Syria: Sarin, Sunnis & Salafists

[Feoric]

So, now that we all decided to stop caring about North Korea and the Boston bombing hysteria is starting to settle down, Syria has once again captured the headlines. With good reason: it's looking like Assad used sarin gas against his own people.

There have been claims that chemical weapons have been used in the past (like BZ), but it's pretty hard to say for certain when the only evidence available is eyewitness testimony and grainy footage on YouTube. However, the US, Israel, Britain, France and Qatar have all come out and said that there is some significant, albeit 'insufficient' evidence that chemical weapons were used. The White House has asked the United Nations to look into the matter to say concretely whether chemical weapons were used or not (spoiler: they were).

Obama has made it explicitly clear that this was the big line drawn in the sand which, when crossed, would trigger a shift in US policy in relation to Syria. This is known as the 'red-line.' And, when the UN reports back and confirms that sarin was used...well, it's anyone's guess as to what will happen. So, let's discuss it in the meantime!

This is what Syria currently offers the United States: problems. It's pretty clear we want to be as far removed from that conflict as humanly possible. I'm sure we have SpecOps/CIA assets over there but they don't really count, that's a given. I see no possibility whatsoever of boots on the ground. Anything that would even remotely resemble an occupation should be avoided. Not only is there the risk of Syria taking Lebanon down with it (which we would then undoubtedly be at least tangentially involved in as well), you have a highly unstable situation in Iraq, which is right next door. Kindred spirits and all that. I'm not even getting into the issue of the sequestered military budget, the war-weary American public and other issues at home we care a lot more about. I think we can all agree that this is at least not the first option on the table.

That being said, I'm having a pretty hard time seeing what options we have. I think Syria is a problem where there is no solution, at least not one where tens/hundreds of thousands of people don't die. We could try for a no-fly zone, and possibly a Libya-style air campaign, but would Putin allow it to happen? How far does Obama want to go? Honestly, I don't think he wants to go at all. He would have a year ago if that were the case. I have no clue what intel his senior military guys have, so I can't make a judgement about this. Even if we go with a bombing campaign, what is preventing Assad from going all-out with WMDs? Nothing, and that is exactly what he will do. Nothing is stopping him from utilizing every drip of sarin and god knows what else. There's also the big question of whether Assad has given these weapons to terror groups in line with the Syrian-Iranian axis like Hezbollah, but that could have happened anyway at this point. Although we have spies over there, they can't know everything.

We'll find out in the coming days, but I think a no fly zone is in the works while we send over some ammo. After Operation Cyclone I don't think we're so eager to arm rebels with weapons when there's actual Al-Qaeda operatives in the region. I wouldn't necessarily be surprised if we spearheaded a bombing campaign, or at least contributed to one, but it's way too early to tell for sure how this is going to play out. Something is going to happen, rest assured. The West has an obligation to defend the opinion that the use of WMDs warrants some form of action, especially after the Iraq debacle. I'm sure we're talking to Russia, so I'm curious to see what they say. What a mess.

[Korriken]

doesn't matter what happens in Syria, once the rebels win, it's going to be Egypt all over again, except bloodier.

Islamic fundamentalists will set up, people will be oppressed ,etc.

The Alawites better run like hell before it's over, because they're going to be massacred in large numbers once the fighting's done and the survivors are going to be in the same boat as the christian's in Egypt. attacked daily, harassed, persecuted, and murdered in the streets as the police watch.

[Feoric]

Syria can only hope to wind up like Egypt. There's no comparing the two.

[Fim]

First off can I just congratulate you on the title of this thread. It's a cracker.

As for Syria, I think it's already that the western world has stood by and done relively nothing for 2 years and watched with their arms folded as tens of thousands of people die, irreplaceable world heritage sites are destroyed, and government forces strategically bomb hospitals and target children.

Although it sounds wrong, I hope they actually find evidence that the Syrian government had been using chemical weapons, because then at least they might get involve and help the citizens of Syria. It's such a hypocracy that America and Britain went to Iraq in order to 'spread democracy' and now democracy is springing up organically right next door and we do absolutely nothing.

I watched a very eye opening documentary about this, and it evoked me enough to actually send some money to the feed Syrian children charity. Ground zero: Syria

[Fim]

At 4/26/13 08:35 PM, Fim wrote: First off can I just congratulate you on the title of this thread. It's a cracker.

As for Syria, I think it's already

*i think it's already disgusting / outrageous / unexplainable / a crime against human rights

Is what I meant to say

[Korriken]

At 4/26/13 08:16 PM, Feoric wrote: Syria can only hope to wind up like Egypt. There's no comparing the two.

true, in egypt the copts are attacked... the alawites will probably be targeted for extermination along with any non muslims.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

Just let them kill each other off and see who is left standing then deal with it this has nothing to do with the West.

[Fim]

At 4/26/13 09:10 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Just let them kill each other off and see who is left standing then deal with it this has nothing to do with the West.

Very compassionate of you. Does it not matter if human rights violations are being committed? The west is hugely involved with the Middle East as it is, I don't know how you can justify being involved with Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Israel and then say we have nothing to do with Syria. The Syrian people will remember that we did nothing to help them I'm their time of need when an eventual governing body is formed.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 4/26/13 11:32 PM, Fim wrote:
Very compassionate of you. Does it not matter if human rights violations are being committed?

Not in the slightest.

The west is hugely involved with the Middle East as it is, I don't know how you can justify being involved with Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and Israel and then say we have nothing to do with Syria. The Syrian people will remember that we did nothing to help them I'm their time of need when an eventual governing body is formed.

Afghanistan was the start of the war on terror Iraqwas a ball drop on intelligence. Pakistan is currently the last
bastion for al Qaeda like OBL and Israel is a regional super power that's our ally in said region. And highly doubt the Syrian people will care when we send over some aid their little shithole in ruins after this little uprising.

[Fim]

At 4/26/13 11:44 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
the Syrian people will care when we send over some aid their little shithole in ruins after this little uprising.

Every time we argue I always think you're a little bit more of a dick.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 4/27/13 12:49 AM, Fim wrote:

At 4/26/13 11:44 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
the Syrian people will care when we send over some aid their little shithole in ruins after this little uprising.

Every time we argue I always think you're a little bit more of a dick.

Well its the sad truth the West isn't some get out jail free card always to come save the day to some shithole nation. We have problems too. I don't see people making a big deal about Darfur or the shit happening in Burma so whats so special about Syria. Its the sad truth guy sometimes we just have to let shit run its course then deal with the aftermath.

[aviewaskewed]

At 4/27/13 12:59 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Well its the sad truth the West isn't some get out jail free card always to come save the day to some shithole nation.

Yes it is. Because that's what the West, America in particular, has set itself up to do and be. They're the world's daddy telling everybody else if they don't behave the way we think they should, they get spanked.

We have problems too.

Which we're too busy electing partisan idiots to fix, so they go and drop bombs and crap on other countries to distract you from what shitty leaders they are.

I don't see people making a big deal about Darfur or the shit happening in Burma so whats so special about Syria.

Because that's the hot button story the media has seized on...also, we probably don't have deals with them where they let us come in and pick off terrorists in exchange for turning a blind eye.

Its the sad truth guy sometimes we just have to let shit run its course then deal with the aftermath.

Problem here is if Assad DOES have chemical weapons he's using on his people, there is reason to be concerned about a bad guy with those sorts of toys. As the OP stated, it's very possible he will or has sold that stuff off to some of our enemies.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 4/27/13 03:03 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Yes it is. Because that's what the West, America in particular, has set itself up to do and be. They're the world's daddy telling everybody else if they don't behave the way we think they should, they get spanked.

well not with Syria so far.

Which we're too busy electing partisan idiots to fix, so they go and drop bombs and crap on other countries to distract you from what shitty leaders they are.

so thats thats Obama's secret on how he got re-elected!

Problem here is if Assad DOES have chemical weapons he's using on his people, there is reason to be concerned about a bad guy with those sorts of toys. As the OP stated, it's very possible he will or has sold that stuff off to some of our enemies.

and they said that with Saddam in Iraq when it was obvious most of the chemical weapons were dated and the program discontinued.

and look where that got us.

[aviewaskewed]

At 4/27/13 08:47 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: well not with Syria so far.

We've rattled the sabers and made it known it's on the table. We're also close to not having a war which makes Congressional and Military hawks very anxious to get another going.

so thats thats Obama's secret on how he got re-elected!

And Bush's, and Clinton's, and most every president in recent history. Partisanship makes fools of us all if we can't be honest about the flaws of leaders (Presidential and Congressional) from both sides. Obama's secret to getting re-elected though I think is that the loud minority thinks everybody hates him as much as they do (truth is, the quieter majority doesn't), also he wasn't an out of touch rich guy like Romney whose track record as a political executive was pretty horrendous.

and they said that with Saddam in Iraq when it was obvious most of the chemical weapons were dated and the program discontinued.

Were you not someone defending the need for Iraq? Also, unlike Saddam, there isn't a massive sales pitch by this administration saying Assad has them, is using them, and we need to go topple him. This administration is working in tandem with the international community to try and get hard evidence one way or the other. The situations are not comparable.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 4/27/13 02:21 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: We've rattled the sabers and made it known it's on the table. We're also close to not having a war which makes Congressional and Military hawks very anxious to get another going.

if that were to happen there would be mass protest against it because we all know its for oil.

Were you not someone defending the need for Iraq? Also, unlike Saddam, there isn't a massive sales pitch by this administration saying Assad has them, is using them, and we need to go topple him.

yes and no I wanted to just get done with Iraq and get out. and its honestly none of our business if he's killing his own people let the UN deal with that shit or just let it play out. just because he has chemical weapons and killing people with them the humanitarians in the US go WE GOTTA GO STOP EM! just kinda like Bush did with Iraq..

This administration is working in tandem with the international community to try and get hard evidence one way or the other. The situations are not comparable.

yeah and thats works SOO WELL like intel we got from Mossad with the 9/11 bombers and the boston assholes with the Russian FSB or the great intelligence drops like no WMDs when the UN inspection team already made their inspections when Saddam let them in and gave them near full access.

[Korriken]

the biggest problem is that any conflict in the middle east is going to attract jihadists. why? because they see it's an opportunity to get a jihadist friendly government in place. Luckily the situation in Libya was handled quickly enough that Jihadist groups couldn't get their men in there.

There are still come problems in Libya, but those will be a walk in the park compared to the aftermath of Syria. Don't be surprised when the new government takes over that a strict interpretation of Sharia becomes the law of the land the ensuing sectarian violence becomes commonplace.

[Warforger]

At 4/27/13 11:43 PM, Korriken wrote: the biggest problem is that any conflict in the middle east is going to attract jihadists. why? because they see it's an opportunity to get a jihadist friendly government in place. Luckily the situation in Libya was handled quickly enough that Jihadist groups couldn't get their men in there.

There are still come problems in Libya, but those will be a walk in the park compared to the aftermath of Syria. Don't be surprised when the new government takes over that a strict interpretation of Sharia becomes the law of the land the ensuing sectarian violence becomes commonplace.

I think Jihadists is a bad term. A Jihad is just when someone tries to go on a religious quest to better themselves like say if they're an alcoholic a Muslim would quit drinking, or if they wanted to allieviate poverty they'd go on a jihad by operating a soup kitchen. Islamist or Salafist is a better term. Some take it as to mean they have to go kill themselves in a suicide bombing (which isn't really that common in Islam and is pretty much a modern invention).

Otherwise no, the problem is that Islamists are everywhere in the MIddle East because they've been the principle opponents to the secular Socialist regimes from Qaddaffi to Saddam Hussein, Osama BIn Laden even specifically targeted Saudi Arabia in his messages. Thus over the years they accumulate support because of their hardline stance against the regimes, a prominent example being Qutb who wrote against Western culture and the Nasserist regime and pretty much invented the modern Islamic Fundamentalist movement. Before him Muslim nations were pretty Western in the sense that the Burqa wasn't mandated and hell even in Syria under Al-Assad it was banned for government officials to wear it. Not to say that Islamic Fundamentalism wasn't a thing before him, when Qaddaffi took power in the late 60's (yah the guy was there for a long time, loooong time, like he even orchestrated the Lockerbie bombing and provoked Ronald Reagan to try to kill him) he reintroduced forced Burqa wearing in public. But it was Qutb who made a relevant modern political philosophy and it was groups like the Muslim Brotherhood's defiance towards these regimes and their long exposes about the torture implemented that made them more popular over time.

[Korriken]

At 4/28/13 12:11 AM, Warforger wrote:

I think Jihadists is a bad term.

Salafist works, i reckon

[aviewaskewed]

At 4/27/13 03:27 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: if that were to happen there would be mass protest against it because we all know its for oil.

Cause that has such a great track record of doing anything...

yes and no I wanted to just get done with Iraq and get out. and its honestly none of our business if he's killing his own people let the UN deal with that shit or just let it play out. just because he has chemical weapons and killing people with them the humanitarians in the US go WE GOTTA GO STOP EM! just kinda like Bush did with Iraq..

It really isn't since Saddam had no weapons, and the Bush administration went into Iraq for reasons much different then anything that they tried to sell the war with (that should have been obvious with their shifting stories). The problem with any engagements like this is you cant "get done and get out" you blow holes, topple a government and take a walk? It tends to lead to even worse governments coming to power on a platform of not liking you and harboring your enemies (see afghanistan after we went in to throw Russia out). The UN is fairly toothless unless it's members flex the military muscle. Which as a member we can do as a coalition (like we did with Libya) but then the Repubs criticize because apparently unless we're doing the warring all by ourselves, it just ain't proper warring.

yeah and thats works SOO WELL like intel we got from Mossad with the 9/11 bombers

Might have helped had the administration bothered to listen to the CIA who were said to be "running around with their hair on fire" all that summer trying to get them to listen to the fact that they had credible intel on an imminent and massive attack.

and the boston assholes

There are laws against doing things to people like the boston assholes when they aren't doing anything. From what I've seen so far they did all they could, like contacting Russia and trying to get intervention as they felt the guys were becoming more radicalized. There's limits to how much you can do in these situations.

with the Russian FSB or the great intelligence drops like no WMDs when the UN inspection team already made their inspections when Saddam let them in and gave them near full access.

When the admin is gung ho to go to Iraq, and the VP gets reports over and over that there's no weapons and then says "go invent some", well, that's not an intelligence fuck up really. That's a bunch of assholes with an agenda who don't know what kind of shit storm they're unleashing.

I appreciate that you're trying a lot harder then usual here though :)

[MOSFET]

I think the main reason why Washington is hesitant to go in is the lesson from the Iraq war. Just because there is evidence of Sarin use, doesn't speak to it's reliability.

They are also hesitant because the opposition happens to be mainly composed of radical islamists. Which is why Syrian Christians have fully backed Assad, a group we are pretty sure will be turned into second rate citizens once the opposition comes to power. Clearly Assad is in the wrong, and so are the groups that support him, but we also don't really like the opposition either.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 4/28/13 01:10 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Cause that has such a great track record of doing anything...

true but its all open and everyone knows it so I guess thats what matters.

It really isn't since Saddam had no weapons, and the Bush administration went into Iraq for reasons much different then anything that they tried to sell the war with (that should have been obvious with their shifting stories). The problem with any engagements like this is you cant "get done and get out" you blow holes, topple a government and take a walk? It tends to lead to even worse governments coming to power on a platform of not liking you and harboring your enemies (see a

Afghanistan after we went in to throw Russia out).

The UN is fairly toothless unless it's members flex the military muscle. Which as a member we can do as a coalition (like we did with Libya) but then the Repubs criticize because apparently unless we're doing the warring all by ourselves, it just ain't proper warring.

Might have helped had the administration bothered to listen to the CIA who were said to be "running around with their hair on fire" all that summer trying to get them to listen to the fact that they had credible intel on an imminent and massive attack.

true they even went to the FBI with the mossad intel and refused to listen

There are laws against doing things to people like the boston assholes when they aren't doing anything. From what I've seen so far they did all they could, like contacting Russia and trying to get intervention as they felt the guys were becoming more radicalized. There's limits to how much you can do in these situations.

true but they could have done a little bit more survelliance and monitoring work on them which would have been perfectly legal and the first signs of radicalization they could have done more.

When the admin is gung ho to go to Iraq, and the VP gets reports over and over that there's no weapons and then says "go invent some", well, that's not an intelligence fuck up really. That's a bunch of assholes with an agenda who don't know what kind of shit storm they're unleashing.

HOW DARE YOU SIR! Emperor Bush and Darth Cheney would never do such things they were benevolent leaders!

I appreciate that you're trying a lot harder then usual here though :)

NUUUH UHHH.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 4/28/13 01:10 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 4/27/13 03:27 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

STUPID PHONE I hit the post button on accident.

Cause that has such a great track record of doing anything...

true but its all open and everyone knows it so I guess thats what matters.

It really isn't since Saddam had no weapons, and the Bush administration went into Iraq for reasons much different then anything that they tried to sell the war with (that should have been obvious with their shifting stories). The problem with any engagements like this is you cant "get done and get out" you blow holes, topple a government and take a walk? It tends to lead to even worse governments coming to power on a platform of not liking you and harboring your enemies (see afghanistan after we went in to throw Russia out).

the current Iraq government doesn't like us even though we're rebuilding schools and hospitals but we apparently can't leave yet till we properly train their police and military force.

The UN is fairly toothless unless it's members flex the military muscle. Which as a member we can do as a coalition (like we did with Libya) but then the Repubs criticize because apparently unless we're doing the warring all by ourselves, it just ain't proper warring.

The UN Peace Keeping is notorious for being ineffective hell in the 90s when those civil wars in Africa happen the UN peace keepers got so fucked up the local governments hired Executive Operations (Mercs) to fight. if the US did the same the same tactics in Syria like they did in Libya I would have no problems.

Might have helped had the administration bothered to listen to the CIA who were said to be "running around with their hair on fire" all that summer trying to get them to listen to the fact that they had credible intel on an imminent and massive attack.

true they even went to the FBI with the mossad intel and refused to listen and let the suspects for 9/11 just walk through airport security!

There are laws against doing things to people like the boston assholes when they aren't doing anything. From what I've seen so far they did all they could, like contacting Russia and trying to get intervention as they felt the guys were becoming more radicalized. There's limits to how much you can do in these situations.

true but they could have done a little bit more survelliance and monitoring work on them which would have been perfectly legal and the first signs of radicalization they could have done more then prevent it from happening

with the Russian FSB or the great intelligence drops like no WMDs when the UN inspection team already made their inspections when Saddam let them in and gave them near full access.

When the admin is gung ho to go to Iraq, and the VP gets reports over and over that there's no weapons and then says "go invent some", well, that's not an intelligence fuck up really. That's a bunch of assholes with an agenda who don't know what kind of shit storm they're unleashing.

HOW DARE YOU SIR! Emperor Bush and Darth Cheney would never do such things they were benevolent leaders!

I appreciate that you're trying a lot harder then usual here though :)

NUUUH UHHH!

[Feoric]

At 4/26/13 11:44 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Pakistan is currently the last bastion for al Qaeda

This isn't true at all. Why do you think we're actively involved in Yemen?

And highly doubt the Syrian people will care when we send over some aid their little shithole in ruins after this little uprising.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHUKBaFetJY

At 4/27/13 08:47 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: and they said that with Saddam in Iraq when it was obvious most of the chemical weapons were dated and the program discontinued.

We went in because of yellowcake, which he didn't have. Then we pat ourselves on the back and backpedaled and pointed out he used chemical weapons on Kurds, which had nothing to do with the original reason of the occupation. These are two completely different things so don't conflate the two. The difference here is that there is overwhelming evidence that chemical weapons were used, and that the policy set up by Obama and the military was that the usage of chemical weapons would warrant a change in our calculus regarding Assad. It remains to be be seen what that entails. That's what this thread is about.

At 4/27/13 12:59 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: whats so special about Syria

Do you genuinely have no idea why other countries wouldn't intervene in an ethnic civil war or do you just not care about dead Arabs?

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 4/28/13 10:22 AM, Feoric wrote: This isn't true at all. Why do you think we're actively involved in Yemen?

true but alot of the action is in pakistan with the Gov ordered drone strikes and its where OBL was,

We went in because of yellowcake, which he didn't have. Then we pat ourselves on the back and backpedaled and pointed out he used chemical weapons on Kurds, which had nothing to do with the original reason of the occupation. These are two completely different things so don't conflate the two. The difference here is that there is overwhelming evidence that chemical weapons were used, and that the policy set up by Obama and the military was that the usage of chemical weapons would warrant a change in our calculus regarding Assad. It remains to be be seen what that entails. That's what this thread is about.

yellow cake and WMDs but there were none like I said after the UN inspection team reported but we went in anyways. and I don't see why we should go in with boots because of chemical weapons wouldn't it place OUR GUYS in peril of them if we go to Syria? and the general general opinion from middle easterners (from the foreign forum boards I visit) it would be bad for relations with the locals.

we're still not fully out of afghanistan and Iraq so why go to Syria too?

Do you genuinely have no idea why other countries wouldn't intervene in an ethnic civil war or do you just not care about dead Arabs?

no one obviously gave a shit about the Darfur Genocide or Burma? oh but "chemical weapons are being used" not our problem. despite popular belief the US doesn't need to be the world police we're already 12 years deep in afghanistan and 10 in Iraq people are done with old white guys getting oil money.

the only acceptable methods of US involvement in Syria:

1. we do what we did in Libya missile and air strikes with zero chance of american deaths

2. If the shit spills over to one of our allies like Israel then we get involved

[Feoric]

At 4/28/13 06:51 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: true but alot of the action is in pakistan with the Gov ordered drone strikes and its where OBL was,

Not a lot, actually. No doubt we have a massive intelligence network set up there but nothing compared to the activity in Yemen currently. There's an adage about the place: "if you're not radicalized in Yemen you won't be radicalized anywhere else."

yellow cake and WMDs but there were none like I said after the UN inspection team reported but we went in anyways.

Okay, but nobody is debating this and history has already been written. You'd have a point if we were going on incomplete intelligence reports and/or outright fabrications of CW usage. I think Obama deserves some credit for not being hawkish on the issue. He's obviously not eager to jump in, and I'm sure he doesn't want to.

and I don't see why we should go in with boots because of chemical weapons wouldn't it place OUR GUYS in peril of them if we go to Syria?

Like I said in the OP, the likelihood of this happening is near zero. We're most likely heading towards another Libya style bombing campaign, or at the very least a no-fly zone. I feel very confident in saying there is basically no chance of there being boots on the ground.

and the general general opinion from middle easterners (from the foreign forum boards I visit) it would be bad for relations with the locals.

From all the footage I've seen on YouTube, and there is no shortage of material, this is the complete opposite. The rebels have been begging the UN for help since the very beginning of the war. They want the US and the international community to turn the tide of the war, are you joking? They may not want a US occupation, but that's not what we're looking at. It appears we're about to do something the rebels wanted us to do 2 years ago. Obama went on record saying CWs were used, so I think it's clear we're in the preliminary stages of an intervention at this point.

we're still not fully out of afghanistan and Iraq so why go to Syria too?

These are two completely different things. This is not a long term occupation.

no one obviously gave a shit about the Darfur Genocide or Burma?

I agree that there isn't much consistency, but we're dealing with geopolitics/realpolitik where the strategic value of Syria and our allies far outweighs the value in helping our Burma or Darfur. I'm not saying I agree with that, but that's kinda how the world works. There's no reason to say "well we didn't help x so we shouldn't help out y." There's also the fact that AQ, the Taliban and other radical elements are currently spilling over into Syria which suggests an intense ethnic war after Assad falls. Not to mention the more important aspect which is the region's history, which not only predict an all out ethnic civil war (which is arguably already here) but how it applies to the Cold War and the continuation of it. We're currently watching history rewind and replay right in front of us and we have absolutely no idea what the current global leaders are really thinking. Syria has more sway as far as the balance of power goes and I fully expect a diplomatic breakdown between the US and Russia over the situation. My rational pessimism rarely fails me.

oh but "chemical weapons are being used" not our problem.

It is our problem, because the West in general has had the obligation to uphold the opinion on the usage of BW/CW weapons post-WWII. It's agreed upon that this is a no-no and something will be done about it. What use are regulations if they aren't enforced?

the only acceptable methods of US involvement in Syria:

1. we do what we did in Libya missile and air strikes with zero chance of american deaths

90% of happening.

2. If the shit spills over to one of our allies like Israel then we get involved

Israel is apparently already involved. We should be more concerned about this spilling into Turkey, Iraq, and Lebanon, which is already happening.

[supergandhi64]

here's a solution to a lot of the problems in the middle east: stop fighting so much & start getting along! it's not impossible . . . where there's a will there's a way

--supergandhi64

[aviewaskewed]

At 4/28/13 09:13 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

the current Iraq government doesn't like us even though we're rebuilding schools and hospitals but we apparently can't leave yet till we properly train their police and military force.

The chemical weapons mess could have something to do with it too. A lot of rank and file Iraqis don't seem to have much of a problem with us, but they most likely will if we leave their country in a damaged state and to factions within and outside the government that are just waiting for us to pull out so they can swoop in and try a coup.

The UN Peace Keeping is notorious for being ineffective hell in the 90s when those civil wars in Africa happen the UN peace keepers got so fucked up the local governments hired Executive Operations (Mercs) to fight. if the US did the same the same tactics in Syria like they did in Libya I would have no problems.

Which kind of goes to my point. The UN can't seem to do much without the more powerful members being willing to put their own militaries into a campaign mode situation. Part of my problem with government toppling by a foreign power though is history tells us it doesn't work out so good. The better course I think is to support populist revolutions from within the country whose goals seem to either align with ours, or at least don't represent a threat. Trying to force our interests above all others historically leads to bad fucking consequences down the road.

true they even went to the FBI with the mossad intel and refused to listen and let the suspects for 9/11 just walk through airport security!

Which again, I don't think can be classified as the fail being on the intelligence gatherers but on the administration and the policing and security services who didn't use the intel properly.

true but they could have done a little bit more survelliance and monitoring work on them which would have been perfectly legal and the first signs of radicalization they could have done more then prevent it from happening

Like what? In cases like these you have to be careful about blanket statements and shit because you get dangerously close (if not right into) the land of violating civil liberties.

HOW DARE YOU SIR! Emperor Bush and Darth Cheney would never do such things they were benevolent leaders!

The Sith always are.

[Feoric]

At 5/1/13 03:07 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Part of my problem with government toppling by a foreign power though is history tells us it doesn't work out so good.

It's not looking good no matter what we do. It's a Catch 22. The inevitable outcome (ethnic/secular civil war) will arise when Assad falls, with out without us.

The better course I think is to support populist revolutions from within the country whose goals seem to either align with ours, or at least don't represent a threat.

This didn't turn out too well for South America.

[morefngdbs]

I'd like to point out the USA & everyone else has as much proof the Syrian Government has used gas weapons, as the USA had that Saddam had Weapons of mass destruction.

Which is to say , they probably know the truth (as in Iraq, with Saddam ... they knew he had no weapons they just didn't like that truth)

So the US Government cannot provide any tangible proof ...or they most certainly would have done so.

No they are doing what they do best , smoke & mirrors folks.

I'm not saying that chemical weapons were not used, but it is just as likely the terrorists...oh so sorry .... I MEANT the 'freedom fighters' may have used them as the Government .

( & could someone explain to me once again, why it was terroists in Boston who bombed the Marathon Finish line, aka attacked the American people & Government. )

But when that's done in Syria , its done by opposition fighters ? ? ?

funny ole world & media reporting system isn't it ?!?

[Feoric]

So here's the latest developments:

1. Israel has confirmed that they have conducted an airstrike operation on on Hezbollah convoys on Thursday. Sure, this complicates the matter, but not nearly as much as Hezbollah getting god-only-knows, so I'll give Israel the rare benefit of the doubt on this.

2. More action from Israel, this time on a "research facility." Here's a couple of videos showing the massive explosion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e84pVGsP6YU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_j8ID-m1pU (19 seconds in)

3. This very graphic and NWS video purportedly shows an Alawiite-led massacre of Sunni Muslims. Reportedly hundreds of Sunni's have fled the area (Ras al-Nabaa). I think we're starting to see the start of an ethnic cleansing campaign as Syria starts to break down even more.

I'm beginning to wonder why Israel is suddenly involving itself in Syria's civil war. It's possible Assad has been trying to move heavy weapons to Hezbollah, but why now?