Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[r16]

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?

though the thing is even if there are something like 5 Russians killed in "combat" like when some Mongol -the two seat trainer variant of the Fishbed- gets shot down , there are also people who have been shot down like 6 times , twice by the same guy within two years , perfectly dead in every case . If you believe the books you read and sites you scroll . Maybe , Syria will be the perfect avenue for a show-down to see how glorious American acedom can be .

 

[bhsup]

Not-so-lame:

Spoiler :

That's painted on the door to the control room for one of the silos (now a tourist stop, nonfunctional) east of Rapid City, SD. I took and posted that image (well not THAT one, but the same door) after visiting in IIRC 2007. It's an interesting tour. I suggest anyone ever in the area to take it. Here's another angle showing the thickness of the door.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Huh. That's one thick door.

And is absolutely everyone thinking what I think?

That's right; how much money will you get if you sell it for scrap?

 

[Kyriakos]

Hm, do "civil wars" take years to resolve these days? (outside sub-saharan Africa anyway, where all the sides are factions with no central entity controlling a superior force).

It seems quite strange that the "civil war" in Syria has been going on for 2 years (?) now, when one side has the regular army, and the other consists of 1000 groups, with most of the forces being jihadist that come from outside of Syria. So yeah, i guess it is quite plausible to assume that the "rebels" have some kind of help from foreign powers that wish to prolong this conflict.

I wouldn't at all put it past those powers, or the jihadists, to pull off a chemical attack in the capital, thinking everyone in the west is as stupid so as to believe Assad would have done it.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Hm, do "civil wars" take years to resolve these days? (outside sub-saharan Africa anyway, where all the sides are factions with no central entity controlling a superior force).

It seems quite strange that the "civil war" in Syria has been going on for 2 years (?) now, when one side has the regular army, and the other consists of 1000 groups, with most of the forces being jihadist that come from outside of Syria. So yeah, i guess it is quite plausible to assume that the "rebels" have some kind of help from foreign powers that wish to prolong this conflict.

I wouldn't at all put it past those powers, or the jihadists, to pull off a chemical attack in the capital, thinking everyone in the west is as stupid so as to believe Assad would have done it.

Civil wars have always been able to take years to resolve. The American Civil War lasted for four years. Granted, it's a much larger country, but that was a century-and-a-half ago.

 

[Kyriakos]

Civil wars have always been able to take years to resolve. The American Civil War lasted for four years. Granted, it's a much larger country, but that was a century-and-a-half ago.

I don't see what the parallelism there is. I mean, ok, both are "civil wars" (or one of them was), but i specifically asked for modern civil wars as in the last couple of decades ("these days" might even signify a smaller timeframe, closer to today).

I doubt the syrian "rebels" are in any way similar in strenght, organization, scope, make-up or context to the CSA in regards to how it was next to the northern US.

edit: And it's not like this war can be compared to the Yugoslav dissolution either, given it is not about ethnic groups aspiring to get their own country and carving up parts from a previously multinational confederation.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

I'm honestly not even sure what I was thinking when I posted that anymore.

I should have just linked this and called it.


Back to the Syrian Civil War:
Very interesting article here.

Obama really has his hands tied it looks.

 

[Dachs]

Huh. That's one thick door.

And is absolutely everyone thinking what I think?

That's right; how much money will you get if you sell it for scrap?

Why would you do that? It's part of a historical exhibit.

 

[Chiteng]

No matter how bad it get, even deaths in the millions, the United States should STAY OUT.

There is no way we will come out on the plus side, no matter what we did.

No Muslim will ever thank us, for any aid extended to either side.

Intervention is not in our interests.

Even the people of Grenada at least thanked us. The Syrians wont

 

[Rashiminos]

I implied nothing. I said that Saddam being a US stooge did not excuse his actions. I made absolutely no claims whatsoever about the thoughts of people in this thread.

Then maybe you ought to avoid phrasings like "should not."

Spoiler :

What's really going to bake your noodle later is figuring out why you unconsciously switched to "did not" in this response.

 

[emzie]

What a bloody mess.

 

[Kaitzilla]

Now that the UK has recalled parliament and politicians over here are muttering about Thursday, it's time to introduce your Tomohawk missile delivery team.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-27/meet-and-follow-us-naval-forces-breathing-down-syrias-neck


Also, real time merchant marine traffic map for even more ponderings.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-27/real-time-east-mediterranean-marine-traffic-tracker



It is interesting to go back 2 years ago to the Libyan conflict and compare predictions.

5-7 days on March 3rd, 2011:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/us...erprise-invited-libyan-endgame-expected-withi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Libyan_civil_war

On 17 March, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution to impose a no-fly zone in Libyan airspace.

That won't happen with Syria thanks to Russian veto power.

Commencement of NATO operations[edit source]

On 19 March, nineteen French Air Force aircraft entered Libyan airspace to begin reconnaissance missions, and flew over Benghazi to prevent any attacks on the rebel-controlled city.[44] Italian Air Force planes reportedly also began surveillance operations over Libya. In the evening, a French jet destroyed a government vehicle. Shortly afterward, a French airstrike destroyed four tanks southwest of Benghazi.[45] US and British ships and submarines fired at least 114 Tomahawk cruise missiles at twenty Libyan integrated air and ground defense systems.[46] Three US B-2 Spirit stealth bombers flew non-stop from the US to drop forty bombs on a major Libyan airfield, while other US aircraft searched for Libyan ground forces to attack.[47][48] Twenty-five coalition naval vessels, including three US submarines, began operating in the area.[49] NATO ships and aircraft began enforcing a blockade of Libya, patrolling the approaches to Libyan territorial waters.

 

[Defiant47]

Update

WASHINGTON – Secretary of State John Kerry says there is “undeniable” evidence of a large-scale chemical weapons attack in Syria, with intelligence strongly pointing to Bashar Assad’s government.

Kerry said Monday that international standards against chemical weapons “cannot be violated without consequences.” His tough language marked the clearest justification yet for U.S. military action in Syria, which, if President Barack Obama decides to approve, most likely would involve sea-launched cruise missile attacks on Syrian military targets.

Speaking to reporters at the State Department, Kerry was harshly critical of chemical warfare.

“By any standard, it is inexcusable and – despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured – it is undeniable,” said Kerry, the highest-ranking U.S. official to confirm the attack in the Damascus suburbs that activists say killed hundreds of people.

In an interview published Tuesday on the website of the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency, Assad accused the U.S. and other countries of “disdain and blatant disrespect of their own public opinion; there isn’t a body in the world, let alone a superpower, that makes an accusation and then goes about collecting evidence to prove its point.”

http://globalnews.ca/news/803542/kerry-makes-justification-for-strike-in-syria/

Discussion

Looks like things are heating up. It's nice to see U.S. leaders charge ahead with some extremely strong strawmen.

The use of chemical weapons is deplorable. There is no denying that chemical weapons were used. You are a horrible human being if you don't agree that what happened was horrible.

Therefore invade Syria.

Huh?

When you know their methods, it's both amusing and frustrating to see politicians invoke emotion and real facts to sidestep the critical missing link - that we don't have sufficient proof that it was Asaad's government that did this. But hey, someone's gotta pay, and we need an excuse to go in, eh?

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

When you know their methods, it's both amusing and frustrating to see politicians invoke emotion and real facts to sidestep the critical missing link - that we don't have sufficient proof that it was Asaad's government that did this. But hey, someone's gotta pay, and we need an excuse to go in, eh?

Obama wants an excuse not to go in. If we wait until we can prove whether or not Assad or the Rebels used the weapons, the US would be looked at quite unfavorably for waiting so long if we confirmed it was Assad.

Obama knows he can't wait.

There are no good choices here. So Obama is stalling. Building a coalition. Sharing the blame.

 

[Defiant47]

Yeah, Obama does seem like he's footing around the issue and deploring the use of chemical weapons without actually wanting to go in unsolicited... but the other politicians seem to be heavy on the gun in the blame-game.

 

[red_elk]

No Muslim will ever thank us,

Like anyone of decision makers care about that.

 

[Antilogic]

"Going in" in this case probably does not involve boots on the ground or any sort of a lasting military presence. Ye olde experts, for what they are worth, seem to be leaning towards a bombing campaign. The rhetoric may be heated but I would be surprised to see Obama act before the weapons inspectors deliver their report.

 

[Rashiminos]

Huh?

When you know their methods, it's both amusing and frustrating to see politicians invoke emotion and real facts to sidestep the critical missing link - that we don't have sufficient proof that it was Asaad's government that did this. But hey, someone's gotta pay, and we need an excuse to go in, eh?

That link was never required.

 

[Defiant47]

That link was never required.

It is for any reasonably intelligent and sane person.

But unfortunately, it's probably not required for actually going in.

 

[Rashiminos]

It is for any reasonably intelligent and sane person.

I'd dispute that, but I don't feel like getting into a semantic argument over sanity as it relates to ethics.