Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[red_elk]

Black Sea, Baltic and Northern fleet ships several times visited the area over past few years. Last time, I believe Black Sea fleet also brought several landing ships to Tartus facility.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Pretty far off from where they should be.

Then again, perhaps those designations are more used as in "this fleet is compromised of people from the Baltic" and less "this fleet's sphere of influence is here".

 

[Kyriakos]

I was thinking of the final days leading to WW1, not the Crimean war

Considering the Ottoman navy at the time could not even defeat the Greek navy in the first Balkan war, it seems quite probable that it would not be in a position to do much against the Russian fleet either

 

[red_elk]

Pretty far off from where they should be.

That's right, like US pacific fleet in Persian gulf.

 

[gay_Aleks]

That's right, like US pacific fleet in Persian gulf.

I guess you do have a point. Perhaps, after all, the Romans/Greeks were right naming the Mediterranean the "middle Earth Sea" or something. This is world's playground. And it always was.

I was thinking of the final days leading to WW1, not the Crimean war

Considering the Ottoman navy at the time could not even defeat the Greek navy in the first Balkan war, it seems quite probable that it would not be in a position to do much against the Russian fleet either

Considering that this was 1913, and a certain military military officer called Ataturk decided this whole Ottoman Empire thing sucks and whatnot, with right, because during the WWI, and before it, Turkey (Or the Ottoman Empire, if we're talking pre-1913) sucked. So it shouldn't be surprising that they were in a tough spot.

Still, a remedy for all the loses in 1912-1913 was Galipoli.

 

[r16]

Isn't it possible that someone on the government side used a chemical weapon contrary to Assad's wishes?

considering Esad is still surviving after years of predictions of his imminent doom , the Western Invention that would have gone in last year (but for Russians shooting down a plane of ours) is the major threat . Despite all the victory claims over the web supporting the Irresuction . Esad's way is not exactly nice or much tolerant of human life , but he is winning in a way and he has popular support , some half of Syria this way or the other . So anybody using chemicals now will have his head cut and placed on a pike . Would have been quite possible in an internal coup , started in the past by his brother Mahir , but he seems quite incapacitated .

plus really weird it would be to challenge the US on the first anniversary of the Presidential speech that declared the use of Chemical weapons was a red line that would draw punishment . There are all sorts of pictorial evidence of the claimed weapons but then there is nothing that could really convince that they were not planted .

and finally considering the Russians will not fight us unless the US declares on Turkey as well , all Russian trickery will concentrate on diplomacy and the like . And if fighting starts it will be global . Since that would mean doom , every side in this mess hopes the other side will blink first .

edit : The Germans though were quite effective in the Black Sea with one Capital ship , even if they did really avoided decisive engagements . Russians were building their own Dreadnoughts and alas for them one exploded in harbour .

 

[gay_Aleks]

Or, alternatively, America will back down, and since America backs down, Russia will back down, and well, then the "natives", so as to speak will deal with it.

Like it should be.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Or, alternatively, America will back down, and since America backs down, Russia will back down, and well, then the "natives", so as to speak will deal with it.

Like it should be.

There is no backing down.

 

[Silurian]

Inspectors lead vehicle hit by sniper fire, no one hurt.
They have turned back and may try again latter.

 

[Kyriakos]

^It seems the Saudis have no sense of humor. They should have used gas to kill the inspectors

 

[gay_Aleks]

Like, none? Hasn't America learnt a thing or two from it's destructive encounters ever since WWII ended? Wasn't Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and whatnot a lesson that butting in other nations business is a major no-no?

Especially, when the mess is created by the exactly same country that gave them weapons!

 

[Lord Baal]

Like, none? Hasn't America learnt a thing or two from it's destructive encounters ever since WWII ended? Wasn't Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and whatnot a lesson that butting in other nations business is a major no-no?

Especially, when the mess is created by the exactly same country that gave them weapons!

To be fair, Korea was more about stopping potential Russian expansion. That was a war that actually had a point, as did the first Gulf War. The rest? Not so much.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

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.

It didn't stop them from piloting NVAF Mig 21's against USAF/USN F 4's in the 60's and 70's, so why should we care if a Russian 'observer' or two gets killed?

 

[Formaldehyde]

To be fair, Korea was more about stopping potential Russian expansion. That was a war that actually had a point, as did the first Gulf War. The rest? Not so much.

The Vietnam War used the same absurd excuse as used in Korea. Besides, the reason that the Soviet Union was even involved in Korea was because the country was divided in half after WWII, like Germany was.

As far as the first Gulf War is concerned, Saddam Hussein was our stooge who thought he had permission from the US to invade Kuwait.

 

[Lord Baal]

The Vietnam War used the same absurd excuse as used in Korea. The Domino Theory has been fairly well debunked. It was just an excuse for US imperialism and hegemony after WWII.

As far as the first Gulf War is concerned, Saddam Hussein was our stooge who thought he had permission from the US to invade Kuwait.

In Vietnam it was an excuse, in Korea there were legitimate reasons to believe it might be the first step in further communist expansion. The contexts were very different. And Saddam was a US stooge, yes. This should not excuse his actions in Kuwait.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It was just as absurd in the case of North Korea. The mistake was dividing the country in half in the first place with the Soviets controlling the north and the US controlling the south, then backing a brutal and highly unpopular dictatorship that committed numerous atrocities against its own people.

And I never claimed that being our stooge was some sort of excuse for his actions. Now did I? But it does show how inept US foreign policy is largely to blame for such incidents. How it is really a result of our meddling in the affairs of countries.

 

[Lord Baal]

It was just as absurd in the case of North Korea. The mistake was dividing the country in half in the first place with the Soviets controlling the north and the US controlling the south, then backing a brutal and highly unpopular dictatorship that committed numerous atrocities against its own people.

And I never claimed that being our stooge was some sort of excuse for his actions. Now did I? But it does show how inept US foreign policy is largely to blame for such incidents. How it is really a result of our meddling in the affairs of countries.

Following me from thread to thread to post strawmen, are we Forma? I never stated that you excused Saddam's actions. But if I say "I agree with you that Saddam's actions should not be excused by his being a US stooge" after you challenge me for claiming that you said such, it makes it look like you have won an argument with me, doesn't it? Even though the argument in question never actually took place.

How, pray-tell, was the US to keep the USSR out of North Korea; when they had already entered the Korean Peninsular when the armistice was called on August 15? I count it as a victory for US diplomacy that the US was able to establish a beach-head in the south. I strongly condemn Rhee's regime, and only slightly less-so Park's. Both were horrible little regimes, which possess only one redeeming quality; they're not Kim's regime.

 

[REDY]

Beating commies around world was good thing to do. Same should apply to islamists. But after Iraq and Afghanistan I just lost confidence that its about beating islamists and bringing freedom.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Following me from thread to thread to post strawmen, are we Forma? I never stated that you excused Saddam's actions. But if I say "I agree with you that Saddam's actions should not be excused by his being a US stooge" after you challenge me for claiming that you said such, it makes it look like you have won an argument with me, doesn't it? Even though the argument in question never actually took place.

Are we back to that same utter nonsense again, instead of even trying to discuss the topic?

I am merely pointing out the inconsistency in claiming that the Korean War was justified while the Vietnam War was not when that was the very same rationalization used in both conflicts.

That the first Gulf War was caused by the US first creating the problem in the first place, and then appearing to give its puppet permission to invade Kuwait.

 

[Defiant47]

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?

This would necessitate an extensive discussion on what I feel is appropriate for a volunteer army, a conscripted army, and all the blends within. At the moment, I don't have the chance to give you the reply you'd deserve, but I don't want to leave you hanging. Suffice it to say that present day, any such humanitarian intervention should only be performed by a volunteer army.

That is, people should volunteer for the mission, and we shouldn't force anyone to do it if they don't want to. Now ideally, we'd live in a world where we've raised our children to be selfless and would volunteer regardless, which threatens the concept of free will/free choice. But that's why it's a more complex discussion.

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.

I agree it's not a great comparison, but I feel it's a valid one in terms of length of stay. If the occupation of Iraq was as peaceful, then we could have left when we did, and we could have charged forward with the claim "mission accomplished" when we did. However, in reality it was very premature.