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.

Hit the wrong quote then Whembly?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Hit the wrong quote them Whembly?

Too tired.

Don't mind me...

XD damn Whembly, check fire broseph.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
XD damn Whembly, check fire broseph.

Sorry brah!
In that quote... you're right! Just add another 20% and blammo, US haz Universal healthcare.

 whembly wrote:

 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.

That's fine, looks like a UN, NATO or even possibly a EU problem if they want it, not a US one. Let the UN, NATO or EU take care of it if they want. I'd rather see all the Muslims that cry about crusaders invading their land take care of their own issues. Especially one that is such a no win tar pit as this one.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 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.

That's fine, looks like a UN, NATO or even possibly a EU problem if they want it, not a US one. Let the UN, NATO or EU take care of it if they want. I'd rather see all the Muslims that cry about crusaders invading their land take care of their own issues. Especially one that is such a no win tar pit as this one.

Out of curiosity who do you think the leading member and military powerhouse of NATO and the UN is? And also how is it the EU's problem?

It's closer to the EU then the U.S. therefore it's your problem by international law of "It's not in my yard" Bloody hell, worthless Eurozone, when you're not bankrupting yourselves or trying to let the Germans conquer the continent again you're not even able to keep your backyard in a semblance of order.

Not that we can talk too much trash with Mexico, but people got all butt hurt the last time the U.S. started air strikes on sovereign nations/allies.

This is sarcasm.

The fact of the matter is it's the EU's problem just as much as it is the U.S.'s problem, which is to say... not at all. The case could be made for a NATO problem if/when Turkey calls in the Cavalry.

 EmilCrane wrote:
Out of curiosity who do you think the leading member and military powerhouse of NATO and the UN is? And also how is it the EU's problem?

And as soon as you start footing the bill for our defense budget, you can tell us how to use it.

 Seaward wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:
Out of curiosity who do you think the leading member and military powerhouse of NATO and the UN is? And also how is it the EU's problem?

And as soon as you start footing the bill for our defense budget, you can tell us how to use it.

So is this a slam about me not being an american or not being in the military?

Because I was born in Dallas Texas, and have lived most of my life in the United States of America, I happen to live in New Zealand now but I still have to file taxes in the United States so actually I do "foot the bill" as it were

But no I am not in the military, I'm a post-grad history student doing a PHD in the role of Naval Power in winning the First World War if you must know

US will lead NATO forces if a Syrian missile by chance "miss" its target and lands in Turkey and release sarin gas or some other agent.Russia can protest all it wants in the UN but Turkey a member of NATO so its a NATO response. Like if North Korea launches an attack in Jan and eb of whatever year....ground frozen hard enough to support the weight of armored vehicles. Thats a UN response and not a NATO one. US will lead on that one to...drive them right back to the 38th parallel.

If Syria use a persistant agent though thats a whole new ball game. I'm sure Putin would even start sharing intell on what, where, and who on Syrian units so we can crush them. I wouldn't be suprise if the russian naval base expands their foot print to avoid dealing with decontamination on their base by putting syrian units out of range.

MOPP 4 in the Middle East.....thats some serious casualties waiting to happen. Gawd forbid if they have a worth while Blood agent. Promask filter can handle a blood agent for 2-3 hours before its compromise

Hope whatever units that might get the orders to launch a WMD agent attack refuse the orders. I highly doubt it al commanders say a Hell No...might get one or two

 EmilCrane wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:
Out of curiosity who do you think the leading member and military powerhouse of NATO and the UN is? And also how is it the EU's problem?

And as soon as you start footing the bill for our defense budget, you can tell us how to use it.

So is this a slam about me not being an american or not being in the military?

Because I was born in Dallas Texas, and have lived most of my life in the United States of America, I happen to live in New Zealand now but I still have to file taxes in the United States so actually I do "foot the bill" as it were

But no I am not in the military, I'm a post-grad history student doing a PHD in the role of Naval Power in winning the First World War if you must know

But how much in Taxes do you actually pay? If you spend 330 Days overseas, the first 95K you make is Federally Tax free.


Anyway, We'll have to see how this develops. I'm really curious to see the Obamas Administrations choice in this matter. If we are getting this news now, it's a fair bet that Govt already knows what's going on.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Send in the drones.

I'm not entirely sure that even a reaper drone has sufficient firepower in this case. We may be looking at several hardened facilities.

NUke them. Hey whats a few civilian casualties if its for the greater good. Won't someone think of the children?!?!?!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EmilCrane wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 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.

That's fine, looks like a UN, NATO or even possibly a EU problem if they want it, not a US one. Let the UN, NATO or EU take care of it if they want. I'd rather see all the Muslims that cry about crusaders invading their land take care of their own issues. Especially one that is such a no win tar pit as this one.

Out of curiosity who do you think the leading member and military powerhouse of NATO and the UN is? And also how is it the EU's problem?

We are separated by thousands of miles, an ocean, and absolute cultural differences. Europe is right there. if its not in your interest it sure as hell isn't ours.

 Frazzled wrote:


We are separated by thousands of miles, an ocean, and absolute cultural differences. Europe is right there. if its not in your interest it sure as hell isn't ours.

I would hope that if the day comes that an autocratic home regime decides to use gas on you and your family, that the people in my country don't just go, 'Eh, its too far away. Leave them to it'.

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


We are separated by thousands of miles, an ocean, and absolute cultural differences. Europe is right there. if its not in your interest it sure as hell isn't ours.

I would hope that if the day comes that an autocratic home regime decides to use gas on you and your family, that the people in my country don't just go, 'Eh, its too far away. Leave them to it'.

I think he's saying, why is everyone looking at America to fix this when you have a lot of modern nation/militaries who are right there and can step up and deal with it as well?

Personally I was tickled pink when European nations seemed to be eager to take the lead in Libya, and despite my French bashing, I respected their going at it in Mali. It's nice to see other countries stepping up.

That being said, I'm certainly of the camp that ANYONE who uses these weapons needs to be dealt with immediately, and harshly, and I have no compunction with using US resources to deal with people who will unleash some of the most vile weapons mankind has created on their own people.

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


We are separated by thousands of miles, an ocean, and absolute cultural differences. Europe is right there. if its not in your interest it sure as hell isn't ours.

I would hope that if the day comes that an autocratic home regime decides to use gas on you and your family, that the people in my country don't just go, 'Eh, its too far away. Leave them to it'.

Thats why we have the Second Amendment, and a democratic republic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


We are separated by thousands of miles, an ocean, and absolute cultural differences. Europe is right there. if its not in your interest it sure as hell isn't ours.

I would hope that if the day comes that an autocratic home regime decides to use gas on you and your family, that the people in my country don't just go, 'Eh, its too far away. Leave them to it'.

I think he's saying, why is everyone looking at America to fix this when you have a lot of modern nation/militaries who are right there and can step up and deal with it as well?

Personally I was tickled pink when European nations seemed to be eager to take the lead in Libya, and despite my French bashing, I respected their going at it in Mali. It's nice to see other countries stepping up.

That being said, I'm certainly of the camp that ANYONE who uses these weapons needs to be dealt with immediately, and harshly, and I have no compunction with using US resources to deal with people who will unleash some of the most vile weapons mankind has created on their own people.

Depends. Is it the civil or WMDs. If its because of WMDs we should respond with WMDs. If its not worth us using WMDs then its not a threat in the first place.

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


We are separated by thousands of miles, an ocean, and absolute cultural differences. Europe is right there. if its not in your interest it sure as hell isn't ours.

I would hope that if the day comes that an autocratic home regime decides to use gas on you and your family, that the people in my country don't just go, 'Eh, its too far away. Leave them to it'.

So the Brits are going in then, eh?

Good to hear. Have fun.

 Frazzled wrote:


Thats why we have the Second Amendment, and a democratic republic.

IIRC so did the Syrians (before the long series of coups starting in 1949, though I'm not sure what order their rights were in)

And, Frazz, I have to ask, how does the second amendment protect you from Sarin gas? It's not exactly something you can kill with a gun.

And thank you, Doctor Strangelove, for suggesting we nuke the place. I'm sure that we need to slaughter the populace to prevent their slaughter. [/sarcasm]




I sat around last night and mulled over Dreadclaws questions. Other than my conclusions about his utter lack of empathy or humanity, my gut reaction that the US needs to be involved, both politically and militarily, in this stands. Jihadin has posted a very good alternative to boots on the ground, one that I'm 90% sure would succeed. Conversely, Ketra does have a point that we can't just bomb the place back to he stone age and expect everything to turn up roses either. While 'nation building' seems to be abhorrent to politicians atm, the reality is that is exactly what we'd have to do for any chance at stability in Syria post war.

If you get don to it, ther are two good reasons ot go to war: to defend yourself, and to stop a mass murder/genocide in progress.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


We are separated by thousands of miles, an ocean, and absolute cultural differences. Europe is right there. if its not in your interest it sure as hell isn't ours.

I would hope that if the day comes that an autocratic home regime decides to use gas on you and your family, that the people in my country don't just go, 'Eh, its too far away. Leave them to it'.

So the Brits are going in then, eh?

Good to hear. Have fun.

Sorry, what planet are you on?

I already gave my views on the matter earlier on, and what I thought would be appropriate. Perhaps you should read them before you trip over your own wit trying to dismiss my point again, hmm?



Frazzled, governments rise and fall, and mutate over time. You may find that in a hundred years time, those things no longer apply. Whilst I'm not saying America should jump to invade and put things to right now (I'm not sure it would do much good for anyone unless under the plan I outlined earlier), I would hope that basic human empathy would make you want to help them in some way if possible, that wouldn't be too badly to the detriment of your own populace. As opposed to just going, 'eh, too far away to care'.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Conversely, Ketra does have a point that we can't just bomb the place back to he stone age and expect everything to turn up roses either. While 'nation building' seems to be abhorrent to politicians atm, the reality is that is exactly what we'd have to do for any chance at stability in Syria post war.

The problem with bombing things back to the stone age is that that it builds nothing. It only destroys. And when all you do is destroy, it actually makes it easier for another autocratic regime to take charge, as the chap left with the most guns on the ground takes control. And then you're just looking at the same problem repeating in twenty years.

The only way to break that trend is a marshall plan-esque international occupation. Whilst its still possible that things might go wrong after that, the proof to date would seem to indicate that it takes far longer, and that the populace becomes far more culturally acclimatized to democracy and justice.

 Ketara wrote:




Sorry, what planet are you on?

I already gave my views on the matter earlier on, and what I thought would be appropriate. Perhaps you should read them before you trip over your own wit trying to dismiss my point again, hmm?

Your view appears to be that someone should do something, just not you.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Thats why we have the Second Amendment, and a democratic republic.

IIRC so did the Syrians (before the long series of coups starting in 1949, though I'm not sure what order their rights were in)

And, Frazz, I have to ask, how does the second amendment protect you from Sarin gas? It's not exactly something you can kill with a gun.

And thank you, Doctor Strangelove, for suggesting we nuke the place. I'm sure that we need to slaughter the populace to prevent their slaughter. [/sarcasm]




I sat around last night and mulled over Dreadclaws questions. Other than my conclusions about his utter lack of empathy or humanity, my gut reaction that the US needs to be involved, both politically and militarily, in this stands. Jihadin has posted a very good alternative to boots on the ground, one that I'm 90% sure would succeed. Conversely, Ketra does have a point that we can't just bomb the place back to he stone age and expect everything to turn up roses either. While 'nation building' seems to be abhorrent to politicians atm, the reality is that is exactly what we'd have to do for any chance at stability in Syria post war.

If you get don to it, ther are two good reasons ot go to war: to defend yourself, and to stop a mass murder/genocide in progress.

The Second Amendment is there to insure, along with the military, that the democratically elected Republic remains a democratically elerted Republic. As long as they don't rely on my typing and proofing skills the Republic shall stand.

So, its not worth nuking them then. So its not really about WMDs then, it really is just the civil war. Then I restate - you go.
After your side wins and you end up in prison or deaded by your former colleagues, call me and tell me how it worked out.

I wonder how effective shooting at sarin gas with guns would be.

 Monster Rain wrote:
I wonder how effective shooting at sarin gas with guns would be.

Is that a serious question?

 darkPrince010 wrote:
Well, do you mind linking to it again since I've combed over the entire thread, again, and still can't find anything about your proposed solution?

I'm not sure how you manage to miss this (twice) in a 5 page thread but here you go.

 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.

 darkPrince010 wrote:
Decent point, although I doubt Russia wants to remain too closely associated with a country known to use chemical weapons. However, the potential loss of life from terrorist activities coming from an AQ-aligned post-Assad government still seems like you're inflating your estimate compared to the loss of life that has occurred, and will continue to occur, if we don't attempt to neutralize the Syrian government response in a similar way to how we handled Libya. There are probably no "good" outcomes to getting involved, but quite frankly the outcome occurring today, right here and now in Syria, seems to me to be far worse.

Really? Remember the theater siege in Moscow? A lot of the deaths from that were from the Russians using gas on their own citizens. You might have missed Russia's glowing record on human rights in places like Chechnya and elsewhere, showing that they don't spend much time worrying about human rights. Russia has been a firm Syrian ally to date, including weapons, hard currency etc. and to date they haven't made any attempt to distance themselves, nor reign in their ally. Very different response compared to China's handling of North Korea recently.

You're still omitting Iran from the equation, as well as ignoring the historical precedent of what may happen to Syria by looking at it's neighbour Lebanon.

Glad to see you're finally realising that there isn't a good outcome. But you still seem to think that sending in troops to a civil war, were both sides have ample reason to kill you seems like a good idea. Never mind the mess that the country will be in for decades to come, and the strengthening of an enemy no matter what the outcome is, as well as weakening ourselves through yet more debt. Still waiting on a compelling reason for why it has to be the US too.

 darkPrince010 wrote:
Source, for both points? Because I'm pretty damned sure if the US had actually involved itself in Rwanda instead of sat back and "just let it handle itself" then the civil war there would have been recorded as a fething war, not a genocide.

You're looking for a source to say that civilians in a heavily populated country, with a roughly equal portions on each side, engaged in a civil war won't get killed in crossfire or military operations? That source is common sense
And as far as the second point goes, just about every civilian death in either Iraq or Afghanistan, regardless of who was responsible (yes, the US got blamed for civilian deaths from AQ attacks because of the argument that it wouldn't have happened if the US didn't invade)

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I'm actually sort of mulling it over. As I said, your position has merit and I'll sit here and consider it. Your answer about the chemical weapons though, still does not have a workable answer, as I pointed out, palming it off on Israel is unlikely to succeed no matter how much air support and intel we provide. Jihadin had a much better idea, but we'd need very accurate intel on the munitions, their storage, etc. I like the airstrikes idea, but we'd need to be absolutely sure that it wouldn't make the situation worse, which is what we failed to do at Salman Pak.

So getting Israel to carry out airstrikes won't work for reasons that you have not specified (because they have no experience right? Its not like they took out Saddam's nuclear reactor in Operation Opera, or took out an Iranian nuclear reactor in Operation Orchard, or that their airforce has a long history of tragetted strikes against their enemies), but us carrying out airstrikes will work....

"Ze GUNS! ZEY DO NOTHING!!!"

 djones520 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I wonder how effective shooting at sarin gas with guns would be.

Is that a serious question?

The second amendment was cited as a deterrent from this sort of thing ever happening in the US. While I'm pro second amendment and all, I question the logic behind that idea.

You can't rely on the Israelis to do this for a few reasons:

1. There is no way we give them the correct munitions needed to destroy chem stockpiles, and even if we did they don't have the training in delivery nor the right platforms to deliver them.

2. Hitting them will require taking down an integrated ADA system that is pretty modern, meaning it is going to take a number of sorties that Israel would have trouble maintaining.

3. In the region you already have Arab nations friendly to us providing various support to ops in Syria (Jordan, Saudi, the Emirates) and bringing Israel as the striking force would NOT be a good thing for them, especially as it would be a multi-week extensive campaign.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
I wonder how effective shooting at sarin gas with guns would be.

Is that a serious question?

The second amendment was cited as a deterrent from this sort of thing ever happening in the US. While I'm pro second amendment and all, I question the logic behind that idea.

You don't shoot the gas. You insure that the republic remains a republic and thats not an issue.

 CptJake wrote:
You can't rely on the Israelis to do this for a few reasons:

1. There is no way we give them the correct munitions needed to destroy chem stockpiles, and even if we did they don't have the training in delivery nor the right platforms to deliver them.

2. Hitting them will require taking down an integrated ADA system that is pretty modern, meaning it is going to take a number of sorties that Israel would have trouble maintaining.

3. In the region you already have Arab nations friendly to us providing various support to ops in Syria (Jordan, Saudi, the Emirates) and bringing Israel as the striking force would NOT be a good thing for them, especially as it would be a multi-week extensive campaign.

1. Israel has every capability of deliviring munitions that we do, short of space borne nukes.

2. Israel has repeatedly shown their ability to penetrate Syria's ADA system with impugnity.

3. Israel don't give a gak.

 djones520 wrote:
That is really old as well, since 3 of those carriers are no longer in active service.

Really? I would have thought that our resident "Operator" would have known that. Can't win 'em all I guess

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
That is really old as well, since 3 of those carriers are no longer in active service.

Really? I would have thought that our resident "Operator" would have known that. Can't win 'em all I guess

It also showed a carrier that is still being built. So 4 of the 14 it showed aren't actually in service. We currently have a 10 Carrier fleet, and I believe one of those is stuck in dock indefinitely due to fuel issues.