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.

cadbren wrote:
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.

See, and here I thought that the only excuse they needed was 'National Security'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

Incorrect.

Don't bother trying to explain the finer points of what is and is not kosher as far as armed conflict goes to Cad, he seems to have parted ways with reality at least a few pages back, maybe earlier.

Don't bother trying to explain the finer points of what is and is not kosher as far as armed conflict goes to Cad, he seems to have parted ways with reality at least a few pages back, maybe earlier.

And off we go

Wasn't the goal behind banning chemical weapons to make it more expensive to wage war and then occupy afterwards?

Take a city, drop all the Sarin you want, pick up the bodies, take over infrastructure. Very cost efficient and not that much work, really a non-brainer.

Your other options would be:

Bomb the hell out of a place. You still get to kill everybody there, but it costs more money and the infrastructure is gone. Now you have to spend a lot of money and time to replace that if you actually want anyone of your own guys to live there.

Shoot every single person there. You get rid of the people, and other than some bullet holes you get usable infrastructure ready for your own guys to move in. It also takes a lot of time and man-power, and they might just take a few of your own guys down as well.

Chemical weapons just make it to easy, and they don't discriminate between civilians and combatants. Granted, neither do bombs though.

At least that is my thought, I could be completely wrong.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

cadbren wrote:
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.

See, and here I thought that the only excuse they needed was 'National Security'.

I'm sure you thought that was funny but out here in the real world your random comment makes no sense.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

Incorrect.

Don't bother trying to explain the finer points of what is and is not kosher as far as armed conflict goes to Cad, he seems to have parted ways with reality at least a few pages back, maybe earlier.

Please, you and your [deleted by Moderator] mates are practically salivating at how many Syrians your guys will be able to kill, if only the world would see how eeevilll the supporters of Assad are. I realise your nation has a strong history with lynch mobs and mob justice, but much of the rest of the world believes in rule of law.
You lot have already decided that the regime was responsible for the gas attacks without any kind of trial and are now champing at the bit to blow stuff up.
You are in no position to lecture anyone on what is and is not sane, right, legal or needed.

I couldn't care less about Seaward and I disagree with him on almost everything.

But rule #1 is rule #1...

Dang, what a conversation this is turning into!

 d-usa wrote:
Wasn't the goal behind banning chemical weapons to make it more expensive to wage war and then occupy afterwards?

Take a city, drop all the Sarin you want, pick up the bodies, take over infrastructure. Very cost efficient and not that much work, really a non-brainer.

Your other options would be:

Bomb the hell out of a place. You still get to kill everybody there, but it costs more money and the infrastructure is gone. Now you have to spend a lot of money and time to replace that if you actually want anyone of your own guys to live there.

Shoot every single person there. You get rid of the people, and other than some bullet holes you get usable infrastructure ready for your own guys to move in. It also takes a lot of time and man-power, and they might just take a few of your own guys down as well.

Chemical weapons just make it to easy, and they don't discriminate between civilians and combatants. Granted, neither do bombs though.

At least that is my thought, I could be completely wrong.

I'm sure that might have been a part of it, though I doubt that was the biggest reason.



As for all of this "It's ok to kill with bullets, but not gas" crap that's being slung about...

We have rules of war for a reason. It's a messy business, hardly ideal, but even at our most savage we need to try to keep some civility in place (oxymoronic, I know). The use of chemical agents violates every rule out there, in and that is why it is so taboo. Now, if your cool with sitting back on your butts, and letting it happen, just because the bullets and bombs are doing the same thing, that's your thing. Some of us are willing to draw that line in the sand though on where the barbarity has to stop. I'd say that's a better reflection then "children choking to death is no differant from being shot to death, so why do anything?".

Please, you and your psycho mates are practically salivating at how many Syrians your guys will be able to kill, if only the world would see how eeevilll the supporters of Assad are. I realise your nation has a strong history with lynch mobs and mob justice, but much of the rest of the world believes in rule of law.
You lot have already decided that the regime was responsible for the gas attacks without any kind of trial and are now champing at the bit to blow stuff up.
You are in no position to lecture anyone on what is and is not sane, right, legal or needed.

I've no idea how old you are. I've no idea what you have been watching to view the US Military this way. No idea how you can connect "Lynch Mobs" and "mob justice" with "Laws of War". I've only seen a few peeps on this thread calling for actions that does not constitute a "lot". I also want to point out. You are in no position to judge yourself. I'm not offended. I'm not pissed. You didn't get my "goat". I'm really not sure if you tried to flame those of us who has gone over into the "Box". What you did though is throw the perception of you having a very sheltered life.

 sebster wrote:

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

You're very much spot on. I remember several studies from the late 90's that demonstrated Americans were overwhelmingly in favor of military action if it was in defense of the continental United States, or taken against Saddam Hussein (not Iraq, Saddam himself). The speculative implication being that Saddam was widely viewed as a clear and present threat to the continental United States.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
The use of chemical agents violates every rule out there, in and that is why it is so taboo.

It really only explicitly violates the Chemical Weapons Convention.

My belief is that the Assad government's actions are viewed as especially abhorrent because they involve 2.5 separate taboos:

1: Using chemical weapons.
2: Attacking civilians.
.5: Attacking rebels fighting against an authoritarian state.

 dogma wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
The use of chemical agents violates every rule out there, in and that is why it is so taboo.

It really only explicitly violates the Chemical Weapons Convention.

My belief is that the Assad government's actions are viewed as especially abhorrent because they involve 2.5 separate taboos:

1: Using chemical weapons.
2: Attacking civilians.
.5: Attacking rebels fighting against an authoritarian state.

Largely right. Syria is one of the 5 countries who is not beholden to the CWC which means they can possess them, but Syria is a party of the Geneva Conventions, which does have a protocol against the ues of chemical and biologicl agents, which has been in place since 1925.

Your 2.5 are dead on as well.

 djones520 wrote:

Largely right. Syria is one of the 5 countries who is not beholden to the CWC which means they can possess them, but Syria is a party of the Geneva Conventions, which does have a protocol against the ues of chemical and biologicl agents, which has been in place since 1925.

Its possible to argue that the Syrian government which became a party to the Geneva Protocol is not the same one that exists today, as Haffez al-Assad overthrew Salah Jadid in 1970 (Syria became a party in 1968); essentially instituting military governance.

I think, in the present Syrian case, a better argument is one which cites the breadth of agreement to the principle that chemical weapons are bad under the CWC, and cites how such agreements have been in existence since Strasbourg in 1675.

 dogma wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Largely right. Syria is one of the 5 countries who is not beholden to the CWC which means they can possess them, but Syria is a party of the Geneva Conventions, which does have a protocol against the ues of chemical and biologicl agents, which has been in place since 1925.

Its possible to argue that the Syrian government which became a party to the Geneva Protocol is not the same one that exists today, as Haffez al-Assad overthrew Salah Jadid in 1970 (Syria became a party in 1968); essentially instituting military governance.

I think, in the present Syrian case, a better argument is one which cites the breadth of agreement to the principle that chemical weapons are bad under the CWC, and cites how such agreements have been in existence since Strasbourg in 1675.

Assad's regime could always have pulled out from that Protocol though. Hell, even Australia did back in the 80's. *shrugs* The legality of it all doesn't really matter as much to me. It's one of those things that I know deep down in my soul, the use of such weapons (against civilian populations) represents pure evil, and should be combatted as such.

I'll go back to my blood thirsty salivating now.

cadbren wrote:
Please, you and your [deleted by Moderator] mates are practically salivating at how many Syrians your guys will be able to kill, if only the world would see how eeevilll the supporters of Assad are. I realise your nation has a strong history with lynch mobs and mob justice, but much of the rest of the world believes in rule of law.
You lot have already decided that the regime was responsible for the gas attacks without any kind of trial and are now champing at the bit to blow stuff up.
You are in no position to lecture anyone on what is and is not sane, right, legal or needed.

I don't fly anymore. I'm private sector now. I won't be killing any Syrians (unless Academi gets their fixed wing business online).

As I've explained before -- in this very thread, if memory serves -- the notion that a party is free to kill as many civilians as they like with conventional weaponry is incorrect. The use of NBC agents to do the killing simply makes any given case much more cut and dry; there are numerous conventions banning their use, so when they do in fact get used, we can essentially cut through all the bs that surrounds civilian deaths and get a "go" without too much debate. It's much harder to make a case around even flagrant use of conventional weapons to massacre civilians, which is why you tend not to see as much intervention.

Also, I'm insanely curious what the moderator deleted.

cadbren wrote:

Please, you and your [deleted by Moderator] mates are practically salivating at how many Syrians your guys will be able to kill, if only the world would see how eeevilll the supporters of Assad are. I realise your nation has a strong history with lynch mobs and mob justice, but much of the rest of the world believes in rule of law.

Well, point of fact I prefer not killing anyone at all. Taking lives is not something to be taken lightly, but in this circumstance, it's likely that people will die before this is resolved, and intervention on behalf of any side would end the conflict much faster than letting it drag on. And it is going to drag on. It's pretty clear from what I've been reading that this is a real meat grinder around Aleppo and Damascus with neither side having any real advantage. So, what's more moral, the US blowing up some stuff and tipping the balance to end the war quickly, or letting it plod on and pile up a million more dead like Rwanda did?

cadbren wrote:
You lot have already decided that the regime was responsible for the gas attacks without any kind of trial and are now champing at the bit to blow stuff up.

I have to ask how you would propose 'trying' the Syrian government. While I am curious about the UN report on chemical weapons, I have to add that (again, IMHO) the opposition's war crimes, while still very much war crimes, are generally pretty minor (holding people for ransom, mostly) compared to what he regime has been proven to have done (even before the chemical weapon thing). These are things already known, examined, and proven to have happened.

cadbren wrote:
You are in no position to lecture anyone on what is and is not sane, right, legal or needed.

Seeing as you appear to be posting from Kiwiland, how's Kim Dotcom these days?

 Seaward wrote:

Also, I'm insanely curious what the moderator deleted.

He made a slur about our mental stability which implied we're crazed killers. I'm surprised his more racist posts haven't been deleted or moderated yet, but I suppose that most of them stay just this side of polite that they didn't merit it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

Chemical weapons just make it to easy, and they don't discriminate between civilians and combatants. Granted, neither do bombs though.

Actually it was felt they caused excessively cruel suffering (both in the ones that lived and the ones that didn't) and not only are indiscriminate, but can spread over a wide area quickly and linger in the area for weeks. While dead is dead, bombs are (generally) quick and painless compared to CW.

 Seaward wrote:

cadbren wrote:
Please, you and your [deleted by Moderator] mates are practically salivating at how many Syrians your guys will be able to kill, if only the world would see how eeevilll the supporters of Assad are. I realise your nation has a strong history with lynch mobs and mob justice, but much of the rest of the world believes in rule of law.
You lot have already decided that the regime was responsible for the gas attacks without any kind of trial and are now champing at the bit to blow stuff up.
You are in no position to lecture anyone on what is and is not sane, right, legal or needed.

I don't fly anymore. I'm private sector now. I won't be killing any Syrians (unless Academi gets their fixed wing business online).

As I've explained before -- in this very thread, if memory serves -- the notion that a party is free to kill as many civilians as they like with conventional weaponry is incorrect. The use of NBC agents to do the killing simply makes any given case much more cut and dry; there are numerous conventions banning their use, so when they do in fact get used, we can essentially cut through all the bs that surrounds civilian deaths and get a "go" without too much debate. It's much harder to make a case around even flagrant use of conventional weapons to massacre civilians, which is why you tend not to see as much intervention.

Also, I'm insanely curious what the moderator deleted.

Run for the hills and hide your children, a Seaward post that I agree 100% with!

Cadbren seems to be living up to the first three letters of his S/N with gusto.

 Jihadin wrote:

Please, you and your psycho mates are practically salivating at how many Syrians your guys will be able to kill, if only the world would see how eeevilll the supporters of Assad are. I realise your nation has a strong history with lynch mobs and mob justice, but much of the rest of the world believes in rule of law.
You lot have already decided that the regime was responsible for the gas attacks without any kind of trial and are now champing at the bit to blow stuff up.
You are in no position to lecture anyone on what is and is not sane, right, legal or needed.

I've no idea how old you are. I've no idea what you have been watching to view the US Military this way. No idea how you can connect "Lynch Mobs" and "mob justice" with "Laws of War". I've only seen a few peeps on this thread calling for actions that does not constitute a "lot". I also want to point out. You are in no position to judge yourself. I'm not offended. I'm not pissed. You didn't get my "goat". I'm really not sure if you tried to flame those of us who has gone over into the "Box". What you did though is throw the perception of you having a very sheltered life.

Older than you would be my guess. There have been several comments here about how the US has to go in guns blazing. Assad's regime does not sound like the most enlightened form of governance around, but compared to it's neighbours it is par for the course in that part of the world. I am far from convinced that he ordered a chemical attack.
I'm not trying to wind anyone up, least of all active military. What I'm seeing here by some is a gung-ho approach of what the military can do rather than should they be doing it. I'll also repeat what I said earlier.

If the regime is found to be innocent of using gas weapons, will the US go after the rebels with the same sense of purpose?

cadbren wrote:
If the regime is found to be innocent of using gas weapons, will the US go after the rebels with the same sense of purpose?

We wouldn't need to. The rebels are going to lose without US intervention.

cadbren wrote:
Older than you would be my guess. There have been several comments here about how the US has to go in guns blazing. Assad's regime does not sound like the most enlightened form of governance around, but compared to it's neighbours it is par for the course in that part of the world.

Actually Syria is pretty backward compared to it's immediate neighbors, (as Democracy there was overthrown at the prompting of the US) all of which are, on paper at least, democratic forms of government, with the exception of Jordan, which is a constitutional monarchy. (It should be noted however that 600,000 Syrian refugees are quickly destabilizing Lebanon, which was not that stable to begin with) and most of which are fairly liberal by the standards of the region.

Further, I would suggest that Jihadin's experience up close and personal with war in the middle east trumps whatever you have.

Seaward wrote:
We wouldn't need to. The rebels are going to lose without US intervention.

Maybe, maybe not. The Syrian army makes gains in one place only to lose ground somewhere else, at least from what I see on the map. They won at Qusair but then lost some more of the suburbs of Damascus. Now they're stepping up their bombardment of those suburbs. It's going to be a long and bloody slog and now for every atrocity they commit, the US and Russia will be blamed.

For those who wondered how Russia got Syria to agree:

"It's a clever proposal from Russia to prevent the attacks," one Assad supporter told Reuters from the port of Tartous, site of a Russian naval base. "Russia will give us new weapons that are better than chemical weapons,"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/15/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE98A15720130915

It may or may not be true. But it makes a sad sort of sense and is entirely in line with Russia's past activities in Syria. The real consideration is this: how the hell is the UN going to remove CW materials from an active war zone? That seems like a big 'Kick Me' sign.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

cadbren wrote:
Older than you would be my guess. There have been several comments here about how the US has to go in guns blazing. Assad's regime does not sound like the most enlightened form of governance around, but compared to it's neighbours it is par for the course in that part of the world.

Actually Syria is pretty backward compared to it's immediate neighbors

Wait a minute, a few posts back you were trying to tell me how refined Syria was, as in:





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Just to add to your statement, what real knowledge of democracy do people that live under a feudal or tribal system have? It's like giving a sports car to someone who has only handled Ox carts all their life.

Wow. You'd never know Damascus has been a center of civilization and trade since they paid tribute to Thutmose III, Pharaoh of Egypt in the 15th Century BC...


You do know that there are no fewer than four accredited universities, six museums, and a sizable educational system there, right? I'll throw in that Aleppo is hardly a bunch of mud and grass huts either.

Just what is your view? I'm not posting this to be mean, it's just that I don't understand what you really think of Syria.

Well Syria is next to Turkey and Israel. I suppose they would be backwards compared to them.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Well Syria is next to Turkey and Israel. I suppose they would be backwards compared to them.

Perhaps, but it seemed he was very keen on the idea of how advanced Syria was when discussing with me the political situation there and took offense to my statements that the country might not be able to function well as a Democracy and could be considered backward. Now he says they are backward. I just based my views from what most people deployed in the Middle East tell me coupled with what I read in the news and other media.
At this point I am truly curious what his real ideas on Syria are.

Relapse wrote:

Perhaps, but it seemed he was very keen on the idea of how advanced Syria was when discussing with me the political situation there and took offense to my statements that the country might not be able to function well as a Democracy and could be considered backward. Now he says they are backward. I just based my views from what most people deployed in the Middle East tell me coupled with what I read in the news and other media.
At this point I am truly curious what his real ideas on Syria are.

You alleged that the people of Syria were too ignorant to understand what democracy actually was. I refuted that, and pointed out they were actually quite educated. I grant I wrote 'Syria' when I was referring to the current Syrian government being backward, which, as a dictatorship, it is, compared to it's neighbors, whom you had implied were all also equally harsh dictatorships, which was untrue, most of them are not.

I fail to see that as contradictory. I advise reading entire posts and learning to understand what is being said in context, rather than trying to pick out a single word and try to make an issue out of it.

I turn 43 this coming Nov. Now its gut check on you Cad.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Perhaps, but it seemed he was very keen on the idea of how advanced Syria was when discussing with me the political situation there and took offense to my statements that the country might not be able to function well as a Democracy and could be considered backward. Now he says they are backward. I just based my views from what most people deployed in the Middle East tell me coupled with what I read in the news and other media.
At this point I am truly curious what his real ideas on Syria are.

You alleged that the people of Syria were too ignorant to understand what democracy actually was. I refuted that, and pointed out they were actually quite educated. I grant I wrote 'Syria' when I was referring to the current Syrian government being backward, which, as a dictatorship, it is, compared to it's neighbors, whom you had implied were all also equally harsh dictatorships, which was untrue, most of them are not.

I fail to see that as contradictory. I advise reading entire posts and learning to understand what is being said in context, rather than trying to pick out a single word and try to make an issue out of it.

But is the general populace educated enough?

Just because there is a good university in the country doesn't mean the people have access to it.

Maybe the only people able to go to those university's are those who are rich(and thus would likely be buddy-buds with the current regime)

I doubt the average joe in Syria has a college education.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Relapse wrote:

Perhaps, but it seemed he was very keen on the idea of how advanced Syria was when discussing with me the political situation there and took offense to my statements that the country might not be able to function well as a Democracy and could be considered backward. Now he says they are backward. I just based my views from what most people deployed in the Middle East tell me coupled with what I read in the news and other media.
At this point I am truly curious what his real ideas on Syria are.

You alleged that the people of Syria were too ignorant to understand what democracy actually was. I refuted that, and pointed out they were actually quite educated. I grant I wrote 'Syria' when I was referring to the current Syrian government being backward, which, as a dictatorship, it is, compared to it's neighbors, whom you had implied were all also equally harsh dictatorships, which was untrue, most of them are not.

I fail to see that as contradictory. I advise reading entire posts and learning to understand what is being said in context, rather than trying to pick out a single word and try to make an issue out of it.

Whatever. I'll check back later to see what your belief of the week is.

 Grey Templar wrote:

But is the general populace educated enough?

Just because there is a good university in the country doesn't mean the people have access to it.

Several of them, actually. College fees in Syria are... frankly dirt cheap compared to, say, the US. According to wikipedia, for students who performed well in the equivalent to high school finals, the cost is $10-$15 a year. (those who did poorly can still attend, but the cost is higher, on the order of $1500). As far as high school goes, 72% of eligible teens enrolled, according to the numbers, but over all quality of public education in Syria is on the low side, but hardly to the level that Cad implied. I think it safe to say the average Syrian has at least a basic understanding of what Democracy is

 Grey Templar wrote:

I doubt the average joe in Syria has a college education.

You might be surprised: total numbers for college in Syria in 2007 (which is the last numbers I can find) was 2.3 million Syrians 'currently' enrolled in higher education. For a country with a total population of around 22m, that's not too bad, actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Relapse wrote:

Whatever. I'll check back later to see what your belief of the week is.

And then utterly fail to understand it, and try to make a straw man.

I see.

But I still have doubts as to what the curriculum actually has. Is it really telling them what Democracy is?


edit: and stop changing your avatar every 10 minutes its confuzuling

 Grey Templar wrote:
I see.

But I still have doubts as to what the curriculum actually has. Is it really telling them what Democracy is?


edit: and stop changing your avatar every 10 minutes its confuzuling

That's my point. You can be educated about it, but still not care much for Democracy.

I'm sure the North Koreans are educated about Democracy