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

 Frazzled wrote:
Which would make us instantly the bad guys. Expect pics of dead civies and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

We don't even need to kill civilians or allow chem we hit to contaminate an area. When we strike they WILL show civilian casualties. That is a given.

 CptJake wrote:

We don't even need to kill civilians or allow chem we hit to contaminate an area. When we strike they WILL show civilian casualties. That is a given.

It doesn't help one's cause to make it true though. And as far as their location: no, we know where they used to be. That's not the same thing. That they're still there is based on several broad assumptions, the biggest of which is that they have not been moved since then.

You can't move it without several different things happening, many of which we specifically collect against. Since we have been watching, chances are we know where they are.

Speaking of Declarations of War, where is it???

 CptJake wrote:
You can't move it without several different things happening, many of which we specifically collect against. Since we have been watching, chances are we know where they are.

I'd have more confidence in that statement if not for the fact that many of them likely originated in Iraq, meaning they've given the US the slip at least once before.

I might be misinformed, but my understanding is that in flight mix systems can be more or less loaded into a truck and moved, since the precursor chemicals aren't mixed until the weapon is discharged.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of Declarations of War, where is it???

They have 60 days to get one after the shooting starts.

Obama has 60 days before he would need to go to Congress via the War Powers Act... ala, the Libyan efforts to remove Gaddafi.

Also... heh:
Obama Seeks a ‘Coalition of the Willing’ on Syria

Hmm... Seeking a coalition of the willing to take down an Arab Ba’athist dictator over WMDs. Where have I heard this before?

It does have a familiar ring to it.
Come on Obama I'm one of your few conservative supporters on the itnernaitonal scene due to your stated desire to not do stuff like this.

 whembly wrote:
Obama has 60 days before he would need to go to Congress via the War Powers Act... ala, the Libyan efforts to remove Gaddafi.

Also... heh:
Obama Seeks a ‘Coalition of the Willing’ on Syria

Hmm... Seeking a coalition of the willing to take down an Arab Ba’athist dictator over WMDs. Where have I heard this before?

It's amazing how much he decried all of this while a Senator... but now that he's wearing the big boy pants, the world looks a lot different. Think you'd ever hear an apology though?

 Seaward wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
2) Why are the countries with low budget militaries (France/ Britain) wanting to go all Rambo, but the planet's No.1 military are reluctant to get involved. If this was 40k, it would be the PDF launching a crusade, whilst the Space Marines had a sit down to think about it!

For the record, I hope our countries stay well clear, but it's a strange series of events.

Two reasons:

1) They know they're not going without the US, so it's pretty easy to make a show of principle when your involvement is going to be token.

2) They know the US isn't going.

I beg to differ. We have a submarine en-route and a permanent aircraft carrier called Cyprus which just so happens to be nearby, so it's hardly a token effort!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yep looks like we're going the Clinton fire fifty cruise missiles route.

Oh well. Its a fig leaf I guess.

Getting the impression you don't like Clinton that much!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Speaking of Declarations of War, where is it???

Since when did Presidents ask congress for a declaration of war? Wasn't Madison the last one in 1812 or was it Wilson in '17? But you get my point. I hope!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Since when did Presidents ask congress for a declaration of war? Wasn't Madison the last one in 1812 or was it Wilson in '17? But you get my point. I hope!

Roosevelt, though it was more an acknowledgement of the military reality than the president requesting it, per se. Before him, Woodrow Wilson,

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I beg to differ. We have a submarine en-route and a permanent aircraft carrier called Cyprus which just so happens to be nearby, so it's hardly a token effort!

I don't consider lobbing cruise missiles into Damascus "going in." An air campaign, however brief, would surprise the hell out of me. Syria's AD is a lot better than Libya's, and I think everyone's going to realize that pointless shows of force aren't worth the risk.

Obama's never going to walk guys into Syria, in large part because he knows even under the best of circumstances it'd be incredibly messy and he'd get hammered politically for it at home after ten years of his party - not to mention himself - beating up on Bush. If we're not walking guys in, you're not walking guys in. Why would you? As said, it'll be incredibly messy, and while there's the upside of potentially doing some real good, the downside is that said good will come with a lot of bad, as is the nature of these things, and your enlightened European brethren (and the entirety of the Middle East, of course) will hammer you over it for the next two decades.

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Well terrorists exist, so obviously some people are comfortable with the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians.

As to whether or not most people are comfortable with such behavior? I don't know, and neither do you.

Okay.

Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion about the rationale for possible Syrian intervention?

All of the comments I have made in this thread were substantive. My intention was to disabuse people of the notion that it is clear most people from nations that concern themselves with humanitarian intervention are uncomfortable with the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians.

I mean the US has, in the past, not only permitted the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians but engaged in it. Why this particular instance of said should rankle the moral sensibilities of that political entity's citizens is beyond my understanding.

 dogma wrote:
All of the comments I have made in this thread were substantive.

Heh.

My intention was to disabuse people of the notion that it is clear most people from nations that concern themselves with humanitarian intervention are uncomfortable with the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians.

I mean the US has, in the past, not only permitted the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians but engaged in it. Why this particular instance of said should rankle the moral sensibilities of that political entity's citizens is beyond my understanding.

Ah, I see we're deep into the "policy never evolves" fallacy. As the Italians were once in favor of throwing Christians to lions, we must assume they still are in this morally static world you've created.

As far as humanitarian intervention goes, it's pretty irrelevant whether or not individual citizens approve, and what criteria they use. Unless you believe humanitarian intervention is conducted by a town council getting together and deciding to buy a carrier group, the official positions of representative governments are what matter

Agree with Captain Jake. A conflict that has seen hundreds of thousands dead already.. really what is the difference in the means of death? It is all horrific, whether you are buried under rubble, blown up, gassed etc.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Pacific wrote:
Was one of the million or so who protested in the UK over the 2nd Iraq war, didn't make a scrap of difference to government policy then and unfortunately you get the feeling that even now saying "really... have you thought this through?" won't make any difference either.

The UK population was over 55 million at the time, that figure puts you in the minority.

I possibly didn't write that very well..I meant a million people marching at organised events throughout the country.

The majority of the UK population was opposed to the war at its start, a figure that grew as the conflict continued.

I also think a coalition of the willing should be formed to stop these horrible things, and for that coalition to be comprised of countries from the Arab League. Come on, Saudi Arabia and the UAE; help your brothers.

We're not the world police, and we have no national security interest in Syria. The absolutely only reason would should intervene is because the president said we would, which I wish he had not.

 Seaward wrote:

Ah, I see we're deep into the "policy never evolves" fallacy. As the Italians were once in favor of throwing Christians to lions, we must assume they still are in this morally static world you've created.

That is a straw man. The distinction between Ancient Rome and modern Italy is not like the distinction between the United States in the 1940's and the United States of today.

That aside, my contention is that many people in the world appear to be comfortable with the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians; even in the nation-states that concern themselves with humanitarian intervention.

 Seaward wrote:

As far as humanitarian intervention goes, it's pretty irrelevant whether or not individual citizens approve, and what criteria they use. Unless you believe humanitarian intervention is conducted by a town council getting together and deciding to buy a carrier group, the official positions of representative governments are what matter

I believe that representative democracies are influenced by the moral stances of the people they represent, and that the official positions such bodies take are therefore reflective of them.

Also, the statement you made presents a false choice.

 Pacific wrote:
Agree with Captain Jake. A conflict that has seen hundreds of thousands dead already.. really what is the difference in the means of death? It is all horrific, whether you are buried under rubble, blown up, gassed etc.

"We are told that the American soldier does not know what he was fighting for. Now, at least he will know what he is fighting against." Eisenhower, upon his visit to Buchenwald.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Agree with Captain Jake. A conflict that has seen hundreds of thousands dead already.. really what is the difference in the means of death? It is all horrific, whether you are buried under rubble, blown up, gassed etc.

"We are told that the American soldier does not know what he was fighting for. Now, at least he will know what he is fighting against." Eisenhower, upon his visit to Buchenwald.

And? We let Stalin kill 20+ million, Pol Pot got his share, and so on and so on... For feths sake, the cartels are killing thousands a year right across our own border and we don't bomb them.

Evil exists. We are in a very resource constrained environment and can't and DON'T fight it everywhere. And I have yet to see anyone in this topic explain why it is in our national interest to jump in on this one, nor explain exactly what objectives they hope to achieve. Without good solid answers to those, there is no good reason to jump in.

 CptJake wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Pacific wrote:
Agree with Captain Jake. A conflict that has seen hundreds of thousands dead already.. really what is the difference in the means of death? It is all horrific, whether you are buried under rubble, blown up, gassed etc.

"We are told that the American soldier does not know what he was fighting for. Now, at least he will know what he is fighting against." Eisenhower, upon his visit to Buchenwald.

And? We let Stalin kill 20+ million, Pol Pot got his share, and so on and so on... For feths sake, the cartels are killing thousands a year right across our own border and we don't bomb them.

Evil exists. We are in a very resource constrained environment and can't and DON'T fight it everywhere. And I have yet to see anyone in this topic explain why it is in our national interest to jump in on this one, nor explain exactly what objectives they hope to achieve. Without good solid answers to those, there is no good reason to jump in.

Because Syria is a nation backed by two (very potential) future enemies of the US, who have significant NBC capabilities, Iran and North Korea.

We told them not to cross that line, do not use those weapons. They have multiple times now. If we do not do something, then those other folks are that much more emboldened. Plus, now that Assad has let that cat out of the bag, there is nothing stopping him from using them on Israel, or Turkey, in the event things start going south for him. Both are regional allies, and it's our duty to do what we can to protect them, even if that means preemptively.

There are US interests involved in getting those weapons destroy.

The reason we let Russia get away with it is because we were in no position to stop him after WW2 or even later on. At best we had equal military power.

We can stop Syria.


I frankly think that if we do go in we shouldn't help any of the involved factions. We are there to help civilians and nothing more. Set up safe zones and keep them locked down tighter than Fort Knox, strip search people, metal detectors, the whole 9 yards. Anybody that so much as vaguely points a gun in our direction or harms a civilian gets hammered back to the stone age.

 CptJake wrote:
And I have yet to see anyone in this topic explain why it is in our national interest to jump in on this one, nor explain exactly what objectives they hope to achieve. Without good solid answers to those, there is no good reason to jump in.

Why it is in the US best interests to intervene: 1) This has the potential to spread and become a larger regional conflict. Which if any of you think you're hurting at the pump now, if major powers in the middle east start fighting among themselves, you'll miss the days when petrol was ONLY $5 a gallon. (which will rape economies in general and the US in particular) 2) Assuming that the US honors it's treaties, it's likely to become eventually involved anyway, and nipping the problem in the bud will save time and lives. 3) Doing nothing sends entirely the wrong message to potential adversaries ie that the US is weak.

Objectives:

Containment of the conflict, or better forcing a resolution
Elimination of Syria's CW capabilities
Reconstruction/Nation building (Preferably in conjunction with the UN) to increase stability both within Syria and regionally.

We could have stopped Rwanda, but didn't. We could stop what is going on in the Congo, and don't. We could interfere in Mexico and don't. Hell, we could send the 10st into Chicago and end gang violence there in a week, but don't.

As for just 'helping civilians', WAY easier said than done. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of bad guys freely mixing with the civilian population. Running giant prison camps you want to call 'safe zones' ensure you growing insurgents that see your forces as the occupier. We do NOT need to be getting into that business.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
And I have yet to see anyone in this topic explain why it is in our national interest to jump in on this one, nor explain exactly what objectives they hope to achieve. Without good solid answers to those, there is no good reason to jump in.

Why it is in the US best interests to intervene: 1) This has the potential to spread and become a larger regional conflict. Which if any of you think you're hurting at the pump now, if major powers in the middle east start fighting among themselves, you'll miss the days when petrol was ONLY $5 a gallon. (which will rape economies in general and the US in particular) 2) Assuming that the US honors it's treaties, it's likely to become eventually involved anyway, and nipping the problem in the bud will save time and lives. 3) Doing nothing sends entirely the wrong message to potential adversaries ie that the US is weak.

Objectives:

Containment of the conflict, or better forcing a resolution
Elimination of Syria's CW capabilities
Reconstruction/Nation building (Preferably in conjunction with the UN) to increase stability both within Syria and regionally.

So basically you are for a full out invasion on a bigger scale than what we did in Iraq, because to have a chance at your objectives that is what you are talking about. I say we cannot afford that right now, and that it wouldn't work even if we could. As soon as you say we should be involved in 'nation building' I say you extremely ignorant of what is going on over there and what 'nation building' in that region entails.

By the way, what treaty would we be honoring? I am unaware of any treaty that would justify us going into Syria. We are way to late to 'nip this in the bud'. It ends with the losers being slaughter wholesale at this point. Both sides know this and are fighting with that in mind.

We have already done nothing as the first 100k got slaughtered. Staying out now doesn't show anyone we are weaker than we have already shown. In fact, it lets Iran expend resources propping up Assad that weaken them.

 djones520 wrote:
Because Syria is a nation backed by two (very potential) future enemies of the US, who have significant NBC capabilities, Iran and North Korea.

We told them not to cross that line, do not use those weapons. They have multiple times now. If we do not do something, then those other folks are that much more emboldened. Plus, now that Assad has let that cat out of the bag, there is nothing stopping him from using them on Israel, or Turkey, in the event things start going south for him. Both are regional allies, and it's our duty to do what we can to protect them, even if that means preemptively.

There are US interests involved in getting those weapons destroy.

Currently NATO allies (amongst others Germany and the Netherlands) are already protecting the Turkish border with patriots. So the danger of a stray missile isnt that high. But now that the cat is out of the bag its even more dangerous to intervene. Sure Assad can use chemical attacks on Turkey or Isreal, but what would be the point at the moment? Intervention would be the point that things go south for him for sure. Than he knows hes finished and will not hold back, intervention is just the thing that would spread this conflict to the regional level. If Assad knows he is finished he will use every dirty or forbidden weapon to lash out to his enemies, doesnt matter to a dead man what happens to the region after hes dead anyway. Intervening because of one chemical attack shouldnt happen because of the risks involved. We dont even have the full picture of this chemical attack, let alone who ordered it in the regime (its run like a clan, Assad isnt the only bad egg).

How would intervention stop the spread of the conflict to the region? As it stands intervention seems to be just the thing to increase the spread.

 Grey Templar wrote:
We are there to help civilians and nothing more. Set up safe zones and keep them locked down tighter than Fort Knox, strip search people, metal detectors, the whole 9 yards. Anybody that so much as vaguely points a gun in our direction or harms a civilian gets hammered back to the stone age.

Not seeing a compelling reason why it has to be our kids getting blown up by VBIED's at these checkpoints, or why we shouldn't be spending our taxpayer dollars on American issues instead of Syrian ones. Turkey and Israel are concerned? Great, go get em, guys! Have a ball with that.

I'm just saying IF we go in, that's what we should do.

And we could do things to minimize the risk of VBIED's. Like not allowing any vehicles through check points. And making sure only a few people approach at a time. It would have to be a very iron-fisted approach.

Something like 50 yards of clear space, only a few people at a time may approach the check point(or get anywhere near our guys), only a limited amount of baggage allowed through, everything gets inspected, etc...

And any hint of something suspicious and it gets obliterated. People want our help they get it on our terms. We have nothing to lose as far as image goes so being heavy handed when a possible threat comes shouldn't be a concern.



Again, this is only if we do go in. I am not in favor of sending in troops.

Air and missile strikes are another thing however.

I wouldn't have a problem with drone strikes on weapons stockpiles, but I definitely think that should be the extent of it.

Of course, I don't think even our largest UAV's can carry ordnance up to that task, no?

Better yet if we strike all sides of the conflict.

We can act as a referee for this boxing match they have going on. Get rid of their chemical weapons and give them a good punch of they hurt civilians.


You can have your little quarrel, but don't start committing warcrimes.

 Ouze wrote:
I wouldn't have a problem with drone strikes on weapons stockpiles, but I definitely think that should be the extent of it.

Of course, I don't think even our largest UAV's can carry ordnance up to that task, no?

What about some A-10 warthawgs? Nothing that stand that thing.

 Ouze wrote:


Of course, I don't think even our largest UAV's can carry ordnance up to that task, no?

Do the Syrians have anything capable of hitting a B-2?

I think UAV's can carry enough ordinance to get most jobs done. Depends how hard their chemical stockpiles are.

And if the B-2s are safe to fly...


Plus we can always enforce a no-fly zone and keep their own aircraft grounded.

I'm reminded how we took the moral high ground on Afghanistan and Iraq. After ten years we either condemned for being there, view as "occupiers", we're there for oil only, Bush lied, DoD contracting agency has help in securing contracts from government employee, or/and money not well spent. It seems all well and good now but you be saying something different in 3-4 years. Gawd forbid if we do go in and we find Saddam stock pile in Syria. You all whine and complain on money not well spent when Bush holds a huge BBQ on the deck on the Lincoln