Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[Kyriakos]

In the case of the USA, politicians seem to be able to fool most people most of the time. Good-cop, bad-cop still works fine.

 

[kramerfan86]

I think its a little goofy to send the message that: "hey its ok to kill 100,000 of your own citizens, but you better use explosives not gas to do it".

 

[JoeM]

Isn't there supposed to be another vote by the British parliament after the UN inspectors publish their report?

What the shocking report that chemical weapons were used but they can't say who by? So that we can then insist on a UN motion that Russia will veto? By which time its all over one way or the other and God knows how many have died while we were feeling proud about democracy?

I'm ashamed of the people in the country I was born in. It's hard to imagine being proud to be British after this. I'm stunned.

 

[Defiant47]

Declassified intelligence report:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...cal-weapons-assessment.html?smid=tw-thecaucus

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

If Assad used chemical weapons a strike is necessary, to prevent others from thinking that such attacks in the future might be okay.

However, I do not trust the U.S. to tell the truth when fabricating their own C.B.

Fool me once... (or twice or however many times they've done this)

I think in this situation, US intelligence is biased "for" the Assad regime.

The US has nothing to gain from getting involved.

 

[Defiant47]

If Assad used chemical weapons a strike is necessary, to prevent others from thinking that such attacks in the future might be okay.

However, I do not trust the U.S. to tell the truth when fabricating their own C.B.

Fool me once... (or twice or however many times they've done this)

Bush's failures are really screwing over the people in Syria now.

I think its a little goofy to send the message that: "hey its ok to kill 100,000 of your own citizens, but you better use explosives not gas to do it".

It's probably about crossing a line.

We've already officially spoken against the killing of own citizens, but did not have enough justification to stop it, since a country killing its own citizens happens a little too often in our world.

Using chemical weapons that make death more agonizing, likely because they're much more effective, is simply unacceptable. There are rules to war.

What the shocking report that chemical weapons were used but they can't say who by? So that we can then insist on a UN motion that Russia will veto? By which time its all over one way or the other and God knows how many have died while we were feeling proud about democracy?

I'm ashamed of the people in the country I was born in. It's hard to imagine being proud to be British after this. I'm stunned.

Asaad subsequently shelled the area, which likely helped to destroy a bunch of the evidence. I don't expect the UN inspectors to find anything conclusive regarding who was responsible.

 

[Kyriakos]

Declassified intelligence report:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...cal-weapons-assessment.html?smid=tw-thecaucus

Yeah, just read that. Ok, i now am convinced, given that the report states a number of times that the US government is highly confident that Assad used the chemicals. The evidence sited included the specific mentioning of a number of unnamed and shadowy sources, but still those should be deemed as sufficient given that the US government knows what those are and you should trust it.

(it is amazing just how low a view of the american citizens and their ability to reason this US government and those before it seems to have).

 

[kramerfan86]

I think in this situation, US intelligence is biased "for" the Assad regime.

The US has nothing to gain from getting involved.

Things arent always about what he US has to gain, things are also about what people and countries who have influence in the US stand to gain.

 

[Defiant47]

I think in this situation, US intelligence is biased "for" the Assad regime.

The US has nothing to gain from getting involved.

Asaad is a closer ally of Russia than of the U.S., and the U.S. has a massive vested strategic interest in the Middle East. It would likely be much better for the West if instead of Asaad we had someone more "friendly" to the West.

The U.S. has a lot to gain from getting involved and getting control over the area. What it doesn't have, is the necessary resources (or rather it does have, but would rather not spend them now and so many): weapons, manpower, American support, international support, political leverage.

You spend the "public support resource" and you won't have enough the next time around. For example, see Iraq and the effects it had on the U.S.'s capacity to obtain support for more military involvement.

 

[Defiant47]

Yeah, just read that. Ok, i now am convinced, given that the report states a number of times that the US government is highly confident that Assad used the chemicals. The evidence sited included the specific mentioning of a number of unnamed and shadowy sources, but still those should be deemed as sufficient given that the US government knows what those are and you should trust it.

(it is amazing just how low a view of the american citizens and their ability to reason this US government and those before it seems to have).

Military intelligence on a borderline hostile nation embroidered in a civil war isn't as peachy and clear as you would seem to think. I'm happy that we got this high quality as it is. Is it high quality enough? I don't believe the U.S. or Obama would blatantly make these kinds of remarks now if there weren't sufficiently compelling evidence.

 

[Kyriakos]

I had the same problem due to Paradox insisting on the bizarre BB system. I just wanted to control a tiny strip of Justinian Empire, but those messed-up vermin regarded me as a warmonger due to not always having the right CB or no CB at all. Try to tell them that it was in my best interest to at least install friendly regimes in their 3rd world hell-holes so that they would keep them as 3rd-world hell-holes and my own land secure.

Then again, that was a game, so i actually cared about my own land.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Things arent always about what he US has to gain, things are also about what people and countries who have influence in the US stand to gain.

I don't see many people that would stand to gain a lot from the proposed intervention. War profiteering won't be too profitable as strikes would be extremely limited.

Countries now, they have some to gain, sometimes, in a way. Mainly the Saudis from my understanding. They want to push back Iranian influence at all costs. But the proposed intervention would not have a significant impact on the civil war.

If we take it as a given that intervention would only involve limited missile strikes for a short time period (and defeating any Syrian response), then we are in a situation where really nobody gains but the US.

Obviously the intervention could get out of hand, but I think Obama is clever enough to avoid that.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Asaad is a closer ally of Russia than of the U.S., and the U.S. has a massive vested strategic interest in the Middle East. It would likely be much better for the West if instead of Asaad we had someone more "friendly" to the West.

The U.S. has a lot to gain from getting involved and getting control over the area. What it doesn't have, is the necessary resources (or rather it does have, but would rather not spend them now and so many): weapons, manpower, American support, international support, political leverage.

You spend the "public support resource" and you won't have enough the next time around. For example, see Iraq and the effects it had on the U.S.'s capacity to obtain support for more military involvement.

By "gain", I mean net gain. The US does not have a net gain from getting heavily involved.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Why didn't the US present the "evidence" when it first made the allegations?

Like the articles I linked say -- who else comes to the conclusion THEN looks for the evidence. My grandma's husband, a career CIA intelligence school man, and OSS veteran, is rolling over in his grave right now.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Defiant47]

By "gain", I mean net gain. The US does not have a net gain from getting heavily involved.

Too many variables. But I am inclined to agree.

 

[Defiant47]

Why didn't the US present the "evidence" when it first made the allegations?

Like the articles I linked say -- who else comes to the conclusion THEN looks for the evidence. My grandma's husband, a career CIA intelligence school man, and OSS veteran, is rolling over in his grave right now.

Sent via mobile.

Because you're not supposed to "present" the evidence in the first place. The intelligence gathered can be traced - i.e. what spies might have intercepted the information, what listening posts are present where, etc.

A lot of work would no doubt be involved in double-checking everything a thousand times to make sure it's safe to declassify recent intel.

 

[Dachs]

My head hurts. I blame Google Blender.

Thank you, Dachs.

wait what

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Because you're not supposed to "present" the evidence in the first place. The intelligence gathered can be traced - i.e. what spies might have intercepted the information, what listening posts are present where, etc.

A lot of work would no doubt be involved in double-checking everything a thousand times to make sure it's safe to declassify recent intel.

Then, don't effin' say it 'til you effin' mean it.

As soon as the launches were detected, the Obama could have said

"Hey, UN, we're vehind in our dues and we don't respect you, anyway, but we're trying to make a case for firing off $25 million in military hardware -- to support the US arms industry, so, here's some footage from our satellite that clearly shows rebel forces, I mean Syrian government forces, firing rockets into the Capital, which I admit makes no sense, but hey, I have fired more cruise missiles than any other Nobel Peace Prize recipient -- though the Dali Lama may have been responsible for more deaths, jury's still out...
"Anyway, check it out."

This is Danzig Corridor/ Sudetenland brow-beating if I ever saw it.

Sent via mobile.

 

[warpus]

I think its a little goofy to send the message that: "hey its ok to kill 100,000 of your own citizens, but you better use explosives not gas to do it".

It does seem silly, but chemical weapons are quite amazing at killing civilians, even if you're just targeting military targets. They are nasty things and there is a reason why they are illegal and why the great powers decided this way back now.

I think in this situation, US intelligence is biased "for" the Assad regime.

The US has nothing to gain from getting involved.

I don't know all the facts, so all I have to go on is America's track record in fabricating lies in order to start military conflicts. It isn't good, so I opt to remain suspicious in this case as well.

Syria however houses Russia's last naval base outside of the now defunct Soviet Union, .. plus other facts.. makes me think that you are incorrect in that the U.S. is pro Assad, even though he's a secularist (I believe).

 

[Defiant47]

Then, don't effin' say it 'til you effin' mean it.

He did mean it. The entire time. But because of the travesty that was Iraq, he also needed to provide the actual declassified intel to the populace. Intel that would take a long time to procure.

Nothing he has done is wrong. Except being too much of a coward to eliminate a threat to humanity quickly and decisively the moment the intel crossed his desk.

I'm kidding of course. I understand the necessity of speaking with the UN about how it is regrettable that civilians are dying horrible deaths, but that we need to "give peace a chance". The US doesn't have the political leverage to declare unilateral war without formally presenting a case. But hopefully we're getting there fast now.

EDIT: My belligerent interventionism betrays me. It's important to ensure that the discussion of item 1 (assume intel true, what's the response) does not contaminate discussion of item 2 (would US lie; is intel true). Apologies for strawman argument; you were discussing item 2 only.