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.

It's cool that you're wrong. Everyone is from time to time, but trying to backtrack on what you said after you are proven wrong just makes your point look silly.

I've been trying wondering why there's so little interest in the US and elsewhere to engaging Syria, and I think I've figured it out.

The US went to war with Saddam once for invading a country no-one had ever heard of, and a second time because people were pretty sure he had chemical weapons. Both times there was overwhelming popular support. But Assad is actually using chemical weapons on people and hardly anyone gives a gak.

I mean, I know that second time was post 9-11 and everyone was a little freaked out, but it isn't as though you had a hard time getting support the first time, or for most of your other wars. And I think that's because most of the dictators you've seen looked like some pretty crazy bad ass lunatics.

We think of Saddam and we think of pictures of him on the balcony shooting guns in the air. I mean, look at this picture, he looks exactly like the villain of every single 80s action movie ever. That's a crazy guy that the hero has to punch off of a balcony to save the president or his daughter, or possibly both.



Assad, on the other hand, doesn't look very scary at all. He looks like a tax accountant, or an office manager. And kind of like like Beaker from the Muppets.





No-one sees that chinless head and gets the slightest bit scared. Beaker screwed around with chemicals all the time and it was funny.

Assad.....Beeker.....Two serious thumbs up Sebster.

edit

Well to spell Beeker right

and another

Two Major Thumbs up

Edit

Dangit
Beaker, Beeker, Becker....whatever....

Ahahahahah. +1 Sebs

Saddam did actually use chemical weapons on the Kurds though.

But we knew about it and were semi-ok with that. After all he was on our side at the time.

 d-usa wrote:
But we knew about it and were semi-ok with that. After all he was on our side at the time.

I remember when an Iraqi jet shot an U.S. ship with a missle, killing sailors. Saddam apologized tothe families of the slain.

I think he gassed the Kurds after he got kicked out of Kuwait.

 Jihadin wrote:
I think he gassed the Kurds after he got kicked out of Kuwait.

He did, around 91 or 92, I think.

Relapse wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I think he gassed the Kurds after he got kicked out of Kuwait.

He did, around 91 or 92, I think.

1988, during the Iran-Iraq war. Of course we had to pick one side to support in this lovely conflict...

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I think he gassed the Kurds after he got kicked out of Kuwait.

He did, around 91 or 92, I think.

1988, during the Iran-Iraq war. Of course we had to pick one side to support in this lovely conflict...

Yup, a good way to describe it. He came back to gas the people rising up against him though, post Desert Storm. I remember it because of the disgust I felt watching the news of the gassing of villagers immediatly followed a couple of days later seeing Bush Sr. sitting at a televised victory celebration complete with stage show and Arab kids thanking him for the better life they now had. I couldn't stomach watching more than a couple of minutes.

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I think he gassed the Kurds after he got kicked out of Kuwait.

He did, around 91 or 92, I think.

1988, during the Iran-Iraq war. Of course we had to pick one side to support in this lovely conflict...

Yup, a good way to describe it. He came back to gas the people rising up against him though, post Desert Storm. I remember it because of the disgust I felt watching the news of the gassing of villagers immediatly followed a couple of days later seeing Bush Sr. sitting at a televised victory celebration complete with stage show and Arab kids thanking him for the better life they now had. I couldn't stomach watching more than a couple of minutes.

I don't remember that one (of course I was 8 during Desert Storm).

The one I was thinking off was this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

Which one was the one post Dessert Storm?

Edit:

This one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

I know he did D. One reason he did was to rebuild confidence and fear for the Republican Guards. Wasn't just those two times though

Iraq/Iran war. There might be a midgin of concern in me...might be. It stayed within the borders. Also its Iran.

Though I do remember Kuwait government asking Bush Sr to help them. Also Saudi requested US support incase Iraq forces, which was fully capable, to prevent Hassan expansion if he so choose to come south of the border.

@Jihadin: yeah, I think I found one of the articles talking about that. Just haven't really heard about the post-89 chemical attacks before.

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
I think he gassed the Kurds after he got kicked out of Kuwait.

He did, around 91 or 92, I think.

1988, during the Iran-Iraq war. Of course we had to pick one side to support in this lovely conflict...

Yup, a good way to describe it. He came back to gas the people rising up against him though, post Desert Storm. I remember it because of the disgust I felt watching the news of the gassing of villagers immediatly followed a couple of days later seeing Bush Sr. sitting at a televised victory celebration complete with stage show and Arab kids thanking him for the better life they now had. I couldn't stomach watching more than a couple of minutes.

I don't remember that one (of course I was 8 during Desert Storm).

The one I was thinking off was this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack

Which one was the one post Dessert Storm?

Edit:

This one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_uprisings_in_Iraq

The second link you posted. The whole situation soured me on Bush Sr. because he had encouraged the rebellion, thinking Saddam was just going to fall over. He then went on to leave the rebels holding the bag and went about celebrating his victory. I ended up voting for Perot in the next election because of it.

I thought the post 89 chemical attacks were common knowledge.... hell it was part of the justification for going in to Iraq again right? "We know this fether has chemical weapons, here's some emperor damn proof that he's used them before"

On a side note D. I'm just glad his immediate blood line ended. US troops claims his sons. Iraq people claim Hassan himself. Assad on the other hand should be good if his forces do not escalate outside of border. Rebels need to step up their assassination attempts. Rebels with AQ connections need to die off quickly, and rebels who fight for Syria itself and not for either the west or soviet influence to reach "End Game"

 Jihadin wrote:
On a side note D. I'm just glad his immediate blood line ended. US troops claims his sons. Iraq people claim Hassan himself.

He had 3 daughters. One is wanted by Interpol for aiding the insurgency in Iraq, Raghad Hussein, also know as "Little Saddam" because her temperament is most like her fathers. She lives a fairly baller lifestyle under asylum by the King of Jordan with her 2 sisters who have at least 9 kids amongst them. Its not known if they live on the Jordan governments handouts or Saddamd fortune.

So the immediate bloodline is still alive and kicking but is essentially powerless and living off of the hospitality of the King of Jordan. If a television crew followed them around it would be the Arab worlds version of "Growing up Gotti" or "The Real Housewive of whatever".

Relapse wrote:
It's cool that you're wrong. Everyone is from time to time, but trying to backtrack on what you said after you are proven wrong just makes your point look silly.

Dude, you need to share whatever it is you are smoking, because it is some pretty heavy gak.

Uh Oh Turkey is now alleging the rebels were trying to get sarin gas:

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-syrian-rebels-sarin-gas-20130913,0,4224285.story

They've busted rebels in Turkey with sarin in hand....

Has the possibility that both sides were using the gas been considered?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Has the possibility that both sides were using the gas been considered?

I'd say that's far more likely in a "tit-for-tat" scenario.

Ugh. Why are we even thinking about getting involved in this mess again? /rhetorical

 cincydooley wrote:
Ugh. Why are we even thinking about getting involved in this mess again? /rhetorical

'cuz... it's chemical weapons...

If nothing is done in Syria, what does that say to the rest of the world?

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Ugh. Why are we even thinking about getting involved in this mess again? /rhetorical

'cuz... it's chemical weapons...

If nothing is done in Syria, what does that say to the rest of the world?

That Syria is full of donkey caves?

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Ugh. Why are we even thinking about getting involved in this mess again? /rhetorical

'cuz... it's chemical weapons...

If nothing is done in Syria, what does that say to the rest of the world?

That Syria is full of donkey caves?

Well... yeah, that too...

And also the fact that crack-pot dictators and whackadoos would know for sure that we probably wouldn't be sticking our noses into their wars if CWs are used.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Ugh. Why are we even thinking about getting involved in this mess again? /rhetorical

'cuz... it's chemical weapons...

If nothing is done in Syria, what does that say to the rest of the world?

That Syria is full of donkey caves?

Well... yeah, that too...

And also the fact that crack-pot dictators and whackadoos would know for sure that we probably wouldn't be sticking our noses into their wars if CWs are used.

And really why should we? Especially alone! That's what the UN is for. If the UN can't get it together than that is their failing, not the US's. The US is not the world police.

Well. If the US doesn't get involve in Syria then the old beat stick of "only because they have oil there" can't be used.

 whembly wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Ugh. Why are we even thinking about getting involved in this mess again? /rhetorical

'cuz... it's chemical weapons...

If nothing is done in Syria, what does that say to the rest of the world?

That killing a hundred thousand people is okay so long as you only blow them to pieces or cut them up.

Kind of like how if a particular model of car was prone to killing it's passengers then it'd be recalled, but if a particular group of people are prone to killing their neighbours then it's because they're poor, or they're disadvantaged and by the way, here's more money for your nth welfare baby.

cadbren wrote:
That killing a hundred thousand people is okay so long as you only blow them to pieces or cut them up.

Incorrect.