Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[Commodore]

On the other hand, people refuse military action even when it's necessary, and have confused the "peace is great" culture with "focus on our affairs at home rather than abroad conflict". So we like to turn a blind eye to horrible things that are happening in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. This means that when a dictator starts slaughtering his own people just to stay in power, we don't have the popular support to move in and stop that from happening.

How is that our problem though? I'm not being insensitive when I ask that, I really want to know how that is our problem. I also ask because I have a very personal stake in all of this.

I am no longer active duty military, but I am still in the inactive reserve which means the government can call me back to service at anytime until December of 2015. I also have a wife and a very young daughter. So I want you to tell me, oh noble and morally just Defiant, why you expect my daughter to potentially grow up without her father so some Syrian child doesn't have to lose hers? How is that even remotely fair or just? Why do I have to go fight against a government that has done me or my nation no wrong? Why are we always called upon to fight and die for others when nobody fights and dies for us?

I'm sorry to say this, but if the Syrians want their freedom they are going to have to win it on their own. I don't mind sending them weapons, but I will not support any kind of military action on our part. Not even air support since that puts a pilot's life at risk.

So I ask again: How is the plight of the Syrian people my problem? What reason do I have to give my life to save theirs?

 

[strijder20]

I could agree with those points, but you left out another point, perhaps even more important: The freedom knee-jerk mentality post-2001 has effectively made the world a much darker and unstable place, including the USA itself. Compare how the USA was in the 90s and just before 2001, to how it is now. I don't live in the US, nor have i ever been there, but it seems quite obvious that the massive amount of articles about it point to the vortex of danger -and even in the future potential chaos- it is sinking along with pretty much the rest of the west. And this was not so in the near past, not by a long shot.

Sorry, can't compare the two - I only barely remember the beginning of the Iraq war. I was seven back then.

 

[kramerfan86]

They were pretty much devastated to the point of being "developing countries" when the Western world came in.

The point is that we saw a country doing stuff that was wrong, including stuff that we didn't know they were doing which was even more abhorrent, such as invading a bunch of countries. After whooping their asses, we sat our asses down until they were stabilized.

Nowadays, everyone wants to get in and out. Bush was oh-so-eager to declare mission accomplished in Iraq, and the public has been constantly harping on withdrawing troops from whatever conflicts we're engaged in. Few people realize that to enact real change and stability, we need to stay for a long time and devote the time and resources to achieve it.

But, as always, I'd rather have a slightly bigger TV than save innocent lives in the Middle East or elsewhere, eh?

Not really a great comparison seeing as the German and Japanese populations didnt wage long insurgencies that kept casualties growing and kept adding to the infrastructure damage we were trying to repair. Im sure if the occupation of Iraq was as peaceful as the occupation of Germany the voters would have had no issue sticking around.

 

[Ajidica]

Only there were no criminal charges outstanding against bin Laden at that time.

There were charges for earlier stuff though, such as his possible involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole (IIRC, not sure if the exact ship name) and smuggling -never mind the fact it was clear he was the head of a known and active terrorist organization.

And bin Laden's whereabouts were fairly well known at the time. To claim it would have taken a great feat by the Taliban to track him down and arrest him is absurd. That wasn't true until he went into hiding after the US had invaded.

All that was really known was that he was somewhere in the Tora Bora mountains, not much beyond that. While the 'fortress caves' turned out to be a load of rubbish, the Tora Bora mountains are an easy place to hide in and very close to the tribal areas of Pakistan to which it is assume he escaped to after the US invasion.
If Bin Laden was able to hide from the US military so long, what makes you think the poorly trained and equipped Taliban militias would have had much luck finding him? As Fisk relates about his interviews with Bin Laden, even during supposed 'peace time' in Afghanistan, Bin Laden was constantly moving between camps with great security.

 

[Formaldehyde]

There were charges for earlier stuff though, such as his possible involvement in the bombing of the USS Cole (IIRC, not sure if the exact ship name) and smuggling -never mind the fact it was clear he was the head of a known and active terrorist organization.

Nope. There were no criminal charges filed against Obama until the spring of 1998 when Libya did so. The US filed charges against him that summer.

All that was really known was that he was somewhere in the Tora Bora mountains, not much beyond that.

Nope. Bin Laden didn't go into hiding until much later than that.

Im sure if the occupation of Iraq was as peaceful as the occupation of Germany the voters would have had no issue sticking around.

I seriously doubt it. After it had become quite apparent that the Bush administration had deliberately lied and deceived everybody, support for any involvement in Iraq went way down.

 

[Ajidica]

Nope. There were no criminal charges filed against Obama until the spring of 1998 when Libya did so. The US filed charges against him that summer.

Assuming you mean Osama, we are still in the situation where Taliban controlled Afghanistan was the only country that would accept bin Laden in the world. Even the Islamist-controlled Sudan kicked him out because he was getting too nutty for them.

Nope. Bin Laden didn't go into hiding until much later than that.

He still wasn't the easiest of people to find before that. Fisk relates that after bin Laden invited him to Afghanistan, he still had to go through several intermediaries, mountain checkpoints, and armed guards before he got anywhere near bin Laden. While we may differ on what 'hiding' entails, I think we can agree that this means bin Laden wasn't playing fast and loose with personal security.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Assuming you mean Osama, we are still in the situation where Taliban controlled Afghanistan was the only country that would accept bin Laden in the world. Even the Islamist-controlled Sudan kicked him out because he was getting too nutty for them.

I hate it when that happens.

And we really have no idea how many countries would have accepted him. What we do know is that Sudan allowed him to go to his country of choice instead of remain there. But a Sunni who is a pariah with the Saudi government doesn't really have many choices either.

He still wasn't the easiest of people to find before that. Fisk relates that after bin Laden invited him to Afghanistan, he still had to go through several intermediaries, mountain checkpoints, and armed guards before he got anywhere near bin Laden. While we may differ on what 'hiding' entails, I think we can agree that this means bin Laden wasn't playing fast and loose with personal security.

Just because bin Laden met Fisk in the mountains doesn't mean that is where he always was. Bin Laden frequently traveled to his various bases in Afghanistan and met with Taliban officials.

The last Fisk interview actually occurred before there were any criminal warrants for his arrest, much less the cruise missile attack on one of the al Qaeda compounds in Afghanistan.

When Rahimullah Yusufzai interviewed him for Time magazine and ABC in 1999 they met in Helmand province, which is a long way from the mountains where he was supposed to be hiding once the US invaded Afghanistan.

 

[caketastydelish]

I hope the Syrian government bombs the hell out of these little pieces of crap. That's what they get for supporting an uprising that opposes a US puppet. USA #1

 

[Lord Baal]

I hope Russia pre-empts by announcing its own intervention on Assad's side. That would utterly blow Obama's mind.

 

[Antilogic]

I hope Russia pre-empts by announcing its own intervention on Assad's side. That would utterly blow Obama's mind.

Obama wouldn't be the only one with a mind blown.

 

[caketastydelish]

Obama wouldn't be the only one with a mind blown.

My dad watches RTV (don't ask) and he's told me that RTV has done some heavy-duty propaganda against the rebels. The problem is, any american left-wing enough to watch RTV in the first place is also left wing enough to support the rebels.

 

[FriendlyFire]

I hope Russia pre-empts by announcing its own intervention on Assad's side. That would utterly blow Obama's mind.

Oh yes please don't intervene in the middle east, Its not like the US and EU have intervened in the middle east at the cost of both blood and treasure in what I can only describe as an endless hell hole with blow back and unintended consequences.

Maybe the Russian can intervene in Afghanistan too ......... oh wait.

 

[Winner]

Don't the Russians already have some military presence in Syria? Seems to me that bombing Syria and risking accidentally hitting the Russians (or their claiming to have been hit) is a bit dangerous. I rather wouldn't rely on Putin's restrain in using the incident to stick it to the West once more.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Everyone should intervene in the Middle East!!

Wait a minute...

 

[Lord Baal]

Don't the Russians already have some military presence in Syria? Seems to me that bombing Syria and risking accidentally hitting the Russians (or their claiming to have been hit) is a bit dangerous. I rather wouldn't rely on Putin's restrain in using the incident to stick it to the West once more.

They have some, but it's insignificant. If Assad asked, they would probably beef it up quite a bit.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Is Dr. Thrax gas- visiting Syria? More news and other things in Celebrity GLAM! Magazine!

 

[REDY]

Russian Mediterranean fleet should be enough to reconsider military solution.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Russian Mediterranean fleet should be enough to reconsider military solution.

You mean Black Sea fleet. Because the Russians don't have anything remotely close to the Mediterranean.

But if it's the Black Sea Fleet, then they'll have to move over Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, and I don't think Turkey will say "Sure, we'll let this fleet enter one of the most commercial channels in the world* and possibly block it so that they can go and check an unverified chemical attack!

*Besides the Suez Channel and Panama, of course.

 

[Kyriakos]

^Yeah, remember what happened the last time some 'turkish' state blocked Russia from the straits?

Iirc there is already some Russian fleet in the eastern med, not sure how much of it is here though.

 

[gay_Aleks]

^Yeah, remember what happened the last time some 'turkish' state blocked Russia from the straits?

Iirc there is already some Russian fleet in the eastern med, not sure how much of it is here though.

Well, the Great Powers came and wiped Russia's ass all over the Black Sea?

That's why I believe that a naval intervention from Russia would be impossible. Besides, Russia has more problems than an ongoing civil war. I believe that they did all this diplomatic, if you'd excuse me for the phrase, dickery because the USA was supporting the Syrian "rebels" (read: terrorists.)