Hundreds (allegedly) dead in Syrian chemical weapons attack

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.

**schadenfreude**

Relapse wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
IRS Scandal is a bit dead in the water with Holder/DoJ saying there be no investigation. NSA still doing their thing. I do want to make a reply to the 4500 being killed. They were military. Its one of the things we take a chance on in joining the military. A diplomat and security guards are not combat troops. They are not paid to engage the enemy. You can scream and holler about how Bush is responsible for the combat deaths and what not but did you forget the "Surge" that Obama signed off on in Afghanistan? If your going to, in your mind, put Bush on trial with a guilty verdict then you need to throw Obama himself on there to. Before you go screaming how Bush lied to Congress to get their go ahead for Iraq/OIF. He showed the same evidence he was looking at to Congress. Same as Obama doing now with military Action with Syria.

Yep, and back in the 90's after Desert Storm, Saddam was killing Kurds by the village load with nerve gas. It made for a plausible WMD argument when Bush Jr went into Iraq.

On comparing the 4 deaths in Libya versus the Iraq war 51,139 casualties 4,805 of which were deaths.

A) Numbers speak volumes which makes bush over 10,000% better at killing Americans through incompetence than Obama
B) The 4 casualties in Libya knew what they were getting into just as much as the 51,139 casualties in Iraq knew what they were getting into
C) The incompetence of Bush in Iraq was plunging the nation into an unnecessary land war that did nothing to improve national security.
D) The incompetence of Obama in Libya was a failed to attempt to obfuscate and spin what happened in Libya. I don't fault him in failing to commit the US military into a strike without congressional approval when the ambassador was under attack and Libyan authorities were unsuccessfully attempting to regain control on the situation. I don't believe the US should bomb Syria, I think the Iraq war was a mistake, and I don't think we should have invaded Libyan air space to level part of Benghazi with air power in an effort that might have saved our ambassador.

I really dislike Obama's domestic policies, left of center agenda, failure to close GITMO, successful assaults on the 4th amendment, killing of entire families with drone strikes, killing 2 American citizens with drone strikes, or his plans to continue the Clinton doctrine with Syria. Obama is a bad president, but GW Bush was the worst president we had in 100 years who was only good at bsing congress in a post 9/11 political environment. There were no WMD in Iraq when we invaded because sanctions worked, weapons inspectors worked, and because even with a binary weapon system the shelf life of the primary component in a binary Sarin weapons system is only 5 years.
O
Last but not least I find it terrible inconsistent to support the Iraq war because it's a mad regime that might have WMD there and not support a full ground invasion of Syria when there is a mad regime that definitely has WMD. If your consistent and didn't support either war that's a good thing. If don't want a war in Syria because you matured and learned a lesson form the Iraq war that's a good thing, and not at all inconsistent. if you supported the Iraq war at the time but have concluded in hindsight that it was a bad idea that's also a good thing. If you still to this day support the Iraq war then you've lost all credibility in criticizing Obama'so war and should go sit at the kids table while the adults talk.

I think you misunderstand or are in argument and insult mode with everyone whether they support Obama going in or not. Here's a little tip, telling people to sit down at the kids table shuts them off to anything you have further to say because you obviously aren't bothering to think about what their point is. I have provided examples and links about how this is just more of history repeating itself, starting with Clinton's efforts to "degrade" Iraq's chemical weapons manufacturing with missle and bombing attacks in the 90's and how it compares to present time.
You clearly havn't read any of my posts since you take off on a rant against me.

Sorry about the insult I just can't grasp how people can look back in hindsight and still still he Iraq war was a good idea. I can see defending the position that we made the right choice given the intelligence on hand so there is no need for Monday morning quarterbacking. I would disagree with you, see no need for an invasion in either case, point out there is a stronger case for going into Syria even though it's a bad idea, and point out your agreement with an invasion appears to depend more on your like or dislike of the POTUS than facts. If that's the case Iapologize if you think I insulted you. I only intended to insult people that to this day With full hindsight think Invading Iraq was a good decision.

**dogma**

Relapse wrote:

Whembly does not appear to be the only one. There appear to be lawmakers that are hesitant to go along with Obama because of his mis handling and mis information of Benghazi.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/08/wh-push-for-syria-support-hurt-by-credibility-over-benghazi-one-year/

The only part of that article which connects the Benghazi issue with the Syrian issue is the first sentence.

**BaronIveagh**

AndrewC wrote:

One thing I guarantee is that this is not about democracy. Its about a bunch of little thugs trying to get rid of a bigger thug. Democracy is the last thing on their minds.

Funny, the British press said the same thing about the colonies once upon a time. Here's the thing: the largest of the opposition groups is still about forming a secular, democratic government. (You know, the thing the US government denied them around 1947). While it's true that every revolution throughout history has been about power (who has it and who wants it) this one poses a bit of a thorn for the US, because a democratic Syria aligns with it's moral beliefs and national mythology, it does not align with it's economic and strategic plans for the Middle East. Notice they were quick to arrange a 'not coup' in Egypt when Morsi started throwing his weight around in Middle Eastern politics too much.

@Dogma: So, Fox News as usual?

**AndrewC**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Here's the thing: the largest of the opposition groups is still about forming a secular, democratic government.

I disagree, the largest of the opposition groups is about forming a 'secular democratic government' because that's what garners them the most support from overseas.

This started because of the heavyhandedness of the Assad regime resulted in protests calling for his resignation after protesters calling for a revolution were arrested, tortured and killed.

Democracy is the last thing that started this.

Cheers

Andrew

**Grey Templar**

And they'll likely vote in an extremist government that will turn the country into just another Al-Qaeda run puppet state.

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:
And they'll likely vote in an extremist government that will turn the country into just another Al-Qaeda run puppet state.

You give Al-Qaeda far too much credit.

**Grey Templar**

You know what I meant.

Any place where Extremism is allowed to flourish will be a ripe recruiting ground and safe haven for Al-Qaeda. And nobody should allow that.

**Relapse**

schadenfreude wrote:
Relapse wrote:
schadenfreude wrote:
Relapse wrote:
Jihadin wrote:
IRS Scandal is a bit dead in the water with Holder/DoJ saying there be no investigation. NSA still doing their thing. I do want to make a reply to the 4500 being killed. They were military. Its one of the things we take a chance on in joining the military. A diplomat and security guards are not combat troops. They are not paid to engage the enemy. You can scream and holler about how Bush is responsible for the combat deaths and what not but did you forget the "Surge" that Obama signed off on in Afghanistan? If your going to, in your mind, put Bush on trial with a guilty verdict then you need to throw Obama himself on there to. Before you go screaming how Bush lied to Congress to get their go ahead for Iraq/OIF. He showed the same evidence he was looking at to Congress. Same as Obama doing now with military Action with Syria.

Yep, and back in the 90's after Desert Storm, Saddam was killing Kurds by the village load with nerve gas. It made for a plausible WMD argument when Bush Jr went into Iraq.

On comparing the 4 deaths in Libya versus the Iraq war 51,139 casualties 4,805 of which were deaths.

A) Numbers speak volumes which makes bush over 10,000% better at killing Americans through incompetence than Obama
B) The 4 casualties in Libya knew what they were getting into just as much as the 51,139 casualties in Iraq knew what they were getting into
C) The incompetence of Bush in Iraq was plunging the nation into an unnecessary land war that did nothing to improve national security.
D) The incompetence of Obama in Libya was a failed to attempt to obfuscate and spin what happened in Libya. I don't fault him in failing to commit the US military into a strike without congressional approval when the ambassador was under attack and Libyan authorities were unsuccessfully attempting to regain control on the situation. I don't believe the US should bomb Syria, I think the Iraq war was a mistake, and I don't think we should have invaded Libyan air space to level part of Benghazi with air power in an effort that might have saved our ambassador.

I really dislike Obama's domestic policies, left of center agenda, failure to close GITMO, successful assaults on the 4th amendment, killing of entire families with drone strikes, killing 2 American citizens with drone strikes, or his plans to continue the Clinton doctrine with Syria. Obama is a bad president, but GW Bush was the worst president we had in 100 years who was only good at bsing congress in a post 9/11 political environment. There were no WMD in Iraq when we invaded because sanctions worked, weapons inspectors worked, and because even with a binary weapon system the shelf life of the primary component in a binary Sarin weapons system is only 5 years.
O
Last but not least I find it terrible inconsistent to support the Iraq war because it's a mad regime that might have WMD there and not support a full ground invasion of Syria when there is a mad regime that definitely has WMD. If your consistent and didn't support either war that's a good thing. If don't want a war in Syria because you matured and learned a lesson form the Iraq war that's a good thing, and not at all inconsistent. if you supported the Iraq war at the time but have concluded in hindsight that it was a bad idea that's also a good thing. If you still to this day support the Iraq war then you've lost all credibility in criticizing Obama'so war and should go sit at the kids table while the adults talk.

I think you misunderstand or are in argument and insult mode with everyone whether they support Obama going in or not. Here's a little tip, telling people to sit down at the kids table shuts them off to anything you have further to say because you obviously aren't bothering to think about what their point is. I have provided examples and links about how this is just more of history repeating itself, starting with Clinton's efforts to "degrade" Iraq's chemical weapons manufacturing with missle and bombing attacks in the 90's and how it compares to present time.
You clearly havn't read any of my posts since you take off on a rant against me.

Sorry about the insult I just can't grasp how people can look back in hindsight and still still he Iraq war was a good idea. I can see defending the position that we made the right choice given the intelligence on hand so there is no need for Monday morning quarterbacking. I would disagree with you, see no need for an invasion in either case, point out there is a stronger case for going into Syria even though it's a bad idea, and point out your agreement with an invasion appears to depend more on your like or dislike of the POTUS than facts. If that's the case Iapologize if you think I insulted you. I only intended to insult people that to this day With full hindsight think Invading Iraq was a good decision.

No problem then. For myself, I think Obama is doing just that, going the whole Iraq route again, but this time with the added jollies of putting us in the position of after a fashion fighting alongside Al Queada.

**BaronIveagh**

Grey Templar wrote:

Any place where Extremism is allowed to flourish will be a ripe recruiting ground and safe haven for Al-Qaeda. And nobody should allow that.

I never really pictured deepest darkest Dixie as a recruiting ground and safe haven for Al-Qaeda, but there are plenty of extremists. In the end, you're claiming to see the future, and bluntly, whoever did the most to help them winning side gets the most say so. Why do you think the Russians are pouring so much money into Assad? Tartus is valuable to them.

**Grey Templar**

Geeze

Context people, context.

**djones520**

Grey Templar wrote:
Geeze

Context people, context.

People do seem to have a hard time with that sometimes.

**Jihadin**

No problem then. For myself, I think Obama is doing just that, going the whole Iraq route again, but this time with the added jollies of putting us in the position of after a fashion fighting alongside Al Queada.

Obama taking his time with the situation IMO. I highly doubt he will get approval from the House and the Senate to launch an attack. Pretty much its known that a majority of the US pop do not support military action against Syria. I highly doubt when he gives his speech to the US on why we should it'll be "check the block" speech. He almost online with what Bush Jr did when we got involved with Iraq. Difference is when Bush did it the US did not have 12 years of combat in the Middle East already. Obama taking the right the course and I'm sure we all agree that we support him in his "attempt" to garner support for military action

(He's taking lessons on being a actor from watching Ronald Reagan movies. I select him as Best Actor Award this year)

I'm taking it that Schadenfreude is misreading what we are saying Relapse?

**BaronIveagh**

Grey Templar wrote:
Geeze

Context people, context.

Muslim Extremism does not always equate AQ. Point of fact, there are several extremist groups who'd cheer the US on as they roasted AQ in it's entirety alive. There are also those AQ aligned group who are so not because they particularly share AQ's objectives, but it's expedient for their own goals to be partners (in much the same way certain dictators find it expedient to be allies with the US without actually sharing any of it's goals or values). The basic question is: do they really believe what AQ is spouting or is it just a way to get weapons and training? I can't say for sure. Desperate men can make strange alliances.

On Congress: if they say no, and then Assad gasses Jerusalem, or Istanbul, or, god help us all, New York, can I laugh as Congress flops around trying to blame the President for it somehow?

**Jihadin**

Doesn't matter who they support, believe, or a member of. It all comes down to a body count in the "Insurgent Dead" column. You know and I know when someone trying to opt you out then you do the best to opt them out first.

Rule One
You play to win.
Rule Two
Always refer to Rule Two

**dogma**

Grey Templar wrote:
You know what I meant.

No, I know what you wrote. And what you wrote indicates that you believe Al-Qaeda is an organization capable of establishing puppet states.

Grey Templar wrote:

Any place where Extremism is allowed to flourish will be a ripe recruiting ground and safe haven for Al-Qaeda. And nobody should allow that.

You're still giving Al-Qaeda too much credit.

**Jihadin**

I stick with AQ being able to influence a government organization. Its my perception and I'm sticking to it. Now pass me the cookies Dogma

**BaronIveagh**

Jihadin wrote:
Doesn't matter who they support, believe, or a member of. It all comes down to a body count in the "Insurgent Dead" column. You know and I know when someone trying to opt you out then you do the best to opt them out first.

Rule One
You play to win.
Rule Two
Always refer to Rule Two

Yeah, but that's when treds start slapping pavement and you at least have a vague idea who to engage (eve if it's just 'everyone you see'). This is more the question of: Are these guys really die hard AQ or can we manipulate them to our advantage if not outright get them to defect to our side? That's why I think it's important to understand what their motive is. It's like Sun Tzu once wrote: To make your enemy's army your own is best; to destroy it, second best.

**dogma**

Jihadin wrote:
I stick with AQ being able to influence a government organization. Its my perception and I'm sticking to it. Now pass me the cookies Dogma

The ability to influence a government organization does not indicate that said government is a puppet state.

**BaronIveagh**

dogma wrote:

The ability to influence a government organization does not indicate that said government is a puppet state.

This. I can influence the Department of Agriculture. It doesn't mean that the US is a puppet state of mine.

**Jihadin**

I see no difference in the unless they come out with media coverage of denouncing AQ and provide the US with serious intell. As for individuals that's a gut check for them. Believe that strongly in the cause or how bad does that individual want the money. Individual also know if we get our "hooks" into them then we more likely "force" that individual to stay in current position to provide real time intell.

**Ouze**

BaronIveagh wrote:
This is more the question of: Are these guys really die hard AQ or can we manipulate them to our advantage if not outright get them to defect to our side?

Look, they're not any happier about this than we are, OK?

Spoiler:

**Jihadin**

LOL.

On a serious note. He needs a hair cut. His front bang is way to long. Must be Air Force

Is there hard count number on how many military members posted those type of pics lately on Facebook?

**Ouze**

I've seen about 3 or 4 unique ones. I have to imagine posting those sorts of things in uniform is super dangerous to your career, especially the higher ranked you are.

**Jihadin**

It'll be a counseling statement off the bat. If that was the only incident and I'm "forced" into getting it on documentation. Vast majority oftime I inform them to stop screwing off and getting stupid for making to obvious a post if they showed their face. A webpage with your name on it and a picture of you holding a sign like that covering your face. We can't do a damn thing about it.

Right now our..well...the military major issue that's coming to a head is the individual religious belief vs DOMA after effects of being repealed and the US military conforming to the new policy

**djones520**

Ouze wrote:
I've seen about 3 or 4 unique ones. I have to imagine posting those sorts of things in uniform is super dangerous to your career, especially the higher ranked you are.

It can be, if word got back. It's pretty much a direct violation of the UCMJ. We don't get that thing called the 1st Amendment. When we took that Oath and signed the papers, that was one of the things we signed away.

**BaronIveagh**

Jihadin wrote:
I see no difference in the unless they come out with media coverage of denouncing AQ and provide the US with serious intell. As for individuals that's a gut check for them. Believe that strongly in the cause or how bad does that individual want the money. Individual also know if we get our "hooks" into them then we more likely "force" that individual to stay in current position to provide real time intell.

I might point out that they likely have no serious intel. The only publicly released information actually linking the two is that one of the various heads of AQ in Iraq claimed that AN was affiliated with AQI and they were going to merge, at which point AN responded with 'We inform you that neither the al-Nusra command nor its consultative council, nor its general manager were aware of this announcement. It reached them via the media and if the speech is authentic, we were not consulted." though they do claim to consider AQ 'an ally' they also seem to try and distance themselves from them. In reality they seem to have much more solid ties to Fatah al-Islam and various Palestinian organizations.

**Ouze**

So. There is a new poll this morning showing some interesting opinions about what we should do.

For the proponents of military action: do you still think it should go forward even if the majority of Americans (depending on the question, ranging to the vast majority) think we should not;or that it's not in the national security interest to do so? Lets presume the poll to be accurate and have the more interesting debate.

If you wish to debate whether or not the US Government should ever fight a war the majority of it's citizens do not want, I'd like us to presume it's a new conflict, not continuing an existing one; I imagine almost every way in history eventually got pretty unpopular.

**BaronIveagh**

Ouze wrote:
So. There is a new poll this morning showing some interesting opinions about what we should do.

For the proponents of military action: do you still think it should go forward even if the majority of Americans (depending on the question, ranging to the vast majority) think we should not;or that it's not in the national security interest to do so? Lets presume the poll to be accurate and have the more interesting debate.

If you wish to debate whether or not the US Government should ever fight a war the majority of it's citizens do not want, I'd like us to presume it's a new conflict, not continuing an existing one; I imagine almost every way in history eventually got pretty unpopular.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/send-assad-a-message-he-will-understand/2013/09/06/113ec0ce-163f-11e3-804b-d3a1a3a18f2c_story.html

Here's a man who's met Assad explaining better than I can about this man's mindset and why the intervention needs to be better tailored to this regime. Telling everyone how limited the airstrikes will be is the wrong sort of message. Assad needs to think that the next step would be boots on the ground. (Even if it's not true, for this to work he needs to think that.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24022866

Seems Russia is pressuring Syria to surrender it's chemical weapons peacefully. I doubt it will happen,.

Historically, every single war Americans have been involved with was unpopular with the general public (with the possible exception of the American Revolution and the Spanish American War), usually right up to the moment that Americans were killed by a prospective enemy. Then their response shifted to either panic followed by 'Let's Get the Bastards!" if the Americans killed were US citizens in US territory, or "We TOLD you so!" and protests/riots if they were US citizens killed in someone else's territory. Traditionally the US government hasn't given a damn if the war was popular or no, as long as it served the agenda of at least one if not both ruling parties at the time.

I personally think that the US should go forward with military intervention, national interest or not because they started the ball rolling that led to this mess, they're the only ones with the capability to carry it out at the moment (though boots on the ground would be a stretch even for the US), and they stand to lose the most if nothing is done (other than possibly the Syrians). Further, it's a chance to dispose of a current state sponsor of terrorism (something I've noticed being avoided in the discussion of 'Well, a democratic Syria would sponsor terrorism' is that Syria has been sponsoring terrorism (including AQ) since the Assad's took over, and probably longer than that. At least with this there's a chance they might stop the government financing of it).

This doesn't even get into the issue of yes, please stomp on people who use WMDs on civilians, particularly ones that kill you in a horrific manner.

**Easy E**

This question is the only one that matters to a Congress critter.

Would you be more likely to vote for your representative from Congress if that person voted in
favor of using U.S. military force in Syria, or if that person voted against using military force in
Syria, or would it not make a difference to your vote either way?

Sept. 6-8, 2013

In favor 11%
Against 31%
No difference 57%
No opinion 1%

To 57% of Americans it makes no difference how a congress person votes on this issue. This gives the Congress a free hand to do whatever they like.

However, the really question is what the "base" feels. This poll doesn't even get close to addressing that key issue. In our Gerrymandered districts, all that matters is how the "core" of the congress critters voters feel about the subject. I'm guessing there you would see that a Congresscritters hands are not as free as a general survey of "Americans" would indicate.

**Seaward**

Ouze wrote:
So. There is a new poll this morning showing some interesting opinions about what we should do.

For the proponents of military action: do you still think it should go forward even if the majority of Americans (depending on the question, ranging to the vast majority) think we should not;or that it's not in the national security interest to do so? Lets presume the poll to be accurate and have the more interesting debate.

If you wish to debate whether or not the US Government should ever fight a war the majority of it's citizens do not want, I'd like us to presume it's a new conflict, not continuing an existing one; I imagine almost every way in history eventually got pretty unpopular.

I generally have a low opinion of the average American's ability to understand complex geopolitical situations, and I do not I believe the average American is privy to all available and relevant classified intelligence, despite the best efforts of patriot-martyrs like Edward 'Tovarisch' Snowden.

We elect presidents to lead. We can kick 'em out if we don't like where they're leading us, but the notion that national defense decisions should be made based on public opinion polling is one I do not subscribe to.