Syria deploys Sarin gas

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**

Yet you probably think Bush is an idiot or even EVILLLZZZ for saying the same thing...

**Ouze**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
[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

Indeed, I'm not confident that it has been established. So far we have only the Israeli's word for this; and as they rarely work in the national security interest of this country, I'd prefer that we establish it ourselves before going forward with any activity, or inactivity.

I suppose Britain and France are somewhat more trustworthy, but I'd prefer a surfeit of first-party evidence.

**Dreadclaw69**

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

No worries, thanks for making this post then or I would have missed it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/30/al-qaida-rebels-battle-syria

As they stood outside the commandeered government building in the town of Mohassen, it was hard to distinguish Abu Khuder's men from any other brigade in the Syrian civil war, in their combat fatigues, T-shirts and beards.

But these were not average members of the Free Syrian Army. Abu Khuder and his men fight for al-Qaida. They call themselves the ghuraba'a, or "strangers", after a famous jihadi poem celebrating Osama bin Laden's time with his followers in the Afghan mountains, and they are one of a number of jihadi organisations establishing a foothold in the east of the country now that the conflict in Syria has stretched well into its second bloody year.

They try to hide their presence. "Some people are worried about carrying the [black] flags," said Abu Khuder. "They fear America will come and fight us. So we fight in secret. Why give Bashar and the west a pretext?" But their existence is common knowledge in Mohassen. Even passers-by joke with the men about car bombs and IEDs.

According to Abu Khuder, his men are working closely with the military council that commands the Free Syrian Army brigades in the region. "We meet almost every day," he said. "We have clear instructions from our [al-Qaida] leadership that if the FSA need our help we should give it. We help them with IEDs and car bombs. Our main talent is in the bombing operations." Abu Khuder's men had a lot of experience in bomb-making from Iraq and elsewhere, he added.

Abu Khuder spoke later at length. He reclined on a pile of cushions in a house in Mohassen, resting his left arm which had been hit by a sniper's bullet and was wrapped in plaster and bandages. Four teenage boys kneeled in a tight crescent in front of him, craning their necks and listening with awe. Other villagers in the room looked uneasy.

Abu Khuder had been an officer in a mechanised Syrian border force called the Camel Corps when he took up arms against the regime. He fought the security forces with a pistol and a light hunting rifle, gaining a reputation as one of the bravest and most ruthless men in Deir el-Zour province and helped to form one of the first FSA battalions.

He soon became disillusioned with what he saw as the rebel army's disorganisation and inability to strike at the regime, however. He illustrated this by describing an attempt to attack the government garrison in Mohassen. Fortified in a former textile factory behind concrete walls, sand bags, machine-gun turrets and armoured vehicles, the garrison was immune to the rebels' puny attempt at assault.

"When we attacked the base with the FSA we tried everything and failed," said Abu Khuder. "Even with around 200 men attacking from multiple fronts they couldn't injure a single government soldier and instead wasted 1.5m Syrian pounds [£14,500] on firing ammunition at the walls."

Then a group of devout and disciplined Islamist fighters in the nearby village offered to help. They summoned an expert from Damascus and after two days of work handed Abu Khuder their token of friendship: a truck rigged with two tonnes of explosives.

Two men drove the truck close to the gate of the base and detonated it remotely. The explosion was so large, Abu Khuder said, that windows and metal shutters were blown hundreds of metres, trees were ripped up by their roots and a huge crater was left in the middle of the road.

The next day the army left and the town of Mohassen was free.

"The car bomb cost us 100,000 Syrian pounds and fewer than 10 people were involved [in the operation]," he said. "Within two days of the bomb expert arriving we had it ready. We didn't waste a single bullet.

"Al-Qaida has experience in these military activities and it knows how to deal with it."

After the bombing, Abu Khuder split with the FSA and pledged allegiance to al-Qaida's organisation in Syria, the Jabhat al Nusra or Solidarity Front. He let his beard grow and adopted the religious rhetoric of a jihadi, becoming a commander of one their battalions.

"The Free Syrian Army has no rules and no military or religious order. Everything happens chaotically," he said. "Al-Qaida has a law that no one, not even the emir, can break.

"The FSA lacks the ability to plan and lacks military experience. That is what [al-Qaida] can bring. They have an organisation that all countries have acknowledged.

"In the beginning there were very few. Now, mashallah, there are immigrants joining us and bringing their experience," he told the gathered people. "Men from Yemen, Saudi, Iraq and Jordan. Yemenis are the best in their religion and discipline and the Iraqis are the worst in everything – even in religion."

At this, one man in the room – an activist in his mid-30s who did not want to be named – said: "So what are you trying to do, Abu Khuder? Are you going to start cutting off hands and make us like Saudi? Is this why we are fighting a revolution?"

"[Al-Qaida's] goal is establishing an Islamic state and not a Syrian state," he replied. "Those who fear the organisation fear the implementation of Allah's jurisdiction. If you don't commit sins there is nothing to fear."

Religious rhetoric

Religious and sectarian rhetoric has taken a leading role in the Syrian revolution from the early days. This is partly because of the need for outside funding and weapons, which are coming through well-established Muslim networks, and partly because religion provides a useful rallying cry for fighters, with promises of martyrdom and redemption.

Almost every rebel brigade has adopted a Sunni religious name with rhetoric exalting jihad and martyrdom, even when the brigades are run by secular commanders and manned by fighters who barely pray.

"Religion is a major rallying force in this revolution – look at Ara'our [a rabid sectarian preacher], he is hysterical and we don't like him but he offers unquestionable support to the fighters and they need it," the activist said later.

Another FSA commander in Deir el-Zour city explained the role of religion in the uprising: "Religion is the best way to impose discipline. Even if the fighter is not religious he can't disobey a religious order in battle."

Al-Qaida has existed in this parched region of eastern Syria, where the desert and the tribes straddle the border with Iraq, for almost a decade.

During the years of American occupation of Iraq, Deir el-Zour became the gateway through which thousands of foreign jihadis flooded to fight the holy war. Many senior insurgents took refuge from American and Iraqi government raids in the villages and deserts of Deir el-Zour.

Osama, a young jihadi from Abu Khuder's unit with a kind smile, was 17 in 2003 when the Americans invaded Iraq, he said. He ran away from home and joined the thousands of other Syrians who crossed the porous border and went to fight. Like most of those volunteers, at first he was inspired by a mixture of nationalistic and tribal allegiances, but later religion became his sole motivation.

After returning to Syria he drifted closer to the jihadi ideology. It was dangerous then, and some of his friends were imprisoned by the regime, which for years played a double game, allowing jihadis to filter across the borders to fight the Americans while at the same time keeping them tightly under control at home.

In the first months of the Syrian uprising, he joined the protesters in the street, and when some of his relatives were killed he defected and joined the Free Syrian Army.

"I decided to join the others," he said. "But then I became very disappointed with the FSA. When they fought they were great, but then most of the time they sat in their rooms doing nothing but smoke and gossip and chat on Skype."

Fed up with his commanders' bickering and fighting over money, he turned to another fighting group based in the village of Shahail, 50 miles west of Mohassen, which has become the de facto capital of al-Qaida in Deir el-Zour. More than 20 of its young men were killed in Iraq. In Shahail the al-Qaida fighters drive around in white SUVs with al-Qaida flags fluttering.

The group there was led by a pious man. He knew a couple of them from his time in Iraq. One day, the group's leader – a Saudi who covered his hair with a red scarf and carried a small Kalashnikov, in the style of Bin Laden – visited Mohassen. He gave a long sermon during the funeral of a local commander, telling the audience how jihad was the only way to lead a revolution against the infidel regime of Bashar al-Assad, and how they, the Syrians, were not only victims of the regime but also of the hypocrisy of the west, which refused to help them.

"They were committed," said Osama. "They obeyed their leader and never argued. In the FSA, if you have 10 people they usually split and form three groups." The jihadis, by contrast, used their time "in useful things, even the chores are divided equally".

Osama joined the group. "He [the Saudi] is a very good man, he spends his days teaching us. You ask him anything and he will answer you with verses from the Qur'an, you want to read the Qur'an you can read. You want to study bomb-making he will teach you."

In the pre-revolutionary days when the regime was strong it would take a year to recruit someone to the secret cause of jihad. "Now, thanks to God, we are working in the open and many people are joining in," said Osama.

In Shahail we interviewed Saleem Abu Yassir, a village elder and the commander of the local FSA brigade. He sat in a room filled with tribal fighters and machine-guns. The relationship with al-Qaida had been very difficult, he said, with the jihadis being secretive and despising the FSA and even calling them infidel secularists. But now they had opened up, co-operating with other rebel groups.

"Are they good fighters?" he threw the question rhetorically into the room. "Yes, they are, but they have a problem with executions. They capture a soldier and they put a pistol to his head and shoot him. We have religious courts and we have to try people before executing them. This abundance of killing is what we fear. We fear they are trying to bring us back to the days of Iraq and we have seen what that achieved."

Osama had told me that his group was very cautious about not repeating the Iraq experience – "they admit they made a lot of mistakes in Iraq and they are keen to avoid it", he said – but others, including a young doctor working for the revolution, were not convinced. The opposition needed to admit Al-Qaida were among them, and be on their guard.

"Who kidnapped the foreign engineers who worked in the nearby oilfield?" he asked. "They have better financing than the FSA and we have to admit they are here.

"They are stealing the revolution from us and they are working for the day that comes after."

Add in that Al-Nursa, perhaps the most effective fighting force in the FSA, openly declared its affiliation with AQ and it doesn't look so rosy

**BaronIveagh**

Firehead158 wrote:

Sorry man, I don't know you at all, but that stinks to high heaven.

*shrug* Fair enough. One of the cooks on the USS Boxer a few years back heading to deployment in Iraq made a bet (they bet their hats) with a Marine Corps cook that he could serve more omelets than the corps cook could. The navy guy won by making everyone the same ham and cheese omelet while the corps cook tried to make a specific omelet for each person.

If you come back to the US on the Boxer ask them if it's true. The navy cook's name was Maurer or something (IIRC)

Dreadklaw, you do realize that things don't actually work that way, right? (And it's called a contract).

That said: You made your best points earlier. Dodging my question by stating that it's odd for me to accept this evidence (of people being killed with poison gas) while I point out that until something goes before a judge that no one is technically guilty of anything is disingenuous. I at no point denied that the people killed were dead from a bomb.

And it does not actually answer my question, though I have stopped to consider your earlier points as quite likely valid.

**Ouze**

Let me clarify. I don't dispute AQ is present and on scene. What I'm not clear on is that they're there by invitation, and not just crashing the party?

I'd have to presume that any aid rendered would contingent on expelling the jihadists.

**Dreadclaw69**

darkPrince010 wrote:
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!

Yay!! You read the link I posted about what a straw man argument was and then used it yourself!!

No, my point was that its quite easy for you to sit in your lab and demand that the US sends troops into a country to fight and die so you can sleep at night, knowing full well that you won't be the one being called upon to fight.
Nice try at mis-direction though. Bit obvious though.

darkPrince010 wrote:
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?

You're assuming that we need boots on the ground to destroy them. And you also ignore the long term ramifications of allowing AQ to get a foothold in the region.
Yes, because two men from Chechnya, with no ties to militant groups, or in receipt of support from militant groups did just that in Boston. To quote your goodself

As far as attempting to tie two separate events together so that was spectacularly dreadful

**Soladrin**

Ouze wrote:
Let me clarify. I don't dispute AQ is present and on scene. What I'm not clear on is that they're there by invitation, and not just crashing the party?

I'd have to presume that any aid rendered would contingent on expelling the jihadists.

Good luck doing that without having both parties breathing down your neck.

**Dreadclaw69**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Dreadklaw, you do realize that things don't actually work that way, right? (And it's called a contract).

That said: You made your best points earlier. Dodging my question by stating that it's odd for me to accept this evidence (of people being killed with poison gas) while I point out that until something goes before a judge that no one is technically guilty of anything is disingenuous. I at no point denied that the people killed were dead from a bomb.

And it does not actually answer my question, though I have stopped to consider your earlier points as quite likely valid.

Dreadclaw btw

No, but you are taking the reports about nerve gas on face value and not being as critical of those as you were with the events in Boston (you know with your conspiracy theories, about Gitmo, about the corrupt FBI and Boston PD etc.) But you are happy to send troops to fight and die on little to no concrete evidence

I didn't dodge your question. In fact I answered every point you made. However I'm still waiting to hear a compelling case from you, with all your tacticool experience, as to why the US needs to send in troops to Syria just so YOU can feel better. Or why you want the US to intervene and not another country.

**Ouze**

Yeah, I was ignorant of the presence of AQ. This is a wrinkle I have to think on for a while frankly.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
I'd have to presume that any aid rendered would contingent on expelling the jihadists.

Good luck with that, you're going to need it

BTW how do you propose we deal with Russia, Iran and Hizballah when you depose their ally?

**Soladrin**

Correct me if I'm wrong. But it's use has been confirmed right? Just not who used it?

If that is the case. Does anymore evidence really matter? Either the government has it and it may fall to the hands of terrorist organizations. Or said organizations already have them.

**Dreadclaw69**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Firehead158 wrote:

Sorry man, I don't know you at all, but that stinks to high heaven.

*shrug* Fair enough. One of the cooks on the USS Boxer a few years back heading to deployment in Iraq made a bet (they bet their hats) with a Marine Corps cook that he could serve more omelets than the corps cook could. The navy guy won by making everyone the same ham and cheese omelet while the corps cook tried to make a specific omelet for each person.

If you come back to the US on the Boxer ask them if it's true. The navy cook's name was Maurer or something (IIRC)

Cook eh? Is that you Steven Segal??

I thought you were great in "Under Siege"

**darkPrince010**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
darkPrince010 wrote:
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!

Yay!! You read the link I posted about what a straw man argument was and then used it yourself!!
No, my point was that its quite easy for you to sit in your lab and demand that the US sends troops into a country to fight and die so you can sleep at night, knowing full well that you won't be the one being called upon to fight.
Nice try at mis-direction though. Bit obvious though.

Yay! You can't apparently detect when I'm being sarcastic!

If I was called up to go overseas, then I would happily. I am registered for the draft, and am fairly annoyed at your attempt to imply that I would shy from going overseas if needed.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

darkPrince010 wrote:
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?

You're assuming that we need boots on the ground to destroy them. And you also ignore the long term ramifications of allowing AQ to get a foothold in the region.
Yes, because two men from Chechnya, with no ties to militant groups, or in receipt of support from militant groups did just that in Boston. To quote your goodself As far as attempting to tie two separate events together so that was spectacularly dreadful

I don't care if the boots are on the ground or sitting behind a predator control console, as long as something is being done besides sitting on our damned thumbs. As for the long-term AQ foothold, you'd see more casualties from a single chemical attack than you likely would from a half-dozen terrorist attacks. Do you want lots of civilians to die now just to offset the chance of some of them being attacked later, assuming the political attractiveness of AQ magically remains unchanged in a political vacuum?

Also, the note about pressure cookers was to try and give you a slap of reality that terrorist attacks aren't limited to the middle east, far away from your cozy home. I know they aren't remotely related to AQ, at least insofar as has been proven, but maybe you can accept the reality that it is far easier for them to get a chemical weapon into the country if they don't have to make it themselves?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Or why you want the US to intervene and not another country.

Hell, that's because no other country would. Not our fault everyone else is too busy hand-wringing

**Ouze**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I'd have to presume that any aid rendered would contingent on expelling the jihadists.

Good luck with that, you're going to need it

BTW how do you propose we deal with Russia, Iran and Hizballah when you depose their ally?

While we'd obviously need to negotiate with Russia, I can't see how our current relationships with Iran or Hezbollah would be affected regardless of what we choose to do, nor are their opinions on this strictly relevant to whether or not we should act.

In general though I think our relationship with Russia could use a lot of fixing.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I was ignorant of the presence of AQ. This is a wrinkle I have to think on for a while frankly.

Between AQ and the parties backing Assad I can't think of much good that will come out of any US involvement in the country. We're going to get blamed regardless, we may as well get blamed without spending billions and burying more of our troops because of a thankless action.

**darkPrince010**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I was ignorant of the presence of AQ. This is a wrinkle I have to think on for a while frankly.

Between AQ and the parties backing Assad I can't think of much good that will come out of any US involvement in the country. We're going to get blamed regardless, we may as well get blamed without spending billions and burying more of our troops because of a thankless action.

Sure, but the use of chemical weapons does need some kind of reaction from the UN, otherwise their rules will start to look even more like guidelines.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
While we'd obviously need to negotiate with Russia, I can't see how our current relationships with Iran or Hezbollah would be affected regardless of what we choose to do, nor are their opinions on this strictly relevant to whether or not we should act.

In general though I think our relationship with Russia could use a lot of fixing.

We're still trying to get Iran to the table in a meaningful way over their nuclear program and potential breaches of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, killing their troops (as they are rumoured to be in Syria) or ousting a key ally for them in the region isn't likely to make that easy, nor reduce the chances of them doing something to the Straits of Hormz.

With Russia I can't see us fixing the relationship by removing a vital port for them, or ousting someone who buys a lot of arms from them

**KalashnikovMarine**

Chicken hawks and internet mall ninjas screaming for blood makes me sad.

**Ouze**

As sad as thinking only soldiers have the right to an opinion on US foreign policy?

**BaronIveagh**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

No, but you are taking the reports about nerve gas on face value and not being as critical of those as you were with the events in Boston (you know with your conspiracy theories, about Gitmo, about the corrupt FBI and Boston PD etc.) But you are happy to send troops to fight and die on little to no concrete evidence

Because this isn't a case of determining if an American citizen is guilty of a crime. By not acting swiftly you run the risk of a lot more casualties than if you do act,

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I didn't dodge your question. In fact I answered every point you made. However I'm still waiting to hear a compelling case from you, with all your tacticool experience, as to why the US needs to send in troops to Syria just so YOU can feel better. Or why you want the US to intervene and not another country

There's nothing 'cool' about it. It was rather boring and smelled, most of the time. And dread, as I said, i conceded that point that maybe my own experience was clouding my judgement. I'll admit that I'm currently mulling it over. However, who do you think we can talk into it, if we're not willing to go ourselves? I'm curious where you're going with that.

And you did dodge my question: assuming, of course, that the Syrian chemical weapon stockpile is as large as has been stated, how would you go about securing it without intervening with boots on the ground?

**Dreadclaw69**

darkPrince010 wrote:
Sure, but the use of chemical weapons does need some kind of reaction from the UN, otherwise their rules will start to look even more like guidelines.

Remember when Saddam gassed all those Kurds after the Coalition left following Desert Storm? What reaction did that prompt? Or countless other genocides in Africa that the UN gave a mealy mouthed speech about for no effect? All those events that showed that the UN isn't worth the money pumped into it. Are you forgetting that Russia is one of the five countries that is a Permanent Member of the Security Council, and which has veto power to prevent UN involvement in Syria (they do need their port there and Assad has been getting a lot of weapons off them)?

**MeanGreenStompa**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Chicken hawks and internet mall ninjas screaming for blood makes me sad.

If that makes you sad, the realization that the civilian population's taxes pay for the employment of the public servants we call the armed forces must bring you to wailing laments and teeth gnashing.

**darkPrince010**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
darkPrince010 wrote:
Sure, but the use of chemical weapons does need some kind of reaction from the UN, otherwise their rules will start to look even more like guidelines.

Remember when Saddam gassed all those Kurds after the Coalition left following Desert Storm? What reaction did that prompt? Or countless other genocides in Africa that the UN gave a mealy mouthed speech about for no effect? All those events that showed that the UN isn't worth the money pumped into it. Are you forgetting that Russia is one of the five countries that is a Permanent Member of the Security Council, and which has veto power to prevent UN involvement in Syria (they do need their port there and Assad has been getting a lot of weapons off them)?

Fine then, US involvement then if the UN is useless. Still, as Baron has said several times and you've still failed to actually answer, what would your "better" solution be to fix the problem of there being a chemical weapons stockpile being used on civilians in Syria? Just sit back and yawn dramatically?

**Dreadclaw69**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Because this isn't a case of determining if an American citizen is guilty of a crime. By not acting swiftly you run the risk of a lot more casualties than if you do act,

You're quite right. It is in fact more serious than a determination of guilt. You're talking about entering an armed conflict with the very real possibility of casualties from your own troops (also US citizens in case that had slipped your attention), civilians and long term consequences from Russia, Iran and AQ. Given that I thought you would at least exercise the same level of skepticism as you did concerning someone's guilt after he threw explosives and shot at police

BaronIveagh wrote:
There's nothing 'cool' about it. It was rather boring and smelled, most of the time. And dread, as I said, i conceded that point that maybe my own experience was clouding my judgement. I'll admit that I'm currently mulling it over. However, who do you think we can talk into it, if we're not willing to go ourselves? I'm curious where you're going with that.

And you did dodge my question: assuming, of course, that the Syrian chemical weapon stockpile is as large as has been stated, how would you go about securing it without intervening with boots on the ground?

It would behoove you to check before you continue to insist that I didn't answer a question of yours. Especially when I ensured that it was a seperate post so you would be less likely to miss it;

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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.

As for who we can talk into it I think we can rule out the UN, Russia is one of the five Permanent Members of the Security Council and with that comes veto power to protect an ally, long standing weapon purchaser and maintaining an important port in the region

**KalashnikovMarine**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Chicken hawks and internet mall ninjas screaming for blood makes me sad.

If that makes you sad, the realization that the civilian population's taxes pay for the employment of the public servants we call the armed forces must bring you to wailing laments and teeth gnashing.

Absolutely, the military serves a purpose but our defense budget is so hilariously oversized right now it's not even funny, adding another useless war for useless people in a part of the world we're openly despised helps no one except do gooders who will be egging us and calling us child murderers for the war they demanded the day after we get boots on the ground.

Ouze you misunderstand, they have an absolute right to their opinion about U.S. foreign policy, and I have the right to call their position out of the hogwash it is.

**BaronIveagh**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Remember when Saddam gassed all those Kurds after the Coalition left following Desert Storm? What reaction did that prompt? Or countless other genocides in Africa that the UN gave a mealy mouthed speech about for no effect?

And yet, every time someone spoke up and said 'let's put a stop to these things' someone else said 'why should our soldiers die for this? What has 'Darkest Africa' done for my national security lately?' And so round and round we go, with the atrocities piling ever higher and no one willing to act as the first world sits around and wrings it's hands and US an Asian corporations make a killing, sometimes literally, off the chaos.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
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.

Didn't spot this earlier. The problem with that is every side would likely turn against the Israelis. It's the reason they have stayed out of it so far. It'd have to be someone that one side or the other are not going to attack out of hand. I wonder if Jordan or Saudi Arabia would be willing to step in?

**Dreadclaw69**

darkPrince010 wrote:
Yay! You can't apparently detect when I'm being sarcastic!

If I was called up to go overseas, then I would happily. I am registered for the draft, and am fairly annoyed at your attempt to imply that I would shy from going overseas if needed.

Because sarcasm is one of those things that translates so well on the internet, right?

darkPrince010 wrote:
I don't care if the boots are on the ground or sitting behind a predator control console, as long as something is being done besides sitting on our damned thumbs. As for the long-term AQ foothold, you'd see more casualties from a single chemical attack than you likely would from a half-dozen terrorist attacks. Do you want lots of civilians to die now just to offset the chance of some of them being attacked later, assuming the political attractiveness of AQ magically remains unchanged in a political vacuum?

Also, the note about pressure cookers was to try and give you a slap of reality that terrorist attacks aren't limited to the middle east, far away from your cozy home. I know they aren't remotely related to AQ, at least insofar as has been proven, but maybe you can accept the reality that it is far easier for them to get a chemical weapon into the country if they don't have to make it themselves?

Slap of reality? I grew up in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, I moved to the US nine months ago. I think I have plenty of experience of terrorism without your attempts to give me a slap of reality. I remember soldiers on the streets, masked men with guns, evacuating because of security alerts and all the rest. So I am very, VERY aware that terrorism isn't just in the Middle East.

You keep saying that you want something done, yet you have no idea what to do in the aftermath or what the long term consequences will be. And smuggling chemical weapons (with a pretty obvious chemical signature) into the US is pretty easy right? As easy as making an IED from household, easily obtainable materials right?

darkPrince010 wrote:
Hell, that's because no other country would. Not our fault everyone else is too busy hand-wringing

Or because everyone else knows what an almighty mess getting involved would be and has more sense than to get involved.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:
And yet, every time someone spoke up and said 'let's put a stop to these things' someone else said 'why should our soldiers die for this? What has 'Darkest Africa' done for my national security lately?' And so round and round we go, with the atrocities piling ever higher and no one willing to act as the first world sits around and wrings it's hands and US an Asian corporations make a killing, sometimes literally, off the chaos.

Pssst. You sort of ignored the rest of that post to try and score some cheap points and detract from the matter at hand.

I would address your point but you still haven't given any reason why we should do anything to intervene (you know, the same question I've been asking you for quite some time)

**darkPrince010**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Slap of reality? I grew up in Northern Ireland during the Troubles, I moved to the US nine months ago. I think I have plenty of experience of terrorism without your attempts to give me a slap of reality. I remember soldiers on the streets, masked men with guns, evacuating because of security alerts and all the rest. So I am very, VERY aware that terrorism isn't just in the Middle East.

You keep saying that you want something done, yet you have no idea what to do in the aftermath or what the long term consequences will be. And smuggling chemical weapons (with a pretty obvious chemical signature) into the US is pretty easy right? As easy as making an IED from household, easily obtainable materials right?

Well, for having grown up in the Troubles I am baffled as to why you seem to treat the idea of the ability for a known terrorist group getting their hands on chemical WMDs so dismissively.

For the aftermath of destroying the chemical weapons caches? I do agree that the decision to fully jump into the conflict needs to be deliberated over, but ignoring the chemical weapons seems like a damned stupid thing to just ignore, and I don't foresee much "aftermath," whether from the Syrian rebels or Russia, for destroying them. Only problem is the time delay of being able to get information of confirmed locations for the strikes.

As for long-term consequences, as long as direct US-Russian conflict doesn't occur (Again, see China vs US in the Korean War), the long-term consequences would be minimal for just destroying the weapons caches. As for interfering, you result in either a quashed rebellion and a North Korea/Iran military police state eating itself from the inside, or you result in a new government with the chance of being sympathetic to a terrorist group.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
darkPrince010 wrote:
Hell, that's because no other country would. Not our fault everyone else is too busy hand-wringing

Or because everyone else knows what an almighty mess getting involved would be and has more sense than to get involved.

Well, sitting back and just letting them use the chemical weapons certainly won't save lives in the short term, and so far you seem to be full of a great deal of conjecture as to the supposedly-vast loss of life resulting from a military intervention. I guess at that point it boils down to whether you think saving the life of any number of foreigners is worth the life of an American soldier.

**Ouze**

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
[Ouze you misunderstand, they have an absolute right to their opinion about U.S. foreign policy, and I have the right to call their position out of the hogwash it is.

Did I misunderstand? You don't appear to couch your argument in that someone's made a factual error, simply that their lack of military experience makes it "hogwash"

To which I respond that, if you are in the military, you generally will have no special perspective into this discussion to offer over a non-military citizen. Being a grunt (and I mean that respectfully, as most of the military types on this site I think would generally be considered grunts, not generals) doesn't give you insight into into WHY we should fight, only how, and even then only limited to whatever is within your purview.

And if you think about it, you already know this is true. When you call the cable company to tell them the cable is out, you wouldn't accept them telling you that you're not qualified to hold that opinion because you're not a networking expert; it's an appeal to authority fallacy and especially broken in that unless you work for State or whatever, there isn't even any actual authority.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:
adding another useless war for useless people in a part of the world we're openly despised helps no one except do gooders who will be egging us and calling us child murderers for the war they demanded the day after we get boots on the ground.

Is this a thing that has actually happened, post-Vietnam? Like, in a meaningful way? Because I have really seen the contrary, festishistic hero-worship, especially post 9/11.

**CptJake**

Firehead158 wrote:
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".

Oh, I know how much fun CS is. I've inhaled way more than my share.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:

And you did dodge my question: assuming, of course, that the Syrian chemical weapon stockpile is as large as has been stated, how would you go about securing it without intervening with boots on the ground?

We have air dropped munitions especially made to destroy that crap.