Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[timtofly]

A soldier's duty is to the country and to the mission. The soldiers need not understand the war. That is the task of leaders and generals.

The soldiers need merely to be willing to give up their lives and psyches for the greater good. That is why military service is to be honoured.

Perhaps we should use hardened criminals as our ground forces?

 

[Defiant47]

Perhaps we should use hardened criminals as our ground forces?

Criminals lack the discipline necessary to follow each order unquestionably. Except some.

 

[timtofly]

Criminals lack the discipline necessary to follow each order unquestionably. Except some.

There is a prison code?

 

[Defiant47]

There is a prison code?

I'm talking about rehabilitation.

 

[Rashiminos]

The problem is that the rebels are extremists, include Al-Qaeda, and would no doubt genocide unwanted religious groups once they take control. Arming the rebels is not an option.

That ship might have sailed already.

Criminals lack the discipline necessary to follow each order unquestionably. Except some.

The US military supposedly doesn't want soldiers who follow (unlawful) orders unquestionably.

 

[Commodore]

The problem is that the rebels are extremists, include Al-Qaeda, and would no doubt genocide unwanted religious groups once they take control. Arming the rebels is not an option.

In that case (I have seen conflicting reports as to whether or not the rebels have extremist ties. Of course I have been out of the intel field for 2 months now so there may be new reports I don't know about) should sit it out completely and let Assad crush the rebellion.

A soldier's duty is to the country and to the mission. The soldiers need not understand the war. That is the task of leaders and generals.

The soldiers need merely to be willing to give up their lives and psyches for the greater good. That is why military service is to be honoured.

In theory you are absolutely correct. However this is not how it works in reality. If the soldiers do not truly believe in the mission, they will not commit everything they have to it. If they do not commit everything they have to the mission, then that mission is doomed to failure. I really believe that is one of the reasons we failed in Vietnam. The conscripts sent there did not believe in the purpose of the war, whereas the NVA was completely dedicated to their objective.

Putting a soldier at risk for what he/she perceives as "no good reason" also saps morale and, in my opinion, encourages the commission of war crimes. The reason I believe this happens is because the soldier will start to resent those he/she was sent to protect. That resent, if left unchecked, could turn into a hatred that would lead the soldier to view the people he/she is supposed to be protecting as sub-human.

This is all my own theory of course, based on personal observation rather than hard empirical data.

If the assumption is that "we haven't reached that threshold yet", I completely agree with you. If the assumption is that "it is absolutely necessary", I completely disagree with your non-interventionist stance.

The main issue is whether there are other avenues. We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to be tolerated. But neither can we dive into something that we aren't sure about.

Please note that I completely respect your wartime experiences. My belligerence against non-interventionists is towards those who write off war as "bad" without a further thought. A cultural farce.

No, we need to understand that war is terrible. We need to understand that it is to be avoided at all costs. But we must also understand that sometimes it is necessary.

Are we at this point now? This is what I've been straining my mind with. I don't have access to the same intel that the highest security clearance of the U.S. does. Should I trust the U.S. to make the right choice in the end? They fumbled the operation in Iraq, but that doesn't mean that they will do so in the future. So I honestly don't know.

If there is any doubt, any hesitation at all, that is a huge sign that now is not the time to get involved. If you are going to go to war, you must be absolutely sure it is the only option available to achieve the desired outcome. I just do not believe we are at that point yet and there are still other avenues that can be pursued to "stop the madness".

 

[CavLancer]

Perhaps we should use hardened criminals as our ground forces?

Sounds reasonable to me...

Might look like a bum rush of zombies but who cares? If paying their price to society means some schmo takes over their brains and uses their asses to attack an enemy machine gun, I say go in and win!

University of Washington researchers invent mind-control mechanism

http://www.news.com.au/technology/s...ontrol-mechanism/story-fn5fsgyc-1226706398935

 

[Rashiminos]

In theory you are absolutely correct. However this is not how it works in reality. If the soldiers do not truly believe in the mission, they will not commit everything they have to it. If they do not commit everything they have to the mission, then that mission is doomed to failure. I really believe that is one of the reasons we failed in Vietnam. The conscripts sent there did not believe in the purpose of the war, whereas the NVA was completely dedicated to their objective.

Putting a soldier at risk for what he/she perceives as "no good reason" also saps morale and, in my opinion, encourages the commission of war crimes. The reason I believe this happens is because the soldier will start to resent those he/she was sent to protect. That resent, if left unchecked, could turn into a hatred that would lead the soldier to view the people he/she is supposed to be protecting as sub-human.

I don't even agree with the theory, let alone its applications. It provides no resistance to top-down corruption as it trains soldiers to view all orders as equally sound. Even if the leaders and generals are acting in good faith, the soldiers' admonition to avoid needing to understand the spirit of the orders provides avenues for the applying the orders in roguish fashion.

Soldiers who exhibit resistance to this sort of training probably experience the morale sap you mentioned. Soldiers who don't probably make good automatons.

 

[Lord Baal]

That seems to be the gist of many of your posts in this forum whenever anybody merely disagrees with your opinions.

I have literally never once asked a poster to shut up before in my entire history on these forums. Maybe asking a certain Pole to shut up about Poland.

Of course I had a "problem" with that statement, as well as your other comments. If I didn't, I wouldn't have taken exception to it.

Then I clarified my meaning, and our argument progressed to other matters. If you still believed I had implied you were excusing Saddam's behaviour in my original post, you did not mention it again after my second post. If you still had a problem with the comment, you didn't show any signs of it.

I'm not sure.* There was some back-and-forth that went on, too. Why is it important to you that we're discussing someone who is not me?

Because Forma and I had moved on from the original comment. If he still had a problem with it, it's news to me, and also unsupportable given the subsequent drift of the conversation. Our back and forth involved far more than that comment, and had long-since ceased to include a discussion of the first Gulf War anyway. You entered a discussion between two other posters after the fact and began a semantic argument that had already been resolved. It seems to be a waste of both our times.

Really?
Formaldehyde, is that now the case?

Already been through that with Forma above.

Is that the one that insinuates why Forma is "following" you around?

Myself and at least five other posters and two moderators are hallucinating then?

I'm not. Deliberate would imply a [certain] degree a control of what you posted or reposted, I would think

The "but it's not you" part I find to be rather cute in context.

And this will earn you a report for flaming.

*It's always possible I might talk about something else.

And from now on, I won't notice! Either of you.

I never thought I'd resort to that list, but as Dachs has mentioned in WH several times, sometimes the potential gain from a conversation is so far below the loss it entails in time, concentration and general face-palming frustration that it's not worth it any more.

 

[Rashiminos]

Because Forma and I had moved on from the original comment. If he still had a problem with it, it's news to me, and also unsupportable given the subsequent drift of the conversation. Our back and forth involved far more than that comment, and had long-since ceased to include a discussion of the first Gulf War anyway. You entered a discussion between two other posters after the fact and began a semantic argument that had already been resolved. It seems to be a waste of both our times.

Spoiler :

I didn't see something about an apology to Forma for what followed.

Myself and at least five other posters and two moderators are hallucinating then?

I cannot speak to those threads except for one of them.

And this will earn you a report for flaming.

Oh I'd be quite alright with you admitting it was deliberate and not some mistake. Might make the mod PM discussion a bit more interesting. Report away.

And from now on, I won't notice! Either of you.

One of things I cannot really expound on. However...

 

[dexters]

I was not aware that US counted for everyone.

Seems like a false dichotomy to me. At the very least you're selectively reading my posts in this thread. There might also be some addition, subtraction, and substitution going on.

That's a lot of words there that doesn't mean anything. there's no dichotomy. You've made it pretty clear you're against American intervention because it will only put a friendly regime to the Americans in place but on the same breath you make it clear you prefer a regime friendly to Russia.

That confirms you're arguments are not based on principle and that you simply prefer one side over another; yet you couch your critique in such anti-American colours that it required a little be tweaking to tease out if you're just a principled peacenik or a pro-Russian mouthpiece using the language of the anti-war movement to further your agenda.

Edit: In other words, it's an assertion being used by some of the posters in this thread.

This "some poster" character is not who you are responding to however. Throwing a straw man out there then debating yourself with it is just kind of ridiculous to begin with. And you've admitted as much. Why press the point?

How about this? When you, and you specifically, refer to my attitude regarding the US government, please explicitly mention the US government. Second, I can condemn a variety of actions taken and planned by the US government without condemning the entirety of the government or America as a whole.[/quote

But why would I? I have no problem with your critque of US actions, but rather how hypocritically you go about arguing your point.

In your view, intervention is only a problem if its American.

Do you agree that legitimate is relative? If so, do you assert that a replacement government sponsored by a US-led "coalition" would be somehow more legitimate than Assad?

It would be equally legitimate is my point; that you feel Assad is more legitimate is what I find hypocritical and funny, but then again you've pretty much laid out you prefer Russia as the puppet master in Syria so it does follow that you will puppet lines that imply a American intervention is somehow undesirable, but ignore the fact that Russia has been intervening and fuding things up for 3 years now.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Judging by the history of US intervention I do not trust our government's motives when it comes to Syria at all.

This is the crux of why US intervention is so suspect. Go back 115 years to the Spanish-American War and work up. Suspicious motives, false pretenses and media complicity.

FYI: because Pres. Obama believes the Syrian government did a gas attack does not make it so. We have had liars in the White House since Eisenhower's "Spy plane, what spy plane. There is no spy plane.... Oh, THAT spy plane!"

What is going on in Syria is not civil war.

Sent via mobile.

 

[dexters]

This is the crux of why US intervention is so suspect. Go back 115 years to the Spanish-American War

Sent via mobile.

I've seen this story already. So there is only one party with 'suspicious' intentions; but the other stakeholders , especially you know the party supplying heavy armaments and Jet fighters are somehow above the fray?

Step back from the tired rhetoric for a bit and just imagine a world where you have a country that is in a strategic position where several parties have a vested interest to interfere with its internal affairs. And then couch your analysis in those terms.

You'll find you make better arguments.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

@dexters: I'm sorry, since when is honoring a previously agreed-to contract "intervention?"

Since when are cruise missiles an appropriate response to allegations?

Stop fighting the cold war. This is the nineteenth twentieth twenty-first century. The battle between socialism and capitalism, proletariat versus bourgeoisie is a a battle of ideas.

Russia and the US are both opportunist, capitalist DOBs, I am not for Russia, I am not for US launching an attack of any kind.

I am doing what I can for the US and the working people of the world. I do so without guns and I do it well.

Can the US government do less?

Sent via mobile.

 

[dexters]

@dexters: I'm sorry, since when is honoring a previously agreed-to contract "intervention?"

When it's not just honoring contracts but going out of your way to prop up said government because they host your only warm water Mediterranean port? You know for projecting power obviously. But again I am reminded this is not the cold war anymore. So many Russian sailors just want a warm beach to crash

Since when are cruise missiles an appropriate response to allegations?

Since Clinton last did it.

Stop fighting the cold war. This is the nineteenth twentieth twenty-first century. The battle between socialism and capitalism, proletariat versus bourgeoisie is a a battle of ideas.

Who is fighting the cold war? This is how the geopolitical game is played. Client states and proxy states have existed since probably the first strong tribe found a smaller weaker tribe to protect in exchange for other means of support.

Russia and the US are both opportunist, capitalist DOBs, I am not for Russia, I am not for US launching an attack of any kind.

I think you are sincere and I am not saying you are for anyone, but rather, the usual left analysis is to say US has 'suspicious' intentions to the exclusion of all other actors in the situation. I understand why this is the case because of US hegemony translating to the US getting its way most of the time. Syria however is a much different situation. The Russian Axis has gotten their way for 3 years now. This is not a situation the Americans have the clear upper hand on, and to exclusively single out one side is kind of one sided.

I can also agree to disagree with your position against US intervention in this case. I think it sends an awful message to the world if the US says using chemical weapons is a redline then does nothing about it when chemical weapons are used.

I am doing what I can for the US and the working people of the world. I do so without guns and I do it well.

Can the US government do less?

Sent via mobile.

US tried to do less, France and other European allies ran out of ammo halfway through the Libyan camapign and France needed US strategic support for their anti-islamist operations in Mali

 

[Cryptic_Snow]

Ben Swann interviews Congressmen Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky)


Link to video.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

@dexter: and who is the US targeting with cruise missile attacks? There is no conclusive proof that the Syrian government did this attack.

Also, citing Clinton's cruise missile attacks as precedent is hardly a case in anyone's favor. The last presidential election I voted in was 1988 and it was for Bush. Long story, you can read about it in the Ask a Red thread.

The geopolitical game is hardly played the way you described except by the US. China has 200,000 medical professionals in 49 countries. Cuba has tens of thousands of doctors and teachers all over the world. Iran sent doctors to the Iraq border to help Iraq war refugees in 2003 (don't argue with me, one of our volunteers' father was on several missions until they started getting rape cases and the US forced them to leave.

South American and Caribbran nations enjoy prosperous trade relations through ALBA and Petrocarib.

It's a wide world out there. The US policy at home and abroad us "crisis management," and they jump from one fire to another.

There is certainly a better way.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Rashiminos]

That's a lot of words there that doesn't mean anything. there's no dichotomy.

And people wonder why I value semantic arguments. Those words do have meanings that you might not see or refuse to see.

You've made it pretty clear you're against American intervention because it will only put a friendly regime to the Americans in place but on the same breath you make it clear you prefer a regime friendly to Russia.

It reflects a comparison between the two immediate options. You're the one excluding the possibility that if some third option came along, it could potentially be better by my reckoning whether or not this third option was friendly/cordial/distrustful of US/Russian/EU/China/etc relations.

That confirms you're arguments are not based on principle and that you simply prefer one side over another; yet you couch your critique in such anti-American colours that it required a little be tweaking to tease out if you're just a principled peacenik or a pro-Russian mouthpiece using the language of the anti-war movement to further your agenda.

I'm not a peacenik. That would not have been hard to tease out if you had read and understood post 272. That you have limited the other possibility to "pro-Russian" mouthpiece is more of a demonstration of your unawareness or premature dismissal of alternatives: one of them potentially being that I do not enjoy either state's interventions in Syria all that much.

Just for giggles, maybe I'm a pro-French, pro-South Korean, or pro-Indian mouthpiece.

This "some poster" character is not who you are responding to however. Throwing a straw man out there then debating yourself with it is just kind of ridiculous to begin with. And you've admitted as much. Why press the point?

Get over yourself. A statement that is below a quote of yours may or may not be specifically to you alone, depending on context. As it so happens with the post in question, I said "the claims", and not 'your claims.' That was meant generally (because people in thread and elsewhere are actually using them).

A) If you want to dispute me quoting myself, go back and read the post please.
B) Do I have to explicitly signal to you when I am talking directly to you alone, to you and others, or just to others in a way where you can determine whether or not it applies for yourself?

I've admitted what now? You repeatedly calling something so-and-so doesn't make it so.

But why would I? I have no problem with your critque of US actions, but rather how hypocritically you go about arguing your point.

I'm suggesting you have a problem distinguishing between actions of the US government, the US government itself, and the nation governed by the US government, especially regarding my thoughts about those things.

In your view, intervention is only a problem if its American.

Which leads to this nice bit of fallacious reasoning.
While you're at it, what does STS mean to me as I type this sentence?

Spoiler :

Bonus points if upon a successful guess, you can use it to infer why I would not in actuality be pro-Russian.

It would be equally legitimate is my point; that you feel Assad is more legitimate is what I find hypocritical and funny, but then again you've pretty much laid out you prefer Russia as the puppet master in Syria so it does follow that you will puppet lines that imply a American intervention is somehow undesirable, but ignore the fact that Russia has been intervening and fuding things up for 3 years now.

Where to begin, sigh..

Russian has been involved with Syria for decades.
What do you base your assessment of Syria's dependence on Russia (as opposed to a deeper dependence on another power {Iran} or some measure of independence which Russia can tolerate, but the US won't)?

If both regimes are equally legitimate, what's the deal with calling for intervention rather than letting it be? Is there some desire to march in a circle and knock off some people at the half-revolution point?

Why do you insist that my current lack of discussion about Russia must lead to the conclusion that I'm fully behind Russia in all its endeavors?

Spoiler :

I'm currently trying to decide whether to split this off into another thread and be more exacting.

 

[r16]

the delays and stuff added to spectacular discussion of target lists -seemingly limited to 50 targets with 100 missiles in 48 hours- offers any loony to come up with that the West is asking whether this is OK . Considering the motive of the operation is simply to embolden the Irresuction to go on so that they can kill more Goverment people and get killed more in the process so that the de-population of the country will be more through . And you know this 29th of August was supposed to be the day operations began .

allright , being a Starfleet Admiral gives me the right to question whether the one single Fishbed is that ... ? If the blue camo is really that annoying it could be given a Lizard or a Snake . Even Grapes ? And promises are already there that it will be only a Nudelman Rikhter affair . Though a Muzzle velocity of 70km/sec is allowable in face of the overwhelming Allied superiority , right ?

there has even been offers that no fighters will be used in this glorious operation in the name of mankind that aims to deter further use of Chemicals . If no fighters , how are you going stop the one Fishbed from lining up on a B-52 ? Isn't it Midnight on the other side of the World as that Fleetwood Mac song goes ?

and one more thing about the PSyOps thing about this affair . This morning ı bought a newspaper that has a picture of BB-62 on it . And now that media has reported DDG-72 is also a battleship . Now that ı remember from the 80s that no weapon smaller than 18 inch diameter could pose a danger to Iowas and since Burkes are obviously as powerful and bombing a country does not constitute war if the bombers say so , it must only be fair for Americans to be considered in the same way : Say , as long as the fishermen of Papua New Guina use lesser weapons than 18 inch diameter , they are free to open fire on the USN , for scaring away the fish perhaps .

 

[Rashiminos]

My head hurts. I blame Google Blender.

Thank you, Dachs.