Syria crosses the "red line"

[Korriken]

and now the Syrian government has deployed chemical weapons in its desperate bid to remain in power, which Obama said would prompt the US to take action.

I don't think he will myself. Personally, I would use our long range missiles to pound military targets, like runways and barracks. No need to put Americans in harms way at this point, given that there would most likely be a LOT of friendly fire in every possible direction.

[Ceratisa]

I think it is quite obvious to me that the "rebels" where behind this. The government knew that Obama was looking for an excuse.
More importantly the "rebels" aren't even mostly Syrian anymore. This is a continuation of the Arab Winter that has made the area less stable and more violent.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

Source please.

[Korriken]

At 3/19/13 04:33 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Source please.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/world/middleeast/syria-dev elopments.html?_r=0

[Korriken]

At 3/19/13 03:40 PM, Ceratisa wrote: I think it is quite obvious to me that the "rebels" where behind this. The government knew that Obama was looking for an excuse.

If that's what they're thinking, they're thinking wrong. Obama wasn't looking for an excuse, he was moving the goalposts. He'll use the fact that both sides are blaming the other as a way to stay out of it, and rightly so. at this point we got Tyrant Vs Terrorist matchup. let them all burn for all I care.

More importantly the "rebels" aren't even mostly Syrian anymore. This is a continuation of the Arab Winter that has made the area less stable and more violent.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. It could be either one, really, or both.

[Feoric]

There's no way this was a chemical attack for either party. This guy puts it better than I can:

"Here's my theory on the chemical attack in Syria today:

It's really difficult to be sure, but I suspect it might be a chemical leak as a result of a rocket attack, rather than a rocket with a chemical warhead, although it's extremely difficult to be certain.

One thing I've found very interesting is the reports from multiple victims of the smell of chlorine. If chlorine gas was used the amount needed to inflict that number of casualities would likely be very high. In Iraq there were a number of chlorine bombs used, and they were vehicles loaded with large amounts of chlorine, some inflicting the same number and type of casualties we've seen today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_bombings_in_Iraq

The thing is, there's no way the DIY rockets used by the opposition could deliver that volume of gas, and the government has claimed the missile or rocket used was fired from 30km away, which seems well beyond the rebels DIY rocket making capabilities.

So that leaves the theory it was a large rocket or missile captured by the opposition, but the question is then, which weapon in the Syrian army's inventory uses chlorine based warheads? I'm pretty certain that none would, so IF it was chlorine poisoning I get the impression it's more likely something that was hit on the ground leaking gas than a chlorine warhead. Also, if it was a large missile or rocket I'd expect there would be plenty of debris for State media to show off. What would also be useful is knowing the exact location of the attack, and footage from the scene of the attack.

It should also be noted that if this does turn out to be a large missile used by the Syrian opposition than it's a significant escalation in their capabilities, and the Syrian government has lost control of some of it's chemical weapons.

But I'll stress again it's extremely difficult, if not impossible, to be certain with the scant information available."

AJ also has a good point:

"Victims spoke of pungent smell. Chemical weapons are usually odourless."

So yeah, I'm not convinced chemical weapons were involved.

[Warforger]

At 3/19/13 04:54 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 3/19/13 04:33 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Source please.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/20/world/middleeast/syria-dev elopments.html?_r=0

I like how it says in the link that it's not confirmed yet and that any report of it should be approached cautiously. We don't want the whole Iraq disaster happening again (although the scary part is that many Republicans don't think it was a disaster and would gladly go again).

[TheMason]

At 3/19/13 05:10 PM, Feoric wrote:

AJ also has a good point:

"Victims spoke of pungent smell. Chemical weapons are usually odourless."

The quoted doctor is lying, ignorant of that which he is speaking of, or a shill for Assad. True, VX and Sarin or largely odorless... but many nerve, blister, and blood agents have odors ranging from bad (bleach, rotten eggs, etc) to pleasant (mowed hay/grass, almonds, vapor rub, etc). This is why WMD first responders are trained to ask victims if they smelled anything.

The smell is actually proof of a CW attack.

So yeah, I'm not convinced chemical weapons were involved.

Could be either an accident or use of a Toxic Industrial Chemical (TIC) misappropriated for military/ terrorist purposes.

[Feoric]

At 3/19/13 11:39 PM, TheMason wrote: The quoted doctor is lying, ignorant of that which he is speaking of, or a shill for Assad. True, VX and Sarin or largely odorless... but many nerve, blister, and blood agents have odors ranging from bad (bleach, rotten eggs, etc) to pleasant (mowed hay/grass, almonds, vapor rub, etc). This is why WMD first responders are trained to ask victims if they smelled anything.

The smell is actually proof of a CW attack.

I did not know that! Thanks for the correction. Do you know if Syria has any of chemical weapons that would have similar effects as far as the injuries/odors being reported go?

Could be either an accident or use of a Toxic Industrial Chemical (TIC) misappropriated for military/ terrorist purposes.

I don't think we're gonna know for sure right now, but I'm willing to bet people in high places have a better idea of what happened. CNN is reporting that the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said there is a "high probability" that Assad's forces used chemical weapons. I don't know what intel he's basing this on, but I suspect there's some communications going on with the Israelis.

It's interesting to note that not only will Obama be in the region tomorrow, but Carl Levin (who serves on the Foreign Relations Committee and as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee) and Lindsey Graham are both chiming in as far as intervention goes, so I guess be prepared to put on your tinfoil hat in the upcoming days.

[TheMason]

At 3/20/13 12:14 AM, Feoric wrote: I did not know that! Thanks for the correction. Do you know if Syria has any of chemical weapons that would have similar effects as far as the injuries/odors being reported go?

Honestly, at this point no. I haven't paid that much attention to the Syrian military.

I don't think we're gonna know for sure right now, but I'm willing to bet people in high places have a better idea of what happened. CNN is reporting that the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said there is a "high probability" that Assad's forces used chemical weapons. I don't know what intel he's basing this on, but I suspect there's some communications going on with the Israelis.

I'm not ready to say that it is definately a CW attack. Afterall, it could be several things:
* A chemical spill from either a civilian accident (ie: traffic) or an attack accidently caused a spill.
* Terrorists got a hold of some sort of industrial chemical and turned it into a CW agent.
* Assad used something.

If you've got rumblings from that high up, then I would lend credence. We're probably getting intel from numerous sources.

It's interesting to note that not only will Obama be in the region tomorrow, but Carl Levin (who serves on the Foreign Relations Committee and as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee) and Lindsey Graham are both chiming in as far as intervention goes, so I guess be prepared to put on your tinfoil hat in the upcoming days.

Yeah...it's a scary mess.

[Dimitrilium]

Would make sense for Assad to test CW right now. Hezbollah and Iran are preparing for post Assad. They help him just because they want Assad to grind the rebel as long as possible, and top them after Assad fall. But they are waiting for full engagement.

If the US step in, Iran and the Hezbollah loose everything in Syria, but Assad know he die too. He could force the hand of is "allies" with sporadic CW attack until they acknowledge the fact he will use them before total defeat, or maybe they will step in if the US seriously think of interfering over rumor of Assad using CW.

[Warforger]

Well it seems alot is developing in Syria, particularly the fact that Israel has began launching strikes into Syria.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/world/middleeast/israel-ai rstrike-targeted-advanced-missiles-that-russia-sold-to-syria -us-says.html?_r=0

Now those missiles obviously were not for use against the rebels since they were anti-aircraft weapons, meaning this sounds like preparation for a no fly zone......

[tyler2513]

At 7/24/13 11:06 PM, Warforger wrote: Well it seems alot is developing in Syria, particularly the fact that Israel has began launching strikes into Syria.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/world/middleeast/israel-ai rstrike-targeted-advanced-missiles-that-russia-sold-to-syria -us-says.html?_r=0

Now those missiles obviously were not for use against the rebels since they were anti-aircraft weapons, meaning this sounds like preparation for a no fly zone......

Yes it's been announced that they are preparing to make up a no fly zone for Syria. Israel isn't the only one shooting over borders, Syria has been doing missile strikes at rebel targets over in Lebanon. This war really needs to be contained, it's turning into an extremely large proxy war.

[Feoric]

At 7/27/13 07:33 PM, tyler2513 wrote: Yes it's been announced that they are preparing to make up a no fly zone for Syria. Israel isn't the only one shooting over borders, Syria has been doing missile strikes at rebel targets over in Lebanon. This war really needs to be contained, it's turning into an extremely large proxy war.

It's not going to be contained, it's going to sustained whether it be intentional or not due to the flow of foreign arms from opposing interests (Gulf states/US vs Iran/Russia).

[tyler2513]

At 7/27/13 08:13 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 7/27/13 07:33 PM, tyler2513 wrote: Yes it's been announced that they are preparing to make up a no fly zone for Syria. Israel isn't the only one shooting over borders, Syria has been doing missile strikes at rebel targets over in Lebanon. This war really needs to be contained, it's turning into an extremely large proxy war.

It's not going to be contained, it's going to sustained whether it be intentional or not due to the flow of foreign arms from opposing interests (Gulf states/US vs Iran/Russia).

Yes. With the endless amounts of arms and foreign fighters coming into Syria it's a wonder if either side will be able to win now. Al-Assad certainly won't be able to completely crush the opposition and go back into power without international outcries and the Free Syrian Army has become almost as corrupt as Al-Assad's regime with the huge amounts of foreign terrorists joining it.

[Feoric]

I'm bumping this thread because there are numerous reports of a chemical attack which has reportedly killed hundreds, mostly women and young children. Nasty stuff. By this point I think we're experiencing the cry wolf effect due to the numerous alleged sarin attacks which has never as of yet been authenticated, but judging by all the videos being uploaded to youtube right now it certainly seems like this could be the real deal. Definitely watch out for what Obama is going to say in response to this.

[Grimdalus]

I hope they do not intervene, I'm sick of American Imperialism.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 8/21/13 08:22 AM, Grimdalus wrote: I hope they do not intervene, I'm sick of American Imperialism.

LOL its hardly imperialism.

[Grimdalus]

At 8/21/13 09:28 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/21/13 08:22 AM, Grimdalus wrote: I hope they do not intervene, I'm sick of American Imperialism.

LOL its hardly imperialism.

I'd classify it as Imperialism. American Imperialism has been rampant, they consider themselves the world police, America likes to have the world under their sphere or influence.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 8/21/13 09:50 AM, Grimdalus wrote: I'd classify it as Imperialism. American Imperialism has been rampant,

hardly.

they consider themselves the world police,

countries come to us because we are most likely to do something. they don't go to the UN because its useless.

America likes to have the world under their sphere or influence.

hardly its because of treaties and NATO Cooperation.

[Light]

At 8/21/13 10:13 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/21/13 09:50 AM, Grimdalus wrote: I'd classify it as Imperialism. American Imperialism has been rampant,

hardly.

Let's just ignore the entire history of the Cold War and the history of the U.S. after 1991 while we're at it.

they consider themselves the world police,

countries come to us because we are most likely to do something. they don't go to the UN because its useless.

Still makes us the world police.

America likes to have the world under their sphere or influence.

hardly its because of treaties and NATO Cooperation.

Wait, so you mean to tell me that the U.S. doesn't really care much about its sphere of influence, Tony?

That's bull and you know it.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 8/21/13 11:15 AM, Light wrote: Let's just ignore the entire history of the Cold War and the history of the U.S. after 1991 while we're at it.

proxy conflicts that we responded to.

and shouldn't be but who else has the balls to do it the UK france? maybe hell has frozen over and its the UN!

America likes to have the world under their sphere or influence.

Wait, so you mean to tell me that the U.S. doesn't really care much about its sphere of influence, Tony?

That's bull and you know it.

of course not we love our sphere of influence all I am saying that sphere of influence is through cooperation and mutual respect through treaties and diplomatic relations. though I should have phrased that better..

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 8/21/13 11:15 AM, Light wrote: Let's just ignore the entire history of the Cold War and the history of the U.S. after 1991 while we're at it.

proxy conflicts that we responded to.

Still makes us the world police.

and shouldn't be but who else has the balls to do it the UK france? maybe hell has frozen over and its the UN!

America likes to have the world under their sphere or influence.

Wait, so you mean to tell me that the U.S. doesn't really care much about its sphere of influence, Tony?

That's bull and you know it.

of course not we love our sphere of influence all I am saying that sphere of influence is through cooperation and mutual respect through treaties and diplomatic relations. though I should have phrased that better..

[Grimdalus]

At 8/21/13 10:13 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/21/13 09:50 AM, Grimdalus wrote: I'd classify it as Imperialism. American Imperialism has been rampant,

hardly.

they consider themselves the world police,

countries come to us because we are most likely to do something. they don't go to the UN because its useless.

America likes to have the world under their sphere or influence.

hardly its because of treaties and NATO Cooperation.

Oh really. Tell me why America backed Fulgencio Batista in Cuba and focused on stopping land reforms in Latin and South America. Why did America support the French regime in Vietnam during the first Indo-china war and prohibit Vietnamese elections? Why did America let Suddam Hussein live and why did they back the taliban multiple times just to invade Afghanistan and Iraw to set up puppet governments?

[Grimdalus]

At 8/21/13 11:20 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/21/13 11:15 AM, Light wrote: Let's just ignore the entire history of the Cold War and the history of the U.S. after 1991 while we're at it.

proxy conflicts that we responded to.

Still makes us the world police.

and shouldn't be but who else has the balls to do it the UK france? maybe hell has frozen over and its the UN!

America likes to have the world under their sphere or influence.

Wait, so you mean to tell me that the U.S. doesn't really care much about its sphere of influence, Tony?

That's bull and you know it.

of course not we love our sphere of influence all I am saying that sphere of influence is through cooperation and mutual respect through treaties and diplomatic relations. though I should have phrased that better..

I disagree a lot of it is to do with sanctions. A lot of nations that is in "mutual respect", I call American Puppet Governments or Satellite Countries. It is not America's right to police the world, that is Jingoism. All it does is separate America from the rest of the world and make America become the aggressor.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 8/21/13 11:22 AM, Grimdalus wrote: Oh really. Tell me why America backed Fulgencio Batista in Cuba and focused on stopping land reforms in Latin and South America.

Batista initially rose to power as part of the 1933 "Revolt of the Sergeants" that overthrew the authoritarian rule of Gerardo Machado. Batista then appointed himself chief of the armed forces, with the rank of colonel, and effectively controlled the five-member Presidency. He maintained this control through a string of puppet presidents until 1940, when he was himself elected President of Cuba on a populist platform.He then instated the 1940 Constitution of Cuba, considered progressive for its time, and served until 1944. After finishing his term he lived in the United States, returning to Cuba to run for president in 1952. he was US backed because he was Anti-Soviet Union.

Why did America support the French regime in Vietnam during the first Indo-china war and prohibit Vietnamese elections?

they were requested by the French through the Mutual Defense Assistance Act As the Cold War developed, these acts were part of the American policy of containment of Communism.

Why did America let Suddam Hussein live and why did they back the taliban multiple times just to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to set up puppet governments?

he was asset that they couldn't let go until he finally lost his value it was the cold war after all.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 8/21/13 11:25 AM, Grimdalus wrote: I disagree a lot of it is to do with sanctions. A lot of nations that is in "mutual respect", I call American Puppet Governments or Satellite Countries.

well would you rather be alone by yourself vulnerable or have some sort of arrangement with the other kid on the block looking out for you? it may be a little one sided but is mutually beneficial none the less.

It is not America's right to police the world, that is Jingoism. All it does is separate America from the rest of the world and make America become the aggressor.

well who do countries go to when they have a problem most of the time the US. seeing as the UN is nothing but nigh useless. I would love to see other countries join in but most of the time the countries that provoke it are some third world shit holes, you don't see first world NATO countries pull that kind of shit.

[Light]

At 8/21/13 11:20 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/21/13 11:15 AM, Light wrote: Let's just ignore the entire history of the Cold War and the history of the U.S. after 1991 while we're at it.

proxy conflicts that we responded to.

Still imperialistic.

Still makes us the world police.

and shouldn't be but who else has the balls to do it the UK france? maybe hell has frozen over and its the UN!

It's not exactly unfeasible. The coordinated effort against Qaddafi in Libya wasn't led by the U.S.

of course not we love our sphere of influence all I am saying that sphere of influence is through cooperation and mutual respect through treaties and diplomatic relations. though I should have phrased that better..

The U.S. likes to pretend this is the case, but the fact of the matter is that we believe in the principle of realpolitik, which is that power matters most. We've destabilized democracies all over the world that we didn't consider to be acting in our self-interest all throughout the Cold War. We've installed and aided dictators all over the world who brutally suppressed their people and we do that because it was convenient for our global interests.

Sometimes, we just invade Iraq instead.

[Warforger]

At 8/21/13 11:22 AM, Grimdalus wrote: Oh really. Tell me why America backed Fulgencio Batista in Cuba

They really didn't. In fact the US actually supported Castro (Castro wasn't an overt Communist for a while and it's still debated whether or not he was in fact a Communist at the beginning of the revolution or if during the revolution he became a Communist) because Batista was proving to be unpopular, corrupt and going against US interests. The same was for the Shah of Iran, the US supported the Ayatollah for a while because the Shah was becoming increasingly hostile.

and focused on stopping land reforms in Latin and South America.

It was more of a paranoia of the time. It wasn't that the Land Reforms were outrageous, it was the fear that it was the growing influence of Communism. Castro proved just that.

Why did America support the French regime in Vietnam during the first Indo-china war and prohibit Vietnamese elections?

Several reasons, the French were an ally and they said they needed their colonies to rehabilitate their economy. But overall the Americans didn't support the Imperialism and allowed for an independent Vietnam. As for elections, it was because the South Vietnamese government would lose, they essentially had no one to run who was even better than Ngo Diem and he was a bit of an asshole.

Why did America let Suddam Hussein live

When? Because he's dead now. The first Gulf War it was because the US wasn't trying to take advantage of the situation. Papa Bush said that he was going in to free Kuwait, not to overthrow the Iraqi government, and so he simply freed Kuwait and ended the war. He had the opportunity to invade Iraq itself and overthrow Saddam but he didn't take it.

and why did they back the taliban multiple times just to invade Afghanistan and Iraw to set up puppet governments?

They didn't back the Taliban, they backed the Mujahadin. The Taliban merely split off from them. The reason was so that they could first defeat the domestic Communist government, then the Soviet invasion. And neither the Taliban nor the Mujahadin (at least the Afghanni ones) were a prescence in Iraq, in fact the Taliban movement is mostly an ethnic movement for the Pashtuns.

At 8/21/13 11:25 AM, Grimdalus wrote: I disagree a lot of it is to do with sanctions. A lot of nations that is in "mutual respect", I call American Puppet Governments or Satellite Countries.

Depends, do you distinguish satellite governments from governments that simply agree with the US?

It is not America's right to police the world, that is Jingoism. All it does is separate America from the rest of the world and make America become the aggressor.

In the 90's it was not because it was doing it in cooperation with other nations to stop genocide and things like the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. In terms of the Iraq war it definitely was. In terms of the conflict in Libya, well most of the fighting was done by EU squadrons the US mostly just supplied them.

[Grimdalus]

At 8/21/13 11:37 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/21/13 11:22 AM, Grimdalus wrote: Oh really. Tell me why America backed Fulgencio Batista in Cuba and focused on stopping land reforms in Latin and South America.

Batista initially rose to power as part of the 1933 "Revolt of the Sergeants" that overthrew the authoritarian rule of Gerardo Machado. Batista then appointed himself chief of the armed forces, with the rank of colonel, and effectively controlled the five-member Presidency. He maintained this control through a string of puppet presidents until 1940, when he was himself elected President of Cuba on a populist platform.He then instated the 1940 Constitution of Cuba, considered progressive for its time, and served until 1944. After finishing his term he lived in the United States, returning to Cuba to run for president in 1952. he was US backed because he was Anti-Soviet Union.

Why did America support the French regime in Vietnam during the first Indo-china war and prohibit Vietnamese elections?

they were requested by the French through the Mutual Defense Assistance Act As the Cold War developed, these acts were part of the American policy of containment of Communism.

Why did America let Suddam Hussein live and why did they back the taliban multiple times just to invade Afghanistan and Iraq to set up puppet governments?

he was asset that they couldn't let go until he finally lost his value it was the cold war after all.

From what I've watched: In Che's Guevera's documentary The regime was unpopular, the Cuban revolution happened because Cuba became a corrupt place ruled by the mafia and the government under martial rule. The wealth distrubution was very unevenly distributed.

I find it hypocritical that the USA would prevent revolutions to occur yet they declared independence as a colony. Ho Chi Minh wanted peaceful solutions but the Americans would not co-operate. They considered communism a threat, which it is not and was not. The Soviets were on the verge of collapse at the time period so that reason was not valid at the period of time.