at these reports. I guess its a funny old world.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Firehead158 wrote:
Sorry man, I don't know you at all, but that stinks to high heaven. Very poser-ish to say stuff like that, the non-disclosure stuff, and the failing to name names, time frames, or places. I could be wrong, and that's okay because 9 out of 10 people that aren't girls trying to get picked up at a bar, won't believe what you just said.

Shame this cannot be Exalted more than once

 Firehead158 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

... I hold no official military rank, have done work in the past for an independent military organization as an independent contractor, and non-disclosure shuts my yap beyond that point.

Sorry man, I don't know you at all, but that stinks to high heaven. Very poser-ish to say stuff like that, the non-disclosure stuff, and the failing to name names, time frames, or places. I could be wrong, and that's okay because 9 out of 10 people that aren't girls trying to get picked up at a bar, won't believe what you just said.

Well, as a research lab employee who HAS been exposed (briefly) to chlorine gas (And that was a gakky experience, let me tell you) as well as more organic solvent vapors than I can name, I concur with his view on it and how we should treat individuals who weaponize it, regardless of whatever Baron's experience is.

I too have suffered the sting of chlorine. Which is why I now wear goggles at the pool.

I know how my Syrian brothers and sisters feel.

 darkPrince010 wrote:

 Firehead158 wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

... I hold no official military rank, have done work in the past for an independent military organization as an independent contractor, and non-disclosure shuts my yap beyond that point.

Sorry man, I don't know you at all, but that stinks to high heaven. Very poser-ish to say stuff like that, the non-disclosure stuff, and the failing to name names, time frames, or places. I could be wrong, and that's okay because 9 out of 10 people that aren't girls trying to get picked up at a bar, won't believe what you just said.

Well, as a research lab employee who HAS been exposed (briefly) to chlorine gas (And that was a gakky experience, let me tell you) as well as more organic solvent vapors than I can name, I concur with his view on it and how we should treat individuals who weaponize it, regardless of whatever Baron's experience is.

Well in the case of Chlorine gas, my understanding is that in order to deploy it widely to be weaponized, most of the gas is dispersed rapidly through explosion, which in turn makes the majority of the gas disperse to the point of it being virtually non-lethal. My reference is when there was a 10K gallon tank was used as a SVBIED in attempt to delivery Chlorine gas, which failed miserably. I don't have a ton of experience in CBRN.

Now, if we are talking REAL blood, nerve, and blister agents...let them burn themselves. I don't particularly care. I refuse to agree with sending my battle brothers and sister into harms way for no significant gain, especially when we are talking about WMDs.

 darkPrince010 wrote:
Well, as a research lab employee who HAS been exposed (briefly) to chlorine gas (And that was a gakky experience, let me tell you) as well as more organic solvent vapors than I can name, I concur with his view on it and how we should treat individuals who weaponize it, regardless of whatever Baron's experience is

So you're a lab research assistant who wants to send US troops to Syria to fight and die so you can sleep better at night. Nevermind the fact that we're still not going to win in the long run, and that it will not make the country safer?

 Frazzled wrote:
OMG did he just say he's an "operator?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2dyXc7jhX8

EPIC!!!!

 Mr. Burning wrote:
I too have suffered the sting of chlorine. Which is why I now wear goggles at the pool.

I know how my Syrian brothers and sisters feel.

By the way, CS gas does count as a chemical weapon if used in war according to the UN Chemical Weapons Convention.

It can be used for law enforcement though...

I'm torn on this, because there are 2 really good, really compelling, and totally diametrically opposite arguments at play here.

A.) It's not our problem
And it isn't, really. Syria is not in the national security interests of the United States. I think a much stronger case could be made for going back to Somalia then can be made for Syria. We have a lot of problems at home that can use our money, and we have a lot of children that need their fathers and mothers, and sons and daughters and husbands and wives at home, not bleeding out in ditches in yet another IED ridden hellhole for a people that we all know perfectly damn well will be burning American flags within 5 years anyway.

B.) With great power comes great responsibility
The United States has the greatest military machine in the history of war. Our great power in this arena requires us to act as we can to stop atrocities when other would not or cannot act. If you saw a old lady being mugged, and you were capable of stopping it, would you just walk by whistling? It's not different when you're a nation, not if you're a great, exceptional nation. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing, and all that. Furthermore, our commander-in-chief has already publicly stated we would take action if this occurred. If we then do not, our reputation and soft power would be unambiguously and perhaps irrevocably harmed.


Which do we pick? Hell, man - I don't know. I am mostly in camp A. We could be taking better care of the wounded veterans that return now - I'd like to see us work on that rather then manufacture more of them.

But I think I'd also be willing to support a Libya-type action - where we spearhead either a UN or NATO enforcement action and we supply aircraft and aid. No boots on the ground under any circumstances.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Dreadclaw, your point is well taken. However, I might also ask this question: Got a better idea of how to keep 1k+ tonnes of chemical weapons out of the hands of AQ and Hezbollah? Because if this keeps up, they will get them, no matter who wins.

Just in case you thought I wasn't answering this - provide the Israelis with the intelligence, weapon systems, logistics and political cover to obliterate the storage facilities. No US casualties from that.

 CptJake wrote:
By the way, CS gas does count as a chemical weapon if used in war according to the UN Chemical Weapons Convention.

It can be used for law enforcement though...

You're right, but it is not a WMD. I probably should have clarified my standpoint. Is it a chemical? Yes. Its used as a non-lethal weapon, however. If that is what he was referencing, whoopie-dee-do. I've been exposed to CS before. It sucks, yes, but the pain is temporary, and can be dealt with. Learn to fight through it, and you're good to go. It is not a good point to say "i've been hit with CS, it sucks. I think we should go to war because of my experience dealing with a non-lethal chemical".

 Ouze wrote:
I'm torn on this, because there are 2 really good, really compelling, and totally diametrically opposite arguments at play here.
B.) With great power comes great responsibility
The United States has the greatest military machine in the history of war. Our great power in this arena requires us to act as we can to stop atrocities when other would not or cannot act. If you saw a old lady being mugged, and you were capable of stopping it, would you just walk by whistling? It's not different when you're a nation, not if you're a great, exceptional nation. All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing, and all that. Furthermore, our commander-in-chief has already publicly stated we would take action if this occurred. If we then do not, our reputation and soft power would be unambiguously and perhaps irrevocably harmed.

Is that old lady's relatives going to try and kill us later because they don't like us? Because that's sort of what happens if we back the FSA seeing as they're in bed with AQ

Is that the argument? We shouldn't do something because Al Qaeda and their affiliates wouldn't like us anymore?

Also, are you sure the FSA proper is in bed with AQ?

 Mr. Burning wrote:
I too have suffered the sting of chlorine. Which is why I now wear goggles at the pool.

I know how my Syrian brothers and sisters feel.

I'm a manly man. No wussy goggles for me. I use sports glasses and floaties for all my submarine tactical operator activities.

 Ouze wrote:
Is that the argument? We shouldn't do something because Al Qaeda and their affiliates wouldn't like us anymore?

No, the argument is that because the FAS is in bed with AQ then supporting them and helping them overthrow Assad would be a pretty bad idea - Syria get ruled by a group sympathetic to AQ, AQ can set up shop here (like they did after the instability in Afghanistan), as well as receive military and logistical support and supplies from the FSA who are grateful for helping them a la Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley for Hizbollah and various other terrorist groups, not to mention have a cadre of war veterans who could be persuaded to join their cause.

 Ouze wrote:
Is that the argument? We shouldn't do something because Al Qaeda and their affiliates wouldn't like us anymore?

No, but if I save that old lady, and because I had to constantly supervise and assist her stay with her for 5 years while she recovered from her mugging, then her grandson came of age and blew me up, I'd probably think twice about having helped her in the first place.

 Ouze wrote:
Is that the argument? We shouldn't do something because Al Qaeda and their affiliates wouldn't like us anymore?

For the last several years we have been trying to kill AQ guys all across the globe. Sending in troops to now aid them sounds more than an atmospheric level of coockoo.
Didn't we do that in Afghanistan in the late 80s? How did that work out for gratitude again?

Sorry, I edited my post with a follow-up trying to beat your response but I didn't make it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Is that the argument? We shouldn't do something because Al Qaeda and their affiliates wouldn't like us anymore?

For the last several years we have been trying to kill AQ guys all across the globe. Sending in troops to now aid them sounds more than an atmospheric level of coockoo.
Didn't we do that in Afghanistan in the late 80s? How did that work out for gratitude again?

The lack of reading comprehension in your post is legendary (even in hell). To be clear, I never suggested aiding Al Qaeda at any point so please do not pretend that I did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Firehead158 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Is that the argument? We shouldn't do something because Al Qaeda and their affiliates wouldn't like us anymore?

No, but if I save that old lady, and because I had to constantly supervise and assist her stay with her for 5 years while she recovered from her mugging, then her grandson came of age and blew me up, I'd probably think twice about having helped her in the first place.

Well, I would respond to you, but due to this earlier post, I'm grateful I do not need to waste my time doing so.

 Firehead158 wrote:
There is not a single thing you can say to me to convince me otherwise.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
I too have suffered the sting of chlorine. Which is why I now wear goggles at the pool.

I know how my Syrian brothers and sisters feel.

Oho, the chlorine in a pool is nothing. The straight gas attacks water molecules in your lungs and the air itself, converting it straight to wonderful hydrochloric acid. Luckily my exposure resulted in coughing and a sore throat/watering eyes and a mild rash, but that was from a brief unexpected whiff.

dreadclaw69 wrote:

darkPrince010 wrote:
Well, as a research lab employee who HAS been exposed (briefly) to chlorine gas (And that was a gakky experience, let me tell you) as well as more organic solvent vapors than I can name, I concur with his view on it and how we should treat individuals who weaponize it, regardless of whatever Baron's experience is

So you're a lab research assistant who wants to send US troops to Syria to fight and die so you can sleep better at night.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot that as a tax-paying citizen I should shut up about anything not directly related to my profession. Be sure to remember that next time you are in a discussion about genetics or genetics medicine, because that's only a discussion I can have!

dreadclaw69 wrote:
Nevermind the fact that we're still not going to win in the long run, and that it will not make the country safer?

Dunno about you, but knowing that our troops personally secured and destroyed chemical weapons makes me a hell of a lot more assured then sitting back and just letting the weapons exchange hands willy-nilly before being shipped overseas in say...a pressure cooker?

 Mr. Burning wrote:
I too have suffered the sting of chlorine. Which is why I now wear goggles at the pool.

I know how my Syrian brothers and sisters feel.

Whilst we establish if nerve gas, the same nerve gas used to massacre villages of peasants by Saddam or the subways of Tokyo by terrorist, has or has not been deployed against civilians including the elderly and children, let's go easy on the rapier wit in this thread.

Please and thank you.