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.

 Ketara wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
The Kims in N. Korea have been killing millions of their own people for decades (through pogroms, enforced food "shortages" and pure idiocy) and nobody seems to get their panties in a bunch over it enough to invade; I wonder why that is?...... Oh yeah, China.

Moral righteousness < fear of bigger kid = bully.

There comes a point where if you're killing more people than you save in a war, starting it is probably not a good idea.

On that basis, why would a (almost certainly protracted) intervention in Syria not end up killing more people? Yes, there may be less civvy casualties. But last time I checked a dead human is still a dead human, regardless of the label on his panties.

 Ketara wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
The Kims in N. Korea have been killing millions of their own people for decades (through pogroms, enforced food "shortages" and pure idiocy) and nobody seems to get their panties in a bunch over it enough to invade; I wonder why that is?...... Oh yeah, China.

Moral righteousness < fear of bigger kid = bully.

There comes a point where if you're killing more people than you save in a war, starting it is probably not a good idea.

Didn't stop us in the 50s and 60s and 70s. There was a time when people didn't lack the spirit of their convictions no matter who they made angry. I'm not saying war is good, I'm not saying killing people is good, I'm just saying that if you're willing to kill people in the one part of the world because of a "cause" then you should also be willing to fight for a bigger need in the same "cause" in another place regardless. You can't be the moral compass of the world if you're not going to actually do it when it matters.

The idea of one country being a moral compass for the world is stupid anyway.

 Soladrin wrote:
The idea of one country being a moral compass for the world is stupid anyway.

No argument from me.

KM...I can't help but laugh and occasionaly chuckle...and resisting the urge to reread the new Tau Codex again....Let Syria tear itself apart...let russia clean them up....Russia can be in control. At least we can predict Putin. He can reinstate the Gulag system there. pPenty sand there to move from one spot to another and back again.

BTW....North Korea it seems has nukes....not sure if they can fit it in a missile...but they seem to have nukes...also Russia shares part of the border with NK I believe...

 Jihadin wrote:
Airstrike. Drone Strike. Establish a "No FLy" over Syria to prevent that option of delivery of Assad. Espacially NO FLY of everyone 10 miles away from the russian naval base. I'm leaning more to Drone Strike since the Turkish fighter that was shot down a few months ago by syrian forces was equipped with a ALQ 144 system version for jet fighters by a SA missile

I also want to mention that seems a lot of people have forgotten. Saddam gassing the Kurds in Northern Iraq and in response the UN (I believe) establish the no fly zone there because of it.

Eh...sadly, the No Fly zone did very little to prevent Saddam from continuing his pogrom, however. I just made him shift from poison gas to more conventional methods.

Hmm... well, it would partially settle the debate if Drones can perform as well as pilots, since I have near zero doubt that Assad's air force would try and intercept. The other problem is enforcing the no fly zone. It could be done with Saddam because his airforce was essentially a non-entity as far as UN forces were concerned, but with Syria there would be a struggle to get anything done if the Russia decides to block anything in the security council plus the relatively larger concentration of SAMs in Syria as opposed to Northern Iraq.

Ok, let's say we do slip drones in. How do we determine that the chemicals have in fact been destroyed?

Look for a giant green cloud?

Soladrin wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
The Kims in N. Korea have been killing millions of their own people for decades (through pogroms, enforced food "shortages" and pure idiocy) and nobody seems to get their panties in a bunch over it enough to invade; I wonder why that is?...... Oh yeah, China.

Moral righteousness < fear of bigger kid = bully.

There comes a point where if you're killing more people than you save in a war, starting it is probably not a good idea.

On that basis, why would a (almost certainly protracted) intervention in Syria not end up killing more people? Yes, there may be less civvy casualties. But last time I checked a dead human is still a dead human, regardless of the label on his panties.

agnosto wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
The Kims in N. Korea have been killing millions of their own people for decades (through pogroms, enforced food "shortages" and pure idiocy) and nobody seems to get their panties in a bunch over it enough to invade; I wonder why that is?...... Oh yeah, China.

Moral righteousness < fear of bigger kid = bully.

There comes a point where if you're killing more people than you save in a war, starting it is probably not a good idea.

Didn't stop us in the 50s and 60s and 70s. There was a time when people didn't lack the spirit of their convictions no matter who they made angry. I'm not saying war is good, I'm not saying killing people is good, I'm just saying that if you're willing to kill people in the one part of the world because of a "cause" then you should also be willing to fight for a bigger need in the same "cause" in another place regardless. You can't be the moral compass of the world if you're not going to actually do it when it matters.

Let me put it like this.

I would see potentially tens of thousands of casualties in a current civil war avoided, in addition to whatever people a future regime will kill. Not to mention the home grown terrorists spawned by hamfisted international action. And the potential further casualties that are guaranteed to occur regardless of whichever side wins this, as they begin to butcher the remnants of the opposing faction. Oh, and the elimination of potential casualties by future despotic regimes.

I know that between the UK, the US, and France alone, we have the military capacity to win a war in Syria and occupy it completely within a matter of weeks. There would be casualties. And should occupation be the action decided upon for the motivation I have given earlier, I would be quite willing to run the risk of being of them.

But those casualties would be infinitely lesser than allowing what is currently happening to continue.

Where I would draw the line is when the casualties incurred in attempting to save the country potentially far outweigh the number of lives you're trying to save and the good you're trying to accomplish. A country does have the duty to protect its own citizens.

An invasion of China would kill so many, not to mention the risk of nuclear war and fallout, that it would fall into this category. I do not advocate risking the lives of several million to save those of a few hundred thousand, or even a few million. Not without direct demonstration of something along the lines of the Holocaust (systematic industrialised murder on that scale).


An invasion of, say, Zimbabwe though? Where a very small minority oppresses and butchers the majority? I would be in favour of similar action as I just advocated for Syria. The potential for good far outweighs the potential loss.

Our army is made up of volunteers, nobody should be forced on these excursions who did not agree with them, or fighting for the principles of your home country and Government. And I myself would genuinely be willing to risk myself in the advancement of human culture and the elimination of those who kill wantonly. I think you'll find I'm morally consistent in this particular case.

 Monster Rain wrote:

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

Certainly as sad as tinfoil Israeli conspiracies. I hope people will talk to the UN "police" about the nerve gas.

I'm very much okay with a little bit of world policing.

Are we going to pretend it's a conspiracy theory that Israel has it's own national security interests, which often do not mesh with our own? If so, someone should spring Jonathan Pollard, I'd sure he'd be pleased to know he's free to go and it was just internet dumbwads.

Israel's own PM said he couldn't confirm the reports. We're not exactly talking bedrock intelligence, here, and I think one yellowcake uranium fiasco was enough.

 Soladrin wrote:
The idea of one country being a moral compass for the world is stupid anyway.

I wish more people would agree with this statement .

Ketara when you invade another country it isn't as simple as remove the government problem solved ( i thought the US' last two efforts would have proven that) . If you don't know how the country works socially you are just going to leave it worse than when you invaded.

I think the world has had enough "policing".

 Soladrin wrote:
Look for a giant green cloud?

The horror of a huge cloud of Chlorine spreading across the ground and killing thousands of civvies is not funny.

I'm rather scratching my head, simply because I don't see how we can ever be sure without at least sending someone to go look. Even borrowing one of NASA's sniffers wouldn't really tell us how much of the stockpile is destroyed.

Ketara, one can always go the Legion approach, but the UN doesn't like mercenaries. Even when they cause more stability than instability.

 Ouze wrote:

Are we going to pretend it's a conspiracy theory that Israel has it's own national security interests, which often do not mesh with our own? If so, someone should spring Jonathan Pollard, I'd sure he'd be pleased to know he's free to go and it was just internet dumbwads.
Israel's own PM said he couldn't confirm the reports. We're not exactly talking bedrock intelligence, here, and I think one yellowcake uranium fiasco was enough.

Accusations about this have been flying for months now, with each attack slowly getting worse. This is the first time anything approaching intel has been available. The question is what sort of horror will be unleashed that gives rock solid proof? The destruction of the entire city of Damascus by poison gas?

You can say it's hte yellow cake uranium bit all over again. But what it it's not?

Post damage assesment of strike. Have to remember the strike in itself is nail the missile on whatever delivery system its on. Question though is the "gas" persistent or non persistent.

 Jihadin wrote:
Post damage assessment of strike. Have to remember the strike in itself is nail the missile on whatever delivery system its on. Question though is the "gas" persistent or non persistent.

Last I heard they didn't use missiles. Artillery shells and bombs. We're not looking at a few big targets, we're looking at a stockpile of thousands of small devices.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Accusations about this have been flying for months now, with each attack slowly getting worse. This is the first time anything approaching intel has been available. The question is what sort of horror will be unleashed that gives rock solid proof? The destruction of the entire city of Damascus by poison gas?

You can say it's hte yellow cake uranium bit all over again. But what it it's not?

Do you understand there is a middle ground between "a random general's unconfirmed report" and "the destruction of the entire city of Damascus by poison gas"?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


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.

We agree, I would much rather see less of the 'world police' and the military budget cut in half, the funds turned to universal healthcare in America.

This should be telling us something:

Except the money the military gets wouldn't even be a drop in the bucket compared to what universal healthcare would cost.

 Ouze wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

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

Certainly as sad as tinfoil Israeli conspiracies. I hope people will talk to the UN "police" about the nerve gas.

I'm very much okay with a little bit of world policing.

Are we going to pretend it's a conspiracy theory that Israel has it's own national security interests, which often do not mesh with our own? If so, someone should spring Jonathan Pollard, I'd sure he'd be pleased to know he's free to go and it was just internet dumbwads.

Israel's own PM said he couldn't confirm the reports. We're not exactly talking bedrock intelligence, here, and I think one yellowcake uranium fiasco was enough.

Unconfirmed reports and insinuating that the Israelis are making things up aren't exactly the same thing.

 Ouze wrote:

Do you understand there is a middle ground between "a random general's unconfirmed report" and "the destruction of the entire city of Damascus by poison gas"?

It's called exaggeration for dramatic effect. However, each reported gas attack has steadily been increasing in severity since last November, with both sides accusing the other of being responsible. My point being that by the time 100% rock solid intel comes around of someone using poison gas, it could already be too late for a whole lot of people.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:


We agree, I would much rather see less of the 'world police' and the military budget cut in half, the funds turned to universal healthcare in America.

This should be telling us something:

Your point?

At the height of its power Britain had 35 dreadnought battleships. The navy is the most important service the US owns, the army and air force are the offenders when it comes to over spending.

 EmilCrane wrote:
The navy is the most important service the US owns, the army and air force are the offenders when it comes to over spending.

DoD is the Red 18.74%.

Bullockist wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
The idea of one country being a moral compass for the world is stupid anyway.

I wish more people would agree with this statement .

Ketara when you invade another country it isn't as simple as remove the government problem solved ( i thought the US' last two efforts would have proven that) . If you don't know how the country works socially you are just going to leave it worse than when you invaded.

I think the world has had enough "policing".

Trust me, I'm aware of that.

The trick is to instill the necessary cultural traits, which none of our 'interventions' of late do. Mainly because they tend to be motivated by money and business interests rather than humanitarian concerns. Allow me to contrast for you.

Take Afghanistan. All the aid money we send there is either embezzled by a corrupt and morally bankrupt Government little better than the one we toppled. The Taliban run back and forth across the border, and our soldiers are not viewed particularly well by the public. The hearts and minds campaign is shoddily run, and consists of us giving contracts to private organisations who then siphon off as much as they can. We are also under massive pressure to withdraw at home, because we're achieving absolutely nothing. Which is correct.

Contrast this with post war Japan or West Germany. Military occupations, vast amounts of cash funneled in, our own administrators and bureaucrats temporarily positioned there to ensure things go accordingly. Significant amounts of funding channeled into what is, in effect, cultural reprogramming. State apparatus set up in such a way as to ensure the inability of future coups by aggressive administrations, and ingrained over time.

I would rather have something more like the latter, only modelled along humanitarian concerns. Direct occupation for a clearly defined set of time (twenty years I would have thought) with checkboxes along the way. As the country begins to resemble a democratic and free nation, we withdraw more and more controls and hand over more and more power. The fact that it is an joint international effort erases any concept of individual colonialism and ensures the 'occupiers' adhere to their withdrawal.

To fund it? Aid budgets. We've been throwing money at Africa and the Middle East for nigh on fifty years now. The drip drip approach to aid clearly does not work. What countries like Syria and Zimbabwe need is us taking direct control for a period of time to install stability, law and order, and the freedom of political affiliation, worship, and so on. It'll save us money in the long run, as opposed to continuing our current approach.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:
The navy is the most important service the US owns, the army and air force are the offenders when it comes to over spending.

DoD is the Red 18.74%.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for maintaining a high defense budget, I just think the US could spend its defense money a little more intelligently

 Ketara wrote:


The trick is to instill the necessary cultural traits, which none of our 'interventions' of late do. Mainly because they tend to be motivated by money and business interests rather than humanitarian concerns. Allow me to contrast for you.

Take Afghanistan. All the aid money we send there is either embezzled by a corrupt and morally bankrupt Government little better than the one we toppled. The Taliban run back and forth across the border, and our soldiers are not viewed particularly well by the public. The hearts and minds campaign is shoddily run, and consists of us giving contracts to private organisations who then siphon off as much as they can. We are also under massive pressure to withdraw at home, because we're achieving absolutely nothing. Which is correct.

Contrast this with post war Japan or West Germany. Military occupations, vast amounts of cash funneled in, our own administrators and bureaucrats temporarily positioned there to ensure things go accordingly. Significant amounts of funding channeled into what is, in effect, cultural reprogramming. State apparatus set up in such a way as to ensure the inability of future coups by aggressive administrations, and ingrained over time.

I would rather have something more like the latter, only modelled along humanitarian concerns. Direct occupation for a clearly defined set of time with checkboxes along the way. As the country begins to resemble a democratic and free nation, we withdraw more and more controls and hand over more and more power. The fact that it is an joint international effort erases any concept of individual colonialism and ensures the 'occupiers' adhere to their withdrawal.

To fund it? Aid budgets. We've been throwing money at Africa and the Middle East for nigh on fifty years now. The drip drip approach to aid clearly does not work. What countries like Syria and Zimbabwe need is us taking direct control for a period of time to install stability, law and order, and the freedom of political affiliation, worship, and so on. It'll save us money in the long run, as opposed to continuing our current approach.

Marshall was right? Who'da thunk?

Remember though that the US alone had over 3 million servicemen in Europe to draw on. We could put a rifle squad and a tank on every street corner in Germany. While Syria is smaller, I'm not sure that the US or anyone else is going to commit to that level.

 EmilCrane wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for maintaining a high defense budget, I just think the US could spend its defense money a little more intelligently

The cost of the average infantryman has risen staggeringly since WW2, outpacing inflation by a considerable margin.

Like I said. Post Assesment Damage Pic's. When in doubt hit it again....repeatedly. BV you keep limiting yourself to "Drones". Have you forgotten Tomahawks? You mention arty shells and bombs..which should be 155mm two chamber shells and landmines. They do not store them already loaded with whatever agent they want to use. They have to be moved to whatever site the agent is stored and made at and filled with the agent or vice versa. Then moved again to whatevever artillery unit or area to be mined. Why are you asking me questions you should already know? If its a persistant agent everyone screwed regardless.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Marshall was right? Who'da thunk?

Remember though that the US alone had over 3 million servicemen in Europe to draw on. We could put a rifle squad and a tank on every street corner in Germany. While Syria is smaller, I'm not sure that the US or anyone else is going to commit to that level.

Hence the need for an international effort. I'm pretty certain that if we switched even half of the twelve billion pounds aid budget we currently have over to the effort, we could put in a substantial contribution. If the US and France did the same, I think we could occupy Syria without much difficulty. It is, after all, in the middle of a civil war. Your average citizen longs for peace and stability.

 Ouze wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
blah blah blah

OK, have a good time with that. I have come to realize that Kingcracker was right.

Amusingly mature of you.

Sorry to ask you to back up your outlandish claims.

The bulk of funding for a U.S. national health care system would be the nice fat 20% of the budget labeled "Medicare" and "Medicaid".

 Jihadin wrote:
Like I said. Post Assesment Damage Pic's. When in doubt hit it again....repeatedly. BV you keep limiting yourself to "Drones". Have you forgotten Tomahawks? You mention arty shells and bombs..which should be 155mm two chamber shells and landmines. They do not store them already loaded with whatever agent they want to use. They have to be moved to whatever site the agent is stored and made at and filled with the agent or vice versa. Then moved again to whatevever artillery unit or area to be mined. Why are you asking me questions you should already know? If its a persistant agent everyone screwed regardless.

*points to the people posting* Because anything I say is suspect and subject to debate from certain quarters. If you say it, they're more likely to take it as fact.

So we're looking at sat surveillance to spot the storage facilities, a strike with 129s and some tomahawks with TALDs followed by drones with JDAMs to bat cleanup. SOP I worry about missing a facility though or having bad intel on what's in it. I still think that Gulf War Syndrome came from exposure to whatever leaked out of the facility at Salman Pak after we hit it (most likely Sarin, which is what they're supposedly using.). But that's a personal opinion.

Sarin has a short shelf life, but a fairly small lethal dose.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The bulk of funding for a U.S. national health care system would be the nice fat 20% of the budget labeled "Medicare" and "Medicaid".

I'd like to see what NASA could do with 19% of the budget instead of 2% for just one year.





http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/why-is-u-s-so-reluctant-to-back-israel-s-claims-of-syria-chemical-weapons-use.premium-1.517222

Hardly a unbiased source, but it does add more detail. Seems England and France have supposedly determined the same thing, and that the Syrians are not allowing the UN inspectors in to determine if Sarin has really been deployed.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I'd like to see what NASA could do with 19% of the budget instead of 2% for just one year.

NASA with ten times the budget?

We'd probably be mining asteroids, putting a base on the moon, or landing on mars or something, by 2030.

As it is, it seems incredibly unlikely.

On topic: I don't know how I feel about this. On one hand, I hope the US does intervene to end the slaughter.

On the other hand... sarin gas is a horrible way to die and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, and if Syria's using that now, that means they might try to use it on US troops if we land. Which would just piss us off but still, damn.

Really? This again. This has nothing to do with the US. If NATO or the UN want to go in fine let them. If the arab league wants to try, go for it. It's not our fight, it's not our people and it's not our allies. In fact, this is another situation where the people we "save" will be shooting at us while we are saving them and for years and/or decades afterword.

Nobody acts, not because they think someone else is going to step in, but because they expect the US to spend blood and treasure FOR NO GD REASON. We have absolutely nothing to gain here and everything to lose. Enough already!

Here is a tip, if you are not a soldier willing to die in the conflict, get the frack out! Can't kill civilians if they are not there. The way I see it let Assads guy's and AQ duke it out all day, just means less of them we have to kill in the next god forsaken shithole that somebody thinks the US needs to rescue.

If NATO or the UN or anyone wants us to bomb the place, fine, we will do the work, you foot the bill and you put your troops on the ground.

The must be a positive end game strategy here that legitimizes our involvement. I don't see one. In fact it almost works in our favor to let it go on and drag the whole region with it. Let the place turn into thunderdome millions go in, one comes out. At least them we will know who we are dealing with.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The bulk of funding for a U.S. national health care system would be the nice fat 20% of the budget labeled "Medicare" and "Medicaid".

Why is there so much angst about this?

Turkey is a NATO country... they have every reason to get involved, but don't want a major war in Syria because of two main things...
1) The influx of survivors would be massive
2) May encourage the Kurds to rebel.

If there's 100% proof that gases were used... then under the guise of NATO, fething dominate the air... not just "No Fly Zones", but take out ALL anti-air... then destroy ANY militarily.

Then, have NATO/UN go in...

NO US BOOTS ON THE GROUND.