Syria

[Bigred]

I think we can safely assume that a military strike from various western nations into Syria is a handful of days, if not hours away.

In the United States, the Pentagon has presented the President with a menu of options for levels of response.
In the UK, the Prime Minister phoned Vladimir Putin with the evidence found and there is talk of recalling Parliament to session early.
France has said a "proportional response" is brewing.

Multiple United States and apparently some UK surface ships and submarines are already on station in the eastern Med.

It would appear that the issue is now one of how soon and how big the response will be.

I assume the horror of chemical weapon attacks still touches on remembrances of WW1 in Europe. If anything I wonder if the urge to show a strong response is even more important from Europe than the United States for this particular issue.

[eldargal]

Really not sure I approve. I have no love for the Assad regime (obviously) but getting involved in civil wars makes me uncomfortable. You only have to see how pivotol the English and US civil wars were to our nations development and then imagine how radically different things could have been with foreign intervention in a significant way and not in a good way. The English Civil War directly led to the establishment of constitutional monarchy which is one of the most free and stable forms of government ever.

Then there is the fact that there is some confusion about whether or not the rebels against the regime have also been using chemical weapons, so who do we bomb then?

Not to mention past experience indicates it won't make a jot of difference in the long run, if ousted the Assad regime will just turn to guerrilla style tactics and it will drag on for years or decades with no resolution.

[Psychosplodge]

But wasn't there foreign interference to some degree in both of those?

The problem I have with it is what do we know about the rebels? And lets face it, on the evidence from the "arab spring" imposing democracy is pointless, it doesn't appear to be working in any of these fledgling democracies.

[DrLove42]

I think some intervention is needed. Its dragged on for so long with such a high degree of civilian death, especially with the use of chemical weaponary by the government that some effort needs to be made to end it

[eldargal]

There was the threat of foreign intervention in both the English Civil War and the US Civil War but actual intervention was extremely limited.

The problem with the chemical weapons thing is it is possible that the rebels have them and have used them too and there is significant belief that the rebels are responsible for various atrocities as is the Assad regime.

I'm just not sure intervention will help in the short or long term.

[White Tiger88]

I think we can safely assume that a military strike from various western nations into Syria is a handful of days, if not hours away.

In the United States, the Pentagon has presented the President with a menu of options for levels of response.
In the UK, the Prime Minister phoned Vladimir Putin with the evidence found and there is talk of recalling Parliament to session early.
France has said a "proportional response" is brewing.

Multiple United States and apparently some UK surface ships and submarines are already on station in the eastern Med.

It would appear that the issue is now one of how soon and how big the response will be.

I assume the horror of chemical weapon attacks still touches on remembrances of WW1 in Europe. If anything I wonder if the urge to show a strong response is even more important from Europe than the United States for this particular issue.

If they send in the Leopard 2 & Abrams with some air support....Problem solved. (Then again a nice Cruise missile is Assad's face would work as well)

[Psychosplodge]

But they were designed for the open countryside of western europe, not city fighting in the middle east.
Tanks won't do anything for this sort thing.

[White Tiger88]

But they were designed for the open countryside of western europe, not city fighting in the middle east.
Tanks won't do anything for this sort thing.

You would be surprised......The Challenger 2 and Leopard 2 wouldn't have to much of a problem at all taking out anything Syria could throw at them. (The Abrams would be useless your right though lol) A few US Paladins though......take out anything they want well minimizing civilian damage.

[Aenir]

I disagree that they wouldn't do anything but even the most technologically advanced tanks are nothing without support being sent in. I played (and worked on a game) called combat mission shock force (actually based on a hypothetical invasion of syria) and even though its a game, its amazing what sort of bogged down mess one can get into (and also as a game it over simplifies things)

[White Tiger88]

I disagree that they wouldn't do anything but even the most technologically advanced tanks are nothing without support being sent in. I played (and worked on a game) called combat mission shock force (actually based on a hypothetical invasion of syria) and even though its a game, its amazing what sort of bogged down mess one can get into (and also as a game it over simplifies things)

Thats what air support is for ;)

[Wolfshade]

As EG says interferring with a civil war is full of pitfalls after all one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

We can see as in Egypt the issues of topolling dictatorships and replacing them with democracies. We are involved in protracted peace keeping in Afghanistan and Iran, not to mention any other conflicts.

There is also the issue of whether these democracies are any better than the dictatorships that they replaced.

"The problem that the west has is that the democracies are not liberal and the liberals are not democratic"

[Aenir]

Thats what air support is for ;)

I do think you still might be oversimplifying it...but then again im still of the theory that if you truly want to win a war, you level anything in the combat zone over say 8 feet tall, help them build up afterwards. Not while you are actively fighting. Problem is collateral damage (name of my gaming group funnily enough). In this situation im more of the (some would say heartless) let them duke it out.
Neither side is fond of the west in particular, and our intervention should be to only destroy or secure those weapons which may or may not have been used on (choose one or more) the people/the troops/empty space and used by rebels/regime/all of the above

Sorry for formatting, this phone while posting doesnt like these forums...

Also i hope im getting my point across without sounding like tooo much an *******

[Psychosplodge]

There's too much scope for escalation.
Can you imagine if the west intervened and then the regime started throwing gas into Israel like Saddam did with the scuds in the first Gulf war?
It would potentially turn messy very quickly. And that's without whatever Russia and China might potentially throw into the pot.

[Wildeybeast]

Here's what's bugging me- why are we intervening? Clearly not because we care about the horrific humanitarian cost. If we did we would have intervened years ago. What is so much more awful about killing a few hundred civilians with chemical weapons than the dozens of children shot every day by snipers, the tens of thousands who have died and the millions who have been displaced? What message does it send to the world when we say 'if you are going to murder your own civilians, you have to do it using normal bullets and explosives'? This principled stance smacks of hypocrisy and impotence.

Furthermore, what is intervention going to accomplish? There is no talk of anything other than missile strikes. Given Syria's reasonably effective airforce and anti-air weaponry that the Russians have made damn sure they have, even a no fly zone can't be enforced without loss of life to western forces, something no government seems willing to countenance after Iraq and Afghanistan. Most experts are saying that missile strikes will do next to nothing alter the balance of power on the ground and that the west is only pushing ahead with this because having previously (and laughably) declared that chemical weapons are 'a red line' they now have to deal out some form of token punishment to avoid utter humiliation.

[Aenir]

I dont think they care about hypocricy, but chemical weapons have always seemed to have been a step above and beyond conventional arms. Look at the horror of chemical weapons during ww1. Coventional people seem to accept as a "cost of doing business" but anything beyond really endangers things on a scale conventional cannot hope to touch

[Psychosplodge]

Syria isn't a signatory to the convention banning their use.
Maybe the easiest option would be to embargo them back to the stoneage?

[Wolfshade]

Not point in invading they don't have any oil....

Do we need a world police? Also why should we as foreigners dictate how a society should live and develop.

Reminds me of "A Private Little War" (ST:TOS)


Syria isn't a signatory to the convention banning their use.
Maybe the easiest option would be to embargo them back to the stoneage?

Because that has worked so well in Iran...

[Psychosplodge]

I thought they only had a weapons embargo?
I meant a complete trade embargo.

[Aenir]

Syria isn't a signatory to the convention banning their use.
Maybe the easiest option would be to embargo them back to the stoneage?
Wouldnt work because China/Russia wont go for it either because they lose money, dont want to agree with the us, or any number of other reasons that they could come up with i just dont think the UK+US have that much money in syria that it would hurt them effectively

[Psychosplodge]

True, suppose they need to sell their chemical weapons to someone...

[Wildeybeast]

I dont think they care about hypocricy, but chemical weapons have always seemed to have been a step above and beyond conventional arms. Look at the horror of chemical weapons during ww1. Coventional people seem to accept as a "cost of doing business" but anything beyond really endangers things on a scale conventional cannot hope to touch

Even a hundred years ago they never achieved higher casualty rates than walking blindly into heavy machine gun fire. I get that they are indiscriminate, but so is shelling a heavily built up area and snipers on both sides have been deliberately targeting children in Syria. What is so much worse about chemical weapons that I'm not getting?

[Aenir]

Probably the method, you get shot, its relatively cut and dry, you get gassed, you are choking internal lung damage long term that can never heal, depending on whats being used of course.

[Psychosplodge]

I think it's the horrific wounds it causes to those that survive it, it's possible to make quite a good recovery from getting shot in some cases.
Getting gassed, not so much...

[Wildeybeast]

I get the psychological impact, but are the wounds more horrific than having your arms and legs blown off, your face burned to buggery or seeing your child's head explode as a sniper round passes through it?Apparently the market where they have been targeting kids is divided into two camps whenever the shot rings out some trying to duck or huddle against the walls (like it will make any difference) and others just keep walking normally with a grim sense of fatalism. It seems such an arbitrary distinction to say that suffering chemical weapons cause is worse than that.

[Psychosplodge]

Well by the time you hear it it's too late isn't it?

I dunno on the other stuff, but they never banned machine guns...

[White Tiger88]

Oh look Russia is backing Syria.......Should i be surprised at where this seems to be going?

[Wolfshade]

Oh look Russia is backing Syria.......Should i be surprised at where this seems to be going?

Don't forget teh Assad regime was an active ally in the Gulf War I, the us had no issues with them then...

[eldargal]

God damnit people, last time I saw this thread it hd like 8 posts now it's three pages and I thought 'Woo, flame war' and got my main flailing at fire gif and 'well that escalated quickly' meme pic and find everyone is being civil.><

Funny Wolfy should mention Star Trek, I've often felt that the developed world should have some sort of Prime Directive when it comes to interfering in the internal affairs of other nations. So we can mediate, provide peacekeepers if asked, lead by example re: human rights etc. but not just bomb the **** out of a place because we don't like what's going on. Because you can't stop two sides from fighting if they really want to.

[Psychosplodge]

Don't forget teh Assad regime was an active ally in the Gulf War I, the us had no issues with them then...

I thought they were neutral, or am I misremembering their options in BravoTwoZero?

[Wolfshade]

Funny Wolfy should mention Star Trek, I've often felt that the developed world should have some sort of Prime Directive when it comes to interfering in the internal affairs of other nations. So we can mediate, provide peacekeepers if asked, lead by example re: human rights etc. but not just bomb the **** out of a place because we don't like what's going on. Because you can't stop two sides from fighting if they really want to.

It isn't funny, it is because I am a genius.

I wonder if the Irish problem would have resovled quicker if we had levelled the flare up zones.

[White Tiger88]

Because you can't stop two sides from fighting if they really want to.


I would say the "bomb the crap out of them" Option would stop them pretty nicely, as would the tactical nuke.....But lets all not forget Religion caused most of the BS going on right now. (OH and a power hungry little nut case in a bad suit)

[Wolfshade]

I thought they were neutral, or am I misremembering their options in BravoTwoZero?

No, they were active in the coalition, though it caused issues with the arab league who were not entirely happy with their decision.

[eldargal]

I would say the "bomb the crap out of them" Option would stop them pretty nicely, as would the tactical nuke.....But lets all not forget Religion caused most of the BS going on right now. (OH and a power hungry little nut case in a bad suit)

Still won't work. They will only stop fighting to fight us or our interests and it could escalate and be made much, much worse. Democracies are great when genuinely threatened, can't crush that spirit but in what is just a cabinet war support will crumble and we will end up pulling out without achieving anything but making things worse.

[Wolfshade]

If the region were to be de-populated it would bring the civil war to a close...

[Psychosplodge]

That's what I never understood, there's a catholic Ireland right there that's happy to give Northern Irish catholics citizenship... Don't like the North? move to Dublin...

Isn't that what Assad's trying to do with the gas Wolfie?

[eldargal]

If the region were to be de-populated it would bring the civil war to a close...

But if we don't care about their lives why are we intervening? Let them kill each other and spare us becoming murderers by democratic guvmint.

[Wolfshade]

Isn't that what Assad's trying to do with the gas Wolfie?

Depends who you ask... I would stay out of that whole quagmire issue. Is it rebels? Is it the regime? Is it the Mujahideen?

Of course the whole of Ireland should be under the crown...

[Wolfshade]

But if we don't care about their lives why are we intervening? Let them kill each other and spare us becoming murderers by democratic guvmint.

We are not are we? I say let the French do it...

[Psychosplodge]

Depends who you ask... I would stay out of that whole quagmire issue. Is it rebels? Is it the regime? Is it the Mujahideen?

Of course the whole of Ireland should be under the crown...

Definitely one of them.

True. They didn't object to being a United Kingdom when I launched an invasion of the mainland in Viking Invasion as the irish...

[daboarder]

I really don't care, even if the west gets involved with the best of intentions give it a year or so and you'll have whichever dickheads wind out on top standing up and loudly proclaiming it was all an imperialist plot by us to begin with. Look to egypt for an idea, if they want to butcher themselves and behave like animals them let them, and shoot anyone that tries to drag the conflict outside the boarder.

[Wildeybeast]

shoot anyone that tries to drag the conflict outside the boarder.

The only problem with that is the people controlling the border are the Israelis and they aren't exactly renowned for their sense of proportionality.

[Wolfshade]

Yeah, I can't imagine Israel sitting still if an errant missile lands in their territory..

[daboarder]

The only problem with that is the people controlling the border are the Israelis and they aren't exactly renowned for their sense of proportionality.

Everyone always forgets that they managed to keep a cool head while Saddam was dropping scud missiles on them, missiles that potentially were carrying biological weapons of mass destruction.

[Psychosplodge]

Everyone always forgets that they managed to keep a cool head while Saddam was dropping scud missiles on them, missiles that potentially were carrying biological weapons of mass destruction.

That was mostly American pressure.

[Wildeybeast]

Probably because the rest of the world did something about it. It's not like the Israelis have ever given a sh1t about international law or what the rest of the world thinks.

[eldargal]

I'm not sure Israel is as keen to pick fights as people think, a lot of people underestimate the significance of Israel being the first nation in history to lose battles for territory to a guerilla force, as in Hezbollah were able to prevent the IDF from overrunning their positions. The rhetoric is still there but they don't seem as willing to follow through.

[Wildeybeast]

No, they don't want to pick fights, just vigorously defend their land. Regardless of whether it is actually their land.

[daboarder]

That was mostly American pressure.

Still shows that they are able to keep an eye on the bigger picture instead of tearing into their neighbours like the rabid dogs people think they seem to be.

[Psychosplodge]

Indeed.
I think they play by the rules, just their rules...

[daboarder]

doesn't everyone?

[Psychosplodge]

No. Some have no rules, and most of the west have standardised theirs more or less...

[Wolfshade]

Parliment is recalled...

[DarkLink]

The vast majority of American are opposed to another military intervention. I could see drone strikes, but I wouldn't expect boots on the ground.


No, they don't want to pick fights, just vigorously defend their land. Regardless of whether it is actually their land.

Exactly. They're surrounded by countries that want to nuke them into non-existance, and they actually do legitimately get terrorists trying to sneak into their country. It's not a recipe for making the Israeli look kind and accepting, but they do know how to keep a border secure.

[Kyban]

The only reason there's call for an intervention now is because it's getting so much media attention that there's pressure to do something about it. It's why it was so easy to ignore before, out of sight out of mind. It's doubtful an intervention will accomplish anything but media has a way of forcing policy so it's likely there will be one.

[daboarder]

The only reason there's call for an intervention now is because it's getting so much media attention that there's pressure to do something about it. It's why it was so easy to ignore before, out of sight out of mind. It's doubtful an intervention will accomplish anything but media has a way of forcing policy so it's likely there will be one.

.....I don't know about where your from mate, but in australia I haven't seen more than two days in the last 2 years without a news article about whats going on there....


And its a right cluster f*ck, especially because these good guy "rebels" well from what I understand a good chunk of them are extremist jihadists, I know you get whatever help you can in that situation. But those kinds of people are not going to be all buddy-buddy with us for pulling their ***** out of the fire. I mean one of their leaders said it was ok to rape and murder women and children if they were alawites.........

[Kyban]

.....I don't know about where your from mate, but in australia I haven't seen more than two days in the last 2 years without a news article about whats going on there....


And its a right cluster f*ck, especially because these good guy "rebels" well from what I understand a good chunk of them are extremist jihadists, I know you get whatever help you can in that situation. But those kinds of people are not going to be all buddy-buddy with us for pulling their ***** out of the fire. I mean one of their leaders said it was ok to rape and murder women and children if they were alawites.........

Before the last couple of years it had been pretty quiet, or maybe I'm just too young, but it seems like the pressure has been growing since then and it's really "front page" now and other than Egypt it's the big concern.

Neither side is exactly a paragon of virtue so how do you intervene without choosing a side? That seems to be the big problem right now, hopefully without using any troops.

[DarkLink]

Blowing up whatever building Assad happens to be in at the time would be a fairly good way of telling them to play nice while they're trying to kill each other:rolleyes:. Just sayin'.

[Denzark]

Why react to chemicals killing kids and not snipers or indiscriminate conventional artillery? several reasons:

1. It is against a (the) chemical weapons treaty. Now don't talk to me about assad not being a signatory - unless you back the principal that your neighbours in town can pick and chose the laws they obey, even though the rest of society think they are essential - that is stupid.

2. Linking to the above, they are rated as WMD - a big no-no.

3. Obama declared use of chemicals a 'red line' on 20 Aug 12. We pretty much have to go, or show the world that the POTUS can just be ignored when he sets 'red lines' - making the US a toothless tiger.

Should Assad get the good news? Yes, clearly, he is worse than Gaddafi was when we went in, and he is worse than Saddam was when we went in.

Should we worry about his air defence systems? Not overly. Allow me to explain. We (the RAF) have the Typhoon. Its detractors comment on how, in the twenty-tens, it is just coming into service, and it is 80's technology. Yes, yes it is. And that technology, buffed somewhat since design, was designed with fighting the Soviet Air Defence system and winning. Also yank F-22. We have all this awesome gear designed to make mincemeat of Russian design - of which Assad's troops using them don't fill me with dread. The arab is culturally far more at home with light raiding rather than conventional warfare. At least so Tom Clancy says and I am inclined to agree.

So, lets hurry up and let those overpaid aircrew stick-monkeys earn their pay for a change, get dropping bombs.

[Kyban]

Blowing up whatever building Assad happens to be in at the time would be a fairly good way of telling them to play nice while they're trying to kill each other:rolleyes:. Just sayin'.

Yep, though historically dictators have been hard to pinpoint.

[Wolfshade]

The other thing to consider is that in such conflicts it is invariably the US & UK that take the lead.

It is of import to consider how unpopular such protracted engagements have become, I think both governments would be wary of sending troops into another protracted conflict that they cannot win. Especially as the pull out of troops has only really just begun.

The other thing to consider is the financial positions both countries are in. USA are predicted to hit the borrowing limit in October this year and that is with just forecast expenditure, let alone taking into consideration the additional costs of launching a new war. The UK has similar issues with the significant reduction of costs of the army and the need to reduce the deficit.

The chemical attack which I think we will all agree took place, the difficulty is trying to determine who it is. Common sense says that the Syrian regime owns and maintains such agents so it is most likely them, after all it target a place they had previously been targeting. The common wisdom is that rebels wouldn't attack their own position.

The conspiracy theorist says, well now, if I am engaged in guerilla war against a better organised and supplied army then I need all the help I can get. In order to balance or triumph I need external intervention. But how to force the west to action? Nerve agents is the way forward, but you can't use it, or wait for you opponent to use it, instead you create your own, or steal it from defective units/bases and then attack your own position. It will look like you are the victim pulling in the west to your side.

Cynical/Conspiracy up there with the lizardmen perhaps but who knows the truth is often stranger than fiction. To my mind the regime has more to lose with chemical warfare than it has to again, but then again I am no military strategist.

[daboarder]

One thing that I haven't seen yet is conclusive evidence that is was assad who used the chemical weapons. This is a civil war, which means that the all "sides" potentially have access to any weapons that we're once controlled by the state as a whole.

Just sayin'

[Wildeybeast]

Only if the rebels have managed to gain control of them. They are lucky if they have access to anything beyond some AK47s and a few RPGs. They are still poorly equipped compared to the Syrian army. Even if they had, they would be stupid to use them as it would automatically wipe out any international support they had. But probably the most telling thing is that if they had somehow managed to pinch some, Assad would have started shouting it from the rooftops the second news of the chemical attack started spreading. The best he could manage was some vague story about his soldiers finding drums of chemicals in a underground facility and getting poisoned by them and that only emerged several days later. No one other than the Russians is in any doubt that it was Assad who used them (and they privately will know it was him). Even the Chinese aren't leaping to his defence, which is as sure a sign as any that he is screwed.



Exactly. They're surrounded by countries that want to nuke them into non-existance, and they actually do legitimately get terrorists trying to sneak into their country. It's not a recipe for making the Israeli look kind and accepting, but they do know how to keep a border secure.

I was referring to their illegal occupation of Palestinian land. They seem to have a different understanding of what constitutes their land to the rest of the international community. Up until now American support meant no one did very much, though the EU (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23327014) has suddenly decided it's had enough after 50 odd years of the Israelis taking the mickey.


Blowing up whatever building Assad happens to be in at the time would be a fairly good way of telling them to play nice while they're trying to kill each other:rolleyes:. Just sayin'.

Won't happen. Not only is he hard to find but he is likely to surround himself with women and children the second the bombs start dropping. Furthermore, although the west is discussing punitive measures, whatever passes for justice in these situations demands that he stands trial for his crimes. It is rank bad manners to simply blow him up and deny the Syrians the opportunity for a show trial followed by grisly public execution.

[Bigred]

I agree that this is more about the Western powers making sure they don't look weak and that a marker is put down for any future nations considering the use of chemical weapons.

At this point unfortuantely there is more to lose by inaction for various nations than the risk of action.

I'm assuming a very robust cruise missile campaign targeting every chemical weapon production facility and known weapons stockpiles.

If they don't think they can politically enforce a no-fly zone, I would assume the "dont do it again penalty" of hitting most of the Syrian airforce on the ground.

Probably a heavy wave of cruise missile, a pause for BDA, and cleanup strikes via B-2s for the hard to reach stuff.

[Kyban]

That's seems to be the consensus for the action plan. It doesn't look like it will do much to the chemical weapons they've been showing in the news though, they all seem to be cached away in random buildings. It might send a message to the regime but if the rebels are using them bombing won't really help.

[Bigred]

I would assume strikes on any heavy artillery batteries as well - which are easier to locate than the shells.

If you remove the delivery systems of an airforce and a large percentage of heavy artillery, the big chemical weapon rounds become much harder to use. Not exactly the type of thing you want to drive right up to your enemies and try to set off.

[DarkLink]

I was referring to their illegal occupation of Palestinian land. They seem to have a different understanding of what constitutes their land to the rest of the international community. Up until now American support meant no one did very much, though the EU (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23327014) has suddenly decided it's had enough after 50 odd years of the Israelis taking the mickey.

They don't care if it's illegal, because they need a buffer zone to protect themselves against another invasion. The last time the amassed military might of the rest of the middle east attacked, Israel was in pretty dire straits. Pissing off the international community is a small price from their perspective.

[daboarder]

when was that?

[DarkLink]

There are several instances, actually, but I'm specifically referring to the Yom Kippur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War) war. A coalition lead by Egypt and Syria invaded Israel. Israel managed to hold, and then launched a counter-offensive that is pretty much the reason why everyone thinks the Israeli military is so badass even to this day. My overall point is, Israel has been at a constant state of, at the least, cold war for pretty much its entire existence, and unlike the wars most of the western world have been involved in, with the exception of WWII, each war Israel has fought in has pretty much been a life-or-death struggle for survival. Israel is outnumbered and outgunned, and it gets attacked on a pretty regular basis. So I don't blame them at all for having a slightly different outlook on national security than the rest of the western world.

Edit:

Here's a picture that puts things into perspective. Green is the countries that have attacked, or provided military support to those attacking, Israel. Blue is Israel.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/50/Arab_Israeli_Conflict_6.png/800px-Arab_Israeli_Conflict_6.png

[daboarder]

Yeah thought you you might have been talking about the 6 day war, was going to say that that had been a pre-emptive strike by israel.

[White Tiger88]

well i give it 6-48 hours before the first shots are fired against Syria...........

[Psychosplodge]

Should Assad get the good news? Yes, clearly, he is worse than Gaddafi was when we went in, and he is worse than Saddam was when we went in.

Should we worry about his air defence systems? Not overly. Allow me to explain. We (the RAF) have the Typhoon. Its detractors comment on how, in the twenty-tens, it is just coming into service, and it is 80's technology. Yes, yes it is. And that technology, buffed somewhat since design, was designed with fighting the Soviet Air Defence system and winning. Also yank F-22. We have all this awesome gear designed to make mincemeat of Russian design - of which Assad's troops using them don't fill me with dread. The arab is culturally far more at home with light raiding rather than conventional warfare. At least so Tom Clancy says and I am inclined to agree.

So, lets hurry up and let those overpaid aircrew stick-monkeys earn their pay for a change, get dropping bombs.

I thought the problem with the Typhoon was it was a air to air fighter designed by committee, for half a dozen countries with different requirements, without including an internal cannon, or initially any ground capability, delivered late and over budget?


The other thing to consider is that in such conflicts it is invariably the US & UK that take the lead.

It is of import to consider how unpopular such protracted engagements have become, I think both governments would be wary of sending troops into another protracted conflict that they cannot win. Especially as the pull out of troops has only really just begun.

The other thing to consider is the financial positions both countries are in. USA are predicted to hit the borrowing limit in October this year and that is with just forecast expenditure, let alone taking into consideration the additional costs of launching a new war. The UK has similar issues with the significant reduction of costs of the army and the need to reduce the deficit.

The chemical attack which I think we will all agree took place, the difficulty is trying to determine who it is. Common sense says that the Syrian regime owns and maintains such agents so it is most likely them, after all it target a place they had previously been targeting. The common wisdom is that rebels wouldn't attack their own position.

The conspiracy theorist says, well now, if I am engaged in guerilla war against a better organised and supplied army then I need all the help I can get. In order to balance or triumph I need external intervention. But how to force the west to action? Nerve agents is the way forward, but you can't use it, or wait for you opponent to use it, instead you create your own, or steal it from defective units/bases and then attack your own position. It will look like you are the victim pulling in the west to your side.

Cynical/Conspiracy up there with the lizardmen perhaps but who knows the truth is often stranger than fiction. To my mind the regime has more to lose with chemical warfare than it has to again, but then again I am no military strategist.

Apparently the gas used could probably be cooked up by the average first year degree student.
There's also the option it's a breakaway faction of the Assad loyalists, or a minor rebel group, pretty much outside of anyones control.
Or maybe just the lizardmen...


I agree that this is more about the Western powers making sure they don't look weak and that a marker is put down for any future nations considering the use of chemical weapons.

At this point unfortuantely there is more to lose by inaction for various nations than the risk of action.

I'm assuming a very robust cruise missile campaign targeting every chemical weapon production facility and known weapons stockpiles.

If they don't think they can politically enforce a no-fly zone, I would assume the "dont do it again penalty" of hitting most of the Syrian airforce on the ground.

Probably a heavy wave of cruise missile, a pause for BDA, and cleanup strikes via B-2s for the hard to reach stuff.

Considering Obama made it a Red Line it looks like the minimum we can expect are missile/drone strikes.

[White Tiger88]

Screw missile and drones i want to see tanks pounding stuff into the ground with some Black Hawks + Fighter jets!

[eldargal]

If they are going to attack I just hope they set clear goals for what they want to achieve. Free and open democracy in Syria? We've already lost. Oust Assad? Quite achievable. Replace him with a more stable, less brutal regime? Possible.

[Wolfshade]

Let us replace him with Democracy, then when the democratically elected government is rejected for not bieng liberal, we'll have the army depose the regieme....oh wiat Egypt tried that...

[Phototoxin]

Why is it such a problem when *someone* used chemical weapons - there's no evidence that its Assads lot, especially as he's winning the civil war. Why jeopardise it by inviting Team America and friends to attack by using chemical weapons?

In addition when Israel used white phosphorous recently there was no plans to invade. It's one rule for 'the west' and another for the rest.

[Psychosplodge]

Doesn't everybody use white phosphorus?

[Wildeybeast]

They don't care if it's illegal, because they need a buffer zone to protect themselves against another invasion. The last time the amassed military might of the rest of the middle east attacked, Israel was in pretty dire straits. Pissing off the international community is a small price from their perspective.

It has nothing to do with a buffer zone. If it did, they wouldn't be building settlements there, in violation of international law. Furthermore, it would also be incredibly shortsighted as it is as sure a way as any to guarantee Palestinian terrorism continues. The Israelis believe (and I use that word very deliberately) that the land is theirs and are entirely within their rights to evict and oppress the people that have lived for the last few thousand years.

[Denzark]

Why is it such a problem when *someone* used chemical weapons - there's no evidence that its Assads lot, especially as he's winning the civil war. Why jeopardise it by inviting Team America and friends to attack by using chemical weapons?

In addition when Israel used white phosphorous recently there was no plans to invade. It's one rule for 'the west' and another for the rest.

Photo see my post #58 above. Simply, white phos ain't a WMD.

[Wolfshade]

Of course of one the biggest issues is that if the west intervenes to take out Assad's military positions, then the west has defacto sided with the rebels, regardless of the overal scheme, what they would have done is attacked the government troops stockpiles. Now this is a very uncomfortable position to be in given that the rebels also include elements of Jihadists some of which are even supposed to be Al-Quiada (or however you spell it).

[daboarder]

A WMD it may not be but its reintroduction to warfare along with Napalm means that the US has been committing warcrimes since the vietnam war.

Its still defined as a chemical weapon.

And Photo, think about it, biological and nuclear weapons are taboo for a good reason.

[Wildeybeast]

I thought they were only warcrimes if you were on the losing side?

[daboarder]

not by definition....but usually yeah

[Cap'nSmurfs]

As ever, we've forgotten our Von Clausewitz. We've got all the plans in the world for the actions we're going to take and how we're going to carry out those actions. But as with Iraq and Afghanistan, our actual strategic and political goals are kind of... up in the air. Expect more meaningless deaths.

[daboarder]

the strategic goal will be simple and well defined. Find who ever is using biological weapons and grind them into dog meat. The political goals will cause the problems.

[eldargal]

As ever, we've forgotten our Von Clausewitz. We've got all the plans in the world for the actions we're going to take and how we're going to carry out those actions. But as with Iraq and Afghanistan, our actual strategic and political goals are kind of... up in the air. Expect more meaningless deaths.

Yup, that's what worries me. No clear long term goals, just things we want done. We don't like Assad, chemical weapons have been used, maybe by Assad. So we bomb the **** out of the place and oust him. Then what? If that's it then we need to be prepared for an ongoing civil war as that is what will happen whether Assad is there or not, factions will vie for control including Assad loyalists. If we want to restore peace then that will require an occupation.


the strategic goal will be simple and well defined. Find who ever is using biological weapons and grind them into dog meat. The political goals will cause the problems.
The political problems cause the strategic problems in this case, though. Again von Clausewitz is relevant, war is politics by other means. The problem in Syria is that possibly BOTH sides are using chemical weapons, so we just level the place and be done with it? Is genocide really going to be a strategic goal here? If we want to stop the use of chemical weapons we need to address the political causes for the conflict.

[Wildeybeast]

I'm not actually certain that regime change is on the cards. There has been no suggestion of it by anyone, simply that the use of chemical weapons cannot be tolerated. If regime was something they actually cared about, they would have done it some time ago. Libya established that the west has no stomach for boots on the ground operations any more (random French expeditions in Africa aside) and, as I previously mentioned, none of the experts think missile strikes will do anything to alter the balance of the civil war. This seems an entirely punitive measure designed to 1) (certainly) show the west actually means it when they tell people not to do stuff 2) (probably) 'punish' Assad for killing some of his civilians 3) (possibly) destroy his stockpiles of chemical weapons.

[Phototoxin]

I thought they were only warcrimes if you were on the losing side?

Ding ding ding ! we have a winner!

This is it, it's fine for the US and its allies to do bad things because TEAM AMERICA SAVES THE DAY.

In addition isn't it the rebels that are using the chemical weapons. Its like if the boston bomber had lauched a gas attack and someone said ZOMG chemical weapons in America, bomb Washington! It makes no sense.

Also it seems that this has been planned for a while, but now when there's a vaguely legitimate reason for war there's a big rush into it. War is such a vast undertaking and the most important action a state can take, surely it should be approached cautiously and not with eager anticipation.

[Wildeybeast]

I'm not sure anyone is eager for it (since there is no oil and Assad hasn't killed any Westerners), but there is a desire to get the ball rolling quickly to avoid looking impotent or before the international will for it ebbs away.

[Phototoxin]

I'm not sure anyone is eager for it (since there is no oil and Assad hasn't killed any Westerners), but there is a desire to get the ball rolling quickly to avoid looking impotent or before the international will for it ebbs away.

I don't think there is any international will for it in the first instance!

[eldargal]

In addition isn't it the rebels that are using the chemical weapons. Its like if the boston bomber had lauched a gas attack and someone said ZOMG chemical weapons in America, bomb Washington! It makes no sense.

Also it seems that this has been planned for a while, but now when there's a vaguely legitimate reason for war there's a big rush into it. War is such a vast undertaking and the most important action a state can take, surely it should be approached cautiously and not with eager anticipation.

It's unclear who is using what, that's the problem. It is quite likely the Assad regime is using chemical weapons, it also possible though unconfirmed the rebels are too. The rebels are certainly no angels (they never are) which is why we really should question getting involved in any political goings on, if we are just going to destroy chemical weapon stockpiles (on both sides, one presumes) and punish whomever used them (both sides? Hm) then that is quite feasible. My worry is we will get drawn into another civil conflict and just **** the place up.

[Wildeybeast]

We won't get drawn into it (again, ref. Libya) but we may eff the place up. Though when children are being shot by snipers and chemical weapons are being deployed willy nilly, I'm not sure we could actually make it any worse.

[daboarder]

world might be better off if we just write syria off and glass the place, I mean everyone who wants out would have gotten out buy now right?

/extreme.

[eldargal]

The problem with that, apart from the gross immorality, is that we then empower anti-Western elements across the Middle East and beyond.

[Psychosplodge]

world might be better off if we just write syria off and glass the place, I mean everyone who wants out would have gotten out buy now right?

/extreme.

Which way does the wind normally blow?

[eldargal]

Also, thousands of years of history and heritage belonging to far more than just Syria would be destroyed. Not to mention all the cranky Syrians outside the country who will be enraged about it.

[Wildeybeast]

We could get the Israelis to do it for us and then all the Arabs would hate them again instead of us. Problem solved.

[daboarder]

I know I know....I'm just tired of putting up with all this crap.

[Kyban]

We could get the Israelis to do it for us and then all the Arabs would hate them again instead of us. Problem solved.

So, status quo?


I know I know....I'm just tired of putting up with all this crap.

You the inquisition? *EXTERMINATUS!* :p

[Denzark]

A WMD it may not be but its reintroduction to warfare along with Napalm means that the US has been committing warcrimes since the vietnam war.

Its still defined as a chemical weapon.

And Photo, think about it, biological and nuclear weapons are taboo for a good reason.

No, WP is not defined as a chemical weapon, it is an incendiary weapon.

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

[Bigred]

It's coming very, very soon.

Canary in the coalmine:

Russian cargo jet evacuating Russian citizens from Syria (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23847839)


a Russian transport plane landed in the Syrian city of Latakia with a cargo of humanitarian aid.

The aircraft later left with dozens of Russian citizens on board, an official spokeswoman for the Russian Emergencies Ministry, Irina Rossius, told Russian news agencies.

The flight was intended to evacuate Russians who wanted to leave Syria, she added.

The Russians have been informed...

[daboarder]

No, WP is not defined as a chemical weapon, it is an incendiary weapon.

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

Incendiary weapons ARE chemical weapons. They really on a chemical reaction/compound to do their killing, not kinetic force.

Napalm, White phosphorous, flame throwers are all illegal by international law.

[DarkLink]

Tricky thing about WP is that it's used for a lot more than just as an anti-personnel round. It's used both as an illumination round and for smokescreens, and frankly if a little gets on the bad guys, well, we're trying to kill them anyways. Concern with the technicalities of which weapons we can and cannot use is not the highest priority of frontline military commanders in the middle of a firefight. Not that the rules of engagement aren't a big deal for military leadership, but it's a practical problem. Mission accomplishment is top priority, and the safety of the men and women under your command is second. Arbitrary guidelines are third at best when they don't tie directly into mission accomplishment.


If they are going to attack I just hope they set clear goals for what they want to achieve. Free and open democracy in Syria? We've already lost. Oust Assad? Quite achievable. Replace him with a more stable, less brutal regime? Possible.

I do find it ironic (regardless of whether or not I think we should or shouldn't go in) that the last couple of times we took military action against a dictator for the use of chemical weapons and/or removed the dictatorship with the intent of installing a friendly, peaceful democracy, people like Obama and John Kerry were deriding it as illegal and immoral. Now that it's their turn, "President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapon against the world's most vulnerable people. Nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny".

Unfortunately, the culture of the middle east is so messed up that dictators tend to get replaced with more dictators, and often as not the people only stand up for democracy and peace in a theoretical sense. Any real progress is going to be a long, hard road, until the people of the middle east get their **** together and figure out there are better things to do that murdering and torturing each other. Until they learn that lesson, all we can do hand out the occasional helping hand.

[Bitrider]

If they send in the Leopard 2 & Abrams with some air support....Problem solved. (Then again a nice Cruise missile is Assad's face would work as well)

/signed

[DarkLink]

Incendiary weapons ARE chemical weapons. They really on a chemical reaction/compound to do their killing, not kinetic force.

Napalm, White phosphorous, flame throwers are all illegal by international law.

By that definition, all bombs are chemical weapons. That's not actually the case.

Chemical weapons essentially refer to poison. Nerve gas, tear gas, things like that are essentially poisons of varying degrees of lethality.

White Phosphorous and Napalm, however, simply burn. They are incendiary weapons, not chemical weapons, because their function is to light stuff on fire. The fact that they use chemicals to facilitate that function does not make them chemical weapons any more than the fact that c4 is a chemical compound makes it a chemical weapon.

[Denzark]

Incendiary weapons ARE chemical weapons. They really on a chemical reaction/compound to do their killing, not kinetic force.

Napalm, White phosphorous, flame throwers are all illegal by international law.

Yes, it is all based on chemistry, very good cobber. However their legal status, as per the various conventions and laws of armed conflict, is in a separate category to chemical weapons. To whit, incendiary weapons.

[jgebi]

Are you guys really arguing over whats a chemical weapon and whats not? well the definition that most use being anything that uses a chemical reaction to cause harm encompasses all modern Weapons of war. But in reality it's only poisonous substances excluding tear gas (it is a Chem Weapon) also it's not just chem weapons that are banned the use of incendiary rounds/shells is all but prohibited on anything except armored units also their are a handful of chem weapons that are aloud e.g. tear gas. The real question is, is it really that bad? if we are talking white phosphorus then no not really as it is a quicker kill then most weapons that are aloud. whats so bad about them then? it's the fact that their is no control over who gets killed thats why they are banned also the fact that they destroy formally fertile land (which is bad)

Also funny fact most of these bans come to stop a repeat of WWI & II but also to stop america/russia from taking over the world.

[Wolfshade]

I think that the Russian position is the better position, investigate these claims of chemicals and try and verify who is responsible, after all joining the wrong side of this conflict has significant consequences, what does another few days/weeks mean.

[daboarder]

Yes, it is all based on chemistry, very good cobber. However their legal status, as per the various conventions and laws of armed conflict, is in a separate category to chemical weapons. To whit, incendiary weapons.

According to the Protocol III of the UN Convention on Conventional Weapons governing the use of incendiary weapons:
prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (effectively a reaffirmation of the general prohibition on attacks against civilians in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions)
prohibits the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets located within concentrations of civilians and loosely regulates the use of other types of incendiary weapons in such circumstances.[6]
Protocol III states though that incendiary weapons do not include:
Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminates, tracers, smoke or signaling systems;
Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect, such as armour-piercing projectiles, fragmentation shells, explosive bombs and similar combined-effects munitions in which the incendiary effect is not specifically designed to cause burn injury to persons, but to be used against military objectives, such as armoured vehicles, aircraft and installations or facilities.

Its from wiki but the relevant source information is.

http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/ccwc

basically a tracer round is not illegal, until its used on someone.


I think that the Russian position is the better position, investigate these claims of chemicals and try and verify who is responsible, after all joining the wrong side of this conflict has significant consequences, what does another few days/weeks mean.

Pesonally I think I'd rather trust krushchev over putin.....and thats saying something.

[DarkLink]

basically a tracer round is not illegal, until its used on someone.

Ummm..... tracers aren't incendiary, and they are used to shoot people just like most other types of bullets.


(b) Incendiary weapons do not include:

(i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems;

[eldargal]

Tricky thing about WP is that it's used for a lot more than just as an anti-personnel round. It's used both as an illumination round and for smokescreens, and frankly if a little gets on the bad guys, well, we're trying to kill them anyways. Concern with the technicalities of which weapons we can and cannot use is not the highest priority of frontline military commanders in the middle of a firefight. Not that the rules of engagement aren't a big deal for military leadership, but it's a practical problem. Mission accomplishment is top priority, and the safety of the men and women under your command is second. Arbitrary guidelines are third at best when they don't tie directly into mission accomplishment.



I do find it ironic (regardless of whether or not I think we should or shouldn't go in) that the last couple of times we took military action against a dictator for the use of chemical weapons and/or removed the dictatorship with the intent of installing a friendly, peaceful democracy, people like Obama and John Kerry were deriding it as illegal and immoral. Now that it's their turn, "President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapon against the world's most vulnerable people. Nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny".

Unfortunately, the culture of the middle east is so messed up that dictators tend to get replaced with more dictators, and often as not the people only stand up for democracy and peace in a theoretical sense. Any real progress is going to be a long, hard road, until the people of the middle east get their **** together and figure out there are better things to do that murdering and torturing each other. Until they learn that lesson, all we can do hand out the occasional helping hand.
Yup, the issue comes when it is used as an anti-personnel round in urban areas (like Fallujah in 2004) and the potential for lots of horrific injuries on civilians is possible.

Yeah, also kind of disturbing how people forget Afghanistan at least was a genuine Just War, legal and everything, now that it's not going so well. Iraq, well, it was legal just poorly thought out and justified through outright lies and the result is a fundamentalist puppet state of Iran so just a catastrophe all around.

There are some hopeful signs though, Jordan has a constitutional monarchy helping it transition to democracy for example and oddly enough Saudi Arabia has made some significant progress and the UAE is quite civilised in many ways.

[daboarder]

Ummm..... tracers aren't incendiary, and they are used to shoot people just like most other types of bullets.

Hmm missed that, they we're illegal during WW1. I know that one because you had to get signed permission from a commanding officer to use them in aircraft to shoot down enemy balloons.



There are some hopeful signs though, Jordan has a constitutional monarchy helping it transition to democracy for example and oddly enough Saudi Arabia has made some significant progress and the UAE is quite civilised in many ways.


Please, the UAE is only "civilised" with respect to the rest of the despots. They'll still lock a woman up for years because she was raped.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/42367/alicia-gali-rape-victim-who-was-jailed-for-being-assaulted-in-uae-tells-her-story

The only reason the pardoned here this year was because this and other vile incidents put a hole in their oh so needed tourist reputation. Its a cess pit with the bare minimal of equal rights.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/dubai-pardons-norwegian-woman-marte-dalelv-jailed-for-reporting-rape/story-e6frg6so-1226683393597

I mean how MAGNANIMOUS of them....pardoning the woman after only 4 months, truly they are the epitome of human rights./sarcasm

[Psychosplodge]

Please, the UAE is only "civilised" with respect to the rest of the despots. They'll still lock a woman up for years because she was raped.

It's relative civilisation, like Australia is relatively civilised apparently when compared to the US :D

[daboarder]

thats like saying stalin was civilized, because your comparing him to hitler. They both murdered millions but one of them only did it in their own ****hole

[eldargal]

Hmm missed that, they we're illegal during WW1. I know that one because you had to get signed permission from a commanding officer to use them in aircraft to shoot down enemy balloons.




Please, the UAE is only "civilised" with respect to the rest of the despots. They'll still lock a woman up for years because she was raped.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/42367/alicia-gali-rape-victim-who-was-jailed-for-being-assaulted-in-uae-tells-her-story

The only reason the pardoned here this year was because this and other vile incidents put a hole in their oh so needed tourist reputation. Its a cess pit with the bare minimal of equal rights.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/dubai-pardons-norwegian-woman-marte-dalelv-jailed-for-reporting-rape/story-e6frg6so-1226683393597
Despite that they have equality for women in the constitution and have actually delivered on it to a significant degree. Remember I said 'hopeful signs' not that they were there yet. To be frank what we do rape victims here when they go to the courts is only marginally better, we don't lock the up but we put THEM on trial and drag their character, mode of dress and every possible transgression out to be examined and ridiculed.

[daboarder]

......only marginally better? since when, I mean the poor girl in that ****stain stubbenvile was treated better than the average rape victim in dubai.

If thats people idea of a "civilised" middle eastern nation I'd still happily burn the place.

the only reason the above women were let free at all was because of international outcry....what happens to the locals?

its all well and good to give people rights on a piece of paper, but if its not acted upon its just another piece of pandering corrupt crap.

I mean what happens if a bloke is rapped by a guy, or a girl by another woman? do the humanly execute them because not only is it "pre martal relations" its also homosexual.....thats not enlightenment or "civilisation" thats just more mess wrapped in roses.

[eldargal]

Yeah, and now the attorney general of some state or other in the US is advising boys how not to incriminate themselves in such cases. Let me spell this out, one of the highest legal authorities in the USA is actively going to help boys reduce the chances of them being caught when they rape a girl. Not, you know, tell them not to rape a girl. Here we deliberately and systematically tear apart their lives in what is supposed to be a trial of someone else. We have very little to feel high and mighty about in this regard. Well you might, not sure how things are in Australia re: rape victim treatment.

[daboarder]

So america is terrible too? that doesnt mean you can call dubai "civilised" when its clearly not.

worst thing I think I've read about out here was the father who got given community service for raping his daughter....teh fallout was so bad his sentence is not only being appealed by the Attorney-General he was also put into protection.

but then I wouldn't call such a situation "civilised" either and am absolutely sickened by it.

[eldargal]

Well I said quite civilised in many ways, and they are. The UAE is larger than Dubai too. They have problems and are actually addressing them, rather than sticking their head in sand or actively persecuting people.

[daboarder]

......they locked a woman up for being raped.....how is that not actively prosecuting people......

look define "civilised" for me, then explain to me how criminalising the victim fits in there....I mean are they civilised because they didn't kill them in one of those disgusting "honour killings" how nice.....

shall we just agree to move on?

[Psychosplodge]

Look, until you can have sex on the beach without going down for months, they're taking themselves too seriously...

[eldargal]

......they locked a woman up for being raped.....how is that not actively prosecuting people......

look define "civilised" for me, then explain to me how criminalising the victim fits in there....I mean are they civilised because they didn't kill them in one of those disgusting "honour killings" how nice.....
In one UAE country, yes. Here 80-90% of rapes don't even get reported and of those that do the conviction rate is 3%. We have little moral high ground here. It's also, to my knowledge, only happened once or twice we don't actually know one way or the other how widespread this is.

[daboarder]

so if I drag this over to the feminism thread, or said that the actions of the dickheads in stubenville were "relatively civilised" what do you think would have happened? People would have gone ballistic, and rightly so.....

http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/01/29/dubais-shameful-record-rape

[Wolfshade]

Look, until you can have sex on the beach without going down for months, they're taking themselves too seriously...

Too easy...

Fundamentally before you can even consider a military solution (if that isn't an oxymoron) a long hard look needs to be at what are the objectives, what is the exit strategy and very importantly credible intelligence as to the source of any alleged chemical agents.

Remember all those WMD that were found in Iraq...

[Psychosplodge]

Remember all those WMD that were found in Iraq...

Remember that wagon full of money they found Sadam's sons with? I always assumed that was the money Sadam thought he'd been spending on nerve gas...

He couldn't possibly have played chicken for that long without thinking he actually had them?

[eldargal]

so if I drag this over to the feminism thread, or said that the actions of the dickheads in stubenville were "relatively civilised" what do you think would have happened? People would have gone ballistic, and rightly so.....

http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/01/29/dubais-shameful-record-rape

Except I'm not saying rapists were relatively civilised (they were foreigners working in Dubai funnily enough) I'm saying the NATIONS of the UAE are quite civilised. America is civilised (relatively...), they still have a rape culture.

[Phototoxin]

Why not bomb Israel, I mean they used chemical weapons, no doubt on that. Could do it while waiting for the UN to see who was using them in Syria.

[daboarder]

Lets grind this into the dirt some more.

http://www.hrw.org/middle-eastn-africa/united-arab-emirates


The human rights situation in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has worsened as authorities arbitrarily detain civil society activists, holding them in secret, and harassing and intimidating their lawyers. An independent monitor found significant problems in the treatment of migrant workers on the high-profile Saadiyat Island project in Abu Dhabi, identifying the payment of illegal recruitment fees as a key concern.

yay for "relative civilisation"

[eldargal]

I hadn't seen that, a bit discouraging but it hardly translates to cess pool.

[Wolfshade]

Why not bomb Israel, I mean they used chemical weapons, no doubt on that. Could do it while waiting for the UN to see who was using them in Syria.

Because:
a) They are relatively stable
b) They can defend themselves readily against conventional warfare
c) They are a protectorate of the US
d) They are "civilised" (as long as you aren't a Palestinian in the wrong location...)
e) History shows killing Jews is never really good move

[Phototoxin]

Because:
a) They are relatively stable
b) They can defend themselves readily against conventional warfare
c) They are a protectorate of the US
d) They are "civilised" (as long as you aren't a Palestinian in the wrong location...)
e) History shows killing Jews is never really good move

So that makes it ok to use illegal weapons.

[Dave Mcturk]

sell the country to the highest bidder ...

saudi arabian wahabbi fruitcakes[nuf sed] ... / turkey; but we really want to be in europe but our brotherhood doesnt like singing or dancing or alcohol or shaving or immodest dress or heretics or apostates... /or russia! - where wearing a coloured scarf can be seen as inciting children into rampant homosexual activity...

or just leave them to stew... with a dictator who has been in power since the 1970's

just proves the un is almost a complete waste of space !

[eldargal]

Yeah, Turkey is nothing like that.

[Wolfshade]

So that makes it ok to use illegal weapons.

Yes, because they are "winners" and winners don't get convicted of war crimes... O_o (see earlier)

[daboarder]

not always, but mostly yes

[Wildeybeast]

e) History shows killing Jews is never really good move

Well, not for the Jews. No one else ever really gives a toss.

As for whether somewhere is civilised, it is quite hard to define. We have to talk about more than just their criminal justice system, though that can be a good indicator. Look at levels of poverty, education, healthcare, technological development, equality and so forth. America electrocutes people to death which Europe considers to be highly barbaric and a violation of human rights, but is that enough to class them as 'uncivilised'?

[Psychosplodge]

I thought there were many more reasons than that we considered them uncivilised?

[Wolfshade]

Well, not for the Jews. No one else ever really gives a toss.
Selecuidians tried and their empire fell
Rome tried and their empire fell
French tried and their empire fell
Holy Roman Empire tried and their empire fell
Moors tried and their empire fell
Babylonians tried and their empire fell
Egyptians tried and their empire fell
3rd Reich tried and their empire fell
Soviet Union tried and their empire fell
Apartide South Africa tried and their rule fell
etc..


As for whether somewhere is civilised, it is quite hard to define. We have to talk about more than just their criminal justice system, though that can be a good indicator. Look at levels of poverty, education, healthcare, technological development, equality and so forth. America electrocutes people to death which Europe considers to be highly barbaric and a violation of human rights, but is that enough to class them as 'uncivilised'?

As you say civilised is somewhat a subjective term. If I believe that capital punishment is wrong, then any place where that is practiced is brutish. If I believe that people should be descriminated based on gender/sex/hair colour then anywhere that takes place I wouldn't.

[eldargal]

Well, Rome sacked Jerusalem in 69AD and sacked it gain in 135 and fell three and a half centuries later with the Eastern Empire lasting another millennium and controlled Jerusalem until 634 or something. So not the best example.

Also the Holy Roman Emperor actively protected the Jews for much of it's history and indeed the fall of the German and Austrian empires and the loss of Imperial protection after WWI helped facilitate the Na zi atrocities.

[Wolfshade]

While there is correlation there is no causation with any of the list :D

You could do it with almost anything, like suffrage, all those places didn't allow women voters and all fell - history tells us women should vote.

[Wildeybeast]

So we won WW2 because we gave women the vote? But then we did naff all to help the Jews so we should have lost. I'm confused.

[eldargal]

So we won WW2 because we gave women the vote? But then we did naff all to help the Jews so we should have lost. I'm confused.
Well, we lost the Empire but everyone was vaguely embarrassed and decided to stay in the Commonwealth anyway so maybe they kind of cancelled each other out?

[Wolfshade]

Well, we lost the Empire but everyone was vaguely embarrassed and decided to stay in the Commonwealth anyway so maybe they kind of cancelled each other out?

I thought the losing of the empire was because of allowing suffrage.. either way this is a rather weird subversion that I think we should stop and get back on topic :(

[DarkLink]

In one UAE country, yes. Here 80-90% of rapes don't even get reported and of those that do the conviction rate is 3%. We have little moral high ground here. It's also, to my knowledge, only happened once or twice we don't actually know one way or the other how widespread this is.

I think it's worth noting, however, that for one there's nothing that authorities can do if no one ever reports the crime to them to be investigated, and rape tends to be a difficult crime to prove as it often become he-said-she-said, and that's not always enough evidence to convict. Generally, I don't see this as a moral failing on the part of the authorities, normally, though there are obviously exceptions.


Why not bomb Israel, I mean they used chemical weapons, no doubt on that. Could do it while waiting for the UN to see who was using them in Syria.

They've used white phosphorous, not chemical weapons. We've already gone over this.

[Wildeybeast]

We didn't lose it. It became easier to let the troublesome natives rule themselves/elect bloodthirsty dictators is all. Half of them moved over here anyway.

[Psychosplodge]

I thought the losing of the empire was because of allowing suffrage.. either way this is a rather weird subversion that I think we should stop and get back on topic :(

Are you feeling ok?:confused:

[Wildeybeast]

Are you feeling ok?:confused:

Yeah, that's distinctly unHorsemanlike talk there Wolfie.

[eldargal]

I think it's worth noting, however, that for one there's nothing that authorities can do if no one ever reports the crime to them to be investigated, and rape tends to be a difficult crime to prove as it often become he-said-she-said, and that's not always enough evidence to convict. Generally, I don't see this as a moral failing on the part of the authorities, normally, though there are obviously exceptions.
Yeah, but there are reasons they go unreported, one of them being an awful lot of women don't think they will be taken seriously or fear having their lives scrutinised in minute detail by the process. Obviously that isn't the case all the time but in a sizeable percentage. Then you get a lot which are reported but don't get taken seriously by the police and I don't mean the usual problems with evidence and such I mean girls who get completely ignored or actively dissuaded by the police.

[daboarder]

....AND Russia sticks it in......

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-29/russia-sends-in-warships-as-syria-tensions-escalate/4923506

I would not seriously be surprised at this point if we had survived a cold war and religious terrorism just to let some bat**** crazy dictators and a washed up superpower start WW3......

[Denzark]

Why not bomb Israel, I mean they used chemical weapons, no doubt on that. Could do it while waiting for the UN to see who was using them in Syria.

Photo it has been repeatedly pointed out that whilst, yes, weapons with phosphorous in work on a chemical reaction and thus could be described* as a chemical weapon, WP is not defined legally by the various conventions governing the laws of armed conflict, as a chemical weapon per se. It is an incendiary. So please source where you think Israel has used chemical weapons as defined by international law, as opposed to any weapons that you describe as chemical because they involve a chemical reaction - which could be almost any modern weapon system.




* by people either without the legal/military knowledge or intellect to understand the difference, or by those who do but obtusely choose to ignore it in favour of trolling about something controversial, ie Israel. I am not convinced yet where you come in.

[daboarder]

* by people either without the legal/military knowledge or intellect to understand the difference, or by those who do but obtusely choose to ignore it in favour of trolling about something controversial, ie Israel. I am not convinced yet where you come in.

Denzark you couldamade your point without this, dont be that guy

[Wolfshade]

All weapons use conventional chemistry to work...

Just in.

British MPs have voted to reject possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.


There are four questions that need to be asked and answered by policymakers before our military forces are committed to any conflict. The first is what does a good outcome look like? The second is can such an outcome be engineered? The third is would we be part of the engineering of such an outcome? And the fourth is how much of the outcome do we want to own? In the case of Syria, it is not at all clear that any of these questions can be answered satisfactorily.

The country is a tinderbox, which could well ignite a wider regional conflict. Syria is a country where political, historical and religious tectonic plates meet, and the current conflict represents – to many people – a proxy war between the political forces of Sunni and Shia Islam in the region.

...Then there is the question of what we might get if we sided with the rebels in trying to topple the regime of Bashar al-Assad. There is no doubt that this is one of the nastiest governments around, yet many of the groups that make up the Syrian rebels appear to be at least as unpalatable. Many of the hardline rebel leaders are affiliated to Al Qaeda and are anti-West, anti-Christian and anti-Israel, hardly reasons to give political or military endorsement. For all these reasons and for all the complications that they bring, I do not believe that it makes sense to intervene in the conflict within Syria. The temptation to want to “do something” is entirely understandable when we see scenes of death and destruction on our TV screens. But we have to accept the limitations in our ability to affect – in a positive way – some of the conflicts in the world today, particularly those conflicts which are, in effect, a civil war

One of the better speaches full text here(http://www.cityam.com/article/1377734784/we-must-accept-our-limited-capacity-resolve-conflict-tinderbox-syria?utm_source=website&utm_medium=TD_morefromauthor_under_article&utm_campaign=TD_morefromauthor_under_article)

[DarkLink]

That said, Phototoxin so far sounds like he really doesn't like Israel very much, and has been willing to literally make up stuff to justify it. He sounds like the people who don't like Bush because they actually think we invaded Iraq for oil.

[Wolfshade]

All weapons use conventional chemistry to work...

Just in.

British MPs have voted to reject possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.


There are four questions that need to be asked and answered by policymakers before our military forces are committed to any conflict. The first is what does a good outcome look like? The second is can such an outcome be engineered? The third is would we be part of the engineering of such an outcome? And the fourth is how much of the outcome do we want to own? In the case of Syria, it is not at all clear that any of these questions can be answered satisfactorily.

The country is a tinderbox, which could well ignite a wider regional conflict. Syria is a country where political, historical and religious tectonic plates meet, and the current conflict represents – to many people – a proxy war between the political forces of Sunni and Shia Islam in the region.

Full text http://www.cityam.com/article/1377734784/we-must-accept-our-limited-capacity-resolve-conflict-tinderbox-syria?utm_source=website&utm_medium=TD_morefromauthor_under_article&utm_campaign=TD_morefromauthor_under_article

[Denzark]

Denzark you couldamade your point without this, dont be that guy

I could, but we seem to be running round the same buoy again and again as to legal status of these weapons.

[Phototoxin]

That said, Phototoxin so far sounds like he really doesn't like Israel very much, and has been willing to literally make up stuff to justify it. He sounds like the people who don't like Bush because they actually think we invaded Iraq for oil.

I don't like the blatant double standards and hypocrisy.


Opposition leaders have in the past accused the Syrian government of deploying another type of chemical as a weapon — white phosphorous, which is not covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention.

White phosphorous is often used in war as a tracer, to illuminate targets and aircraft landing sites. But if dropped on a person, white phosphorous can melt skin and will keep doing so for hours.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021686339_syriasidebarxml.html


"The IDF acts only in accordance with what is permitted by international law and does not use white phosphorus."
It eventually admitted its use and stopped using the shells, however, saying that a "media buzz" led to its decision to do so.

[Brakkart]

Gotta say I quite like John Cleese's response to the whole situation in Syria:


ALERTS TO THREATS
IN 2013 EUROPE

From JOHN CLEESE

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the *******s." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.


Regards,
John Cleese ,
British writer, actor and tall person


And as a final thought - Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.

Life is too short...

[daboarder]

Gotta say I quite like John Cleese's response to the whole situation in Syria:

HAHAHA love it!

[Mr Mystery]

On balance, and whilst I feel for those caught up in the ongoing violence in Syria, I think Westminster has come to the correct decision.

The whole area is trouble, and although the west is faced with an ultimately no-win situation, keeping out is still the best course of action. Things are slowly, and painfully changing across the region. If we were to go in literally guns blazing, we'd sadly just be pouring petrol on the fire, regardless of nobility of intent.

[scadugenga]

Gotta say I quite like John Cleese's response to the whole situation in Syria:

That meme's been around for several years now.

Though still funny.

[eldargal]

On balance, and whilst I feel for those caught up in the ongoing violence in Syria, I think Westminster has come to the correct decision.

The whole area is trouble, and although the west is faced with an ultimately no-win situation, keeping out is still the best course of action. Things are slowly, and painfully changing across the region. If we were to go in literally guns blazing, we'd sadly just be pouring petrol on the fire, regardless of nobility of intent.

Agreed.

[daboarder]

Can I just say, some of the placards being waved around britain today are just stupid.

"Hands off syria" and "don't attack syria, no more imperialist wars" Do those idiots even know the situation....I mean they realise that someone just got gassed right?.....just too dumb to breath!

You know the stupid thing, these same people were probably the first people to get behind things like "kony 2012"......

The sickening thing is, give it 5 years and a genocide and those same people will be the ones decrying their own government for not doing anything.....

note: as I said earlier I don't think we should get involved but for the reasons mystery said, those people made their bed and they wouldn't thank us anyway.

[eldargal]

It's probably the same idiots that think we should give up the Falklands and Gibralter against the democratic wishes of their populations because of 'imperialism'. Don't take them too seriously, no one here does.

[daboarder]

thats heartening,


Also, why does the middle east continually antagonise the west as if the west had no balls. (forgive the expression eldargal)

http://www.news.com.au/world-news/middle-east/did-syrian-president8217s-son-hafez-alassad-11-goad-us-in-facebook-post/story-fnh81ifq-1226707616304

I mean they do realise that western society has historically been the most violent and extremely brutal civilisation on the planet? Not only are they decades ahead (in some cases hundreds) of most of these nations, its also the society that invented the nuclear bomb and then used it on people, came up with the idea of the concentration camp and then to top it off has shown time and time again a willingness to commit (and even industrialise) genocide.....why would anyone in their right mind want to piss that monster off?

http://www.news.com.au/world-news/us-to-strike-syria-8216as-early-as-thursday8217-senior-defence-officials-report/story-fndir2ev-1226707022988

[eldargal]

If it's true he's 11, what the hell would he know?

A lot of people don't understand democracies. We bicker and argue and look weak perhaps to outsiders but you attack us and that disappears because deep down we all know we are invested in the process even if apathy takes over most of the time.

[Bigred]

I'm sure the US will go on ahead without the UK, but I'm most shocked by the 24 hour public reversal for the Prime Minister.

Normally you see these types of things handled behind closed doors or between Secretaries of State, so you find supportive language if formal military support is not a possibility. It also avoids public embarrassment of heads of state.

I can only assume that Cameron went into this thinking he had the cat in the bag until he didn't.

I can't remember the US and the UK not being in lockstep over a major foreign affairs issue like this in my lifetime.

[daboarder]

I'm sure the US will go on ahead without the UK, but I'm most shocked by the 24 hour public reversal for the Prime Minister.

Normally you see these types of things handled behind closed doors or between Secretaries of State, so you find supportive language if formal military support is not a possibility. It also avoids public embarrassment of heads of state.

I can only assume that Cameron went into this thinking he had the cat in the bag until he didn't.

I can't remember the US and the UK not being in lockstep over a major foreign affairs issue like this in my lifetime.

Don't confuse a prime minister with a president, cameron has to answer to his party and the parliment, they outvoted him if he was to ignore that then its possible his own party would remove him from office.

oh and vietnam wasn't that long ago, nor was the falklands

[eldargal]

A lot of people still feel that we were lied into going to war in Iraq (well, we were) so I wouldn't be at all surprised if a lot of MPs appetite for another cabinet war is not particularly great.

[DrLove42]

Gove has apparantly called the people who voted against it, particularly in his own party, "a disgrace". Cos standing up for the beliefs of those you represent in a democratic governement is disgraceful apparantly...


As ever, the comments section on the BBC (if filtered by best rated and lowest rated) is a wonderful cross section of stellar human beings, and people who could be used as evidence for post natal abortion...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

[Psychosplodge]

205.
Chuck
7 Hours ago

If it was not for the US Military , you British would be speaking German .



It still amazes me that anyone believes this, we'd still be talking slowly, loudly and waving our arms around.

[Wolfshade]

Hundreds of people have been killed by chemical agents, tens of thousands by convential weapons. I am not sure how pouring more weapons and soilders in the region would do anything but increase this number.

The problem is that while most people would agree that they use of chemical agents is wrong and should be abhored, we do not know for certain who is responisble, though conventional wisdom would suggest it was the regime, but we all know conventional wisdom is not always right.

At a time when the military budgets are being cut being involved in an unclear war in the middle east is not something that I would like to see. If there is a need for it, let it come through official channels otherwise we are no more guilty of breaking international law than the purpentrators.

Furthermore, if we do take out the chemical production facilities, then we are defacto supporting the rebels, who include jihadists which is not something that I could ever condone.

[daboarder]

the only reason that expression on conventional vs chemical and Nuclear works wolf, is because those weapons are so utterly indiscriminate and devastating that they scare the **** out of people so much that even nutbags like hitler and stalin don't use them...and thats with good reason.

its M.A.D theory

oh and I wouldn't worry about budget cuts in the US defense spending, your still a couple of orders of magnitude above china, the next biggest spender.


It still amazes me that anyone believes this, we'd still be talking slowly, loudly and waving our arms around.

people are dumbasses.

[Psychosplodge]

I don't know how I feel about this, I can't see what intervening will achieve, but the vote just doesn't sit right with me for some reason.

I do think those protesting the loudest will be the same ones shouting we should have done something if it turns into a Yugoslavia style purge of the "wrong" people from the country...

[Wolfshade]

Oh I understand daboarder, I do, I also agree that there should be something done to prevent the usage of these.

But how is a nerve agent any more indiscriminate then the naplam rocket that hit a school yesterday? Or shelling the wrong target, or shooting and getting people caught in crossfire?

But Syria didn't sign up to the convention and there is not indisputable proof that they are behind it.

I am not convinced that a military solution would be effective

[daboarder]

well the nerve agent persists and has lingering affects, there is no way to take shelter form it and the terror, pain and suffering it afflicts on ALL its victims is extreme.

signing up to the chemical convention is a moot point, if it was a nuclear weapon it wouldnt matter if the had "signed up" at all. the world has not seen significant usage of chemical weapons since ww1 and in many ways the public has forgotten how temperamental and horrific they are.

[Wolfshade]

Again I don't disagree, but who is responsible for it?

[daboarder]

Doesn't matter really, if the fighting has escalated to the point where either side has decided to go that far then both combatants should be ground into the mud to stop it going further.

the other alternative is to wall em up and let em kill each other but the problem is, allowing the use of chemical weapons sets a very very dangerous precedent. I guarantee other nations like North Korea or Iran will be looking very closely at how far the west is willing to go over this. The real problem is Putin sticking his 2 cents in for no reason other than to be a dick and throw a spanner in the works due to the escalating tension between the US and Russia.

[Denzark]

Can I just say, some of the placards being waved around britain today are just stupid.

"Hands off syria" and "don't attack syria, no more imperialist wars" Do those idiots even know the situation....I mean they realise that someone just got gassed right?.....just too dumb to breath!

You know the stupid thing, these same people were probably the first people to get behind things like "kony 2012"......

The sickening thing is, give it 5 years and a genocide and those same people will be the ones decrying their own government for not doing anything.....

note: as I said earlier I don't think we should get involved but for the reasons mystery said, those people made their bed and they wouldn't thank us anyway.

The sad fact is that no matter what the government says is a reason for intervention, liberal lefties will think intervention is 21st century imperialism. They have no idea that there are some things you just cannot let happen. If the decision not to go was based on sensible thought, such as 'We can't afford it' or 'Syria is not worth the bones of one British soldier' then I'd get with that. But it is based on this idea that intervention is imperialist. Because clearly our Iraqi Colony has been exploited by us since the invasion, right? All that oil we get out of them, right?

I even watched some silly bint Carole Malone, a columnist for the Mirror, on Sky news late last night. She actually came out and said 'David Cameron wants to be seen as an international statesman, but that is not his job'. Hang on, not the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland's job to interact and lead on the world stage?

So, what was a red line, the use of chemical weapons, has become acceptable in the eyes of dictators. Ie, you can get away with it, Britain won't intervene. Parliament and all the lefty intelligentsia have just assisted the global political aims of that well known human rights champion, Russia, also Iran, and Assad, chief gasser of civilians.

I am disgusted with the thought that the moral courage needed to act may now only be vested in the USA, and France FFS. The French. We just watched a victory for 21st century Neville Chamberlains. Peace in our time (unless of course you just shat up a lungful of Sarin gas).

[Psychosplodge]

Did she really say that? O_O

WTF does she think the prime ministers job is?

[Wolfshade]

The use of tear gas by the Argentines invasion of the falklands technically classed as a chemical attack and yet there were not cries to level Buenos Aires.

The only intervention that could come that would be neutral would be to take out both the regieme's army and the rebels then force them to come to the discussion table, this would require a very long time, consider how long Britian faced constant terrorism from Irish dissidents. This would be long and costly, and ultimately would be seen as another invasion of an arab state

[daboarder]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

edit: come on wolf, you can't compare tear gas (a chemical designed for use in operations where NOT killing the other guy is the goal) with nerve agents.

[Wolfshade]

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.

[Wildeybeast]

I don't know how I feel about this, I can't see what intervening will achieve, but the vote just doesn't sit right with me for some reason.

I do think those protesting the loudest will be the same ones shouting we should have done something if it turns into a Yugoslavia style purge of the "wrong" people from the country...

Pretty much my thoughts. I'm very much in the 'something must be done' camp but when we stop and think about it for a moment, what can we actually do to improve the situation. The answer is not much, which I think is pretty much the situation MP's found themselves in.

[daboarder]

He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.


And so context becomes important.

An intervention in Syria is not war mongering, war is already upon them.

Would Einstein support American neutrality in the face of German genocide?

[Wolfshade]

edit: come on wolf, you can't compare tear gas (a chemical designed for use in operations where NOT killing the other guy is the goal) with nerve agents.

I can't but the Geneva Protocol of 1925 can: 'Prohibited the use of "asphyxiating gas, or any other kind of gas, liquids, substances or similar materials'. Also, it was first developed as a weapon of war, then used for riot control later. So while you can use it on your own population, as soon as you use it against an enemies then it is chemical war.

[Wolfshade]

And so context becomes important.

An intervention in Syria is not war mongering, war is already upon them.

Would Einstein support American neutrality in the face of German genocide?

Don't forget America did remain neutral until Pearl Harbour when they were attacked so it is a moot point.

Just like Somalia I very much doubt that miltary action can get the solution required

[DrLove42]

America was hardly neutral pre-Harbour

They were shipping masive amounts of armaments and stuff to us across the Atlantic. its why the germans created the U Boat fleet

[Wolfshade]

How charitable profiting from another persons war...

[Psychosplodge]

How charitable profiting from another persons war...

http://th09.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/i/2011/115/7/3/aph__america__i__m_the_hero_by_ayachan43-d3ew4b9.jpg

[Denzark]

The use of tear gas by the Argentines invasion of the falklands technically classed as a chemical attack and yet there were not cries to level Buenos Aires.

The only intervention that could come that would be neutral would be to take out both the regieme's army and the rebels then force them to come to the discussion table, this would require a very long time, consider how long Britian faced constant terrorism from Irish dissidents. This would be long and costly, and ultimately would be seen as another invasion of an arab state

Wolfy - sorry, but can you point out any reference to where or who has 'cried to level Damascus'? I'm not aware of any - unless you could point them out, the 2 situations are clearly different.

As to your comment about Syria not having signed any convention on chemical weapons, I already pointed out many pages back how trite that argument is. Not everyone in this country has signed that they will obey the law that says you can't shag 8 year olds, do you therefore think it reasonable to let them get away with it?

[daboarder]

America was hardly neutral pre-Harbour

They were shipping masive amounts of armaments and stuff to us across the Atlantic. its why the germans created the U Boat fleet


Ah Drlove they were shipping it to BOTH sides, the germans just had to supply their own ships as they were the "aggressor"

not to mention the brits were PAYING for that stuff...through the nose.

[Wolfshade]

Daboarder mentioned griding people into the mud#176.
Perhaps it carried too much hyperbole, but the point is that despite numerous conventions outlawing chemical attacks, the use of such agents have continued since the treaty was first drafted pre WWI and yet on no other occasion has the international community swooped in just becuase of the use of chemical weapons. Gulf War I is perhaps the closest thing but that was arguably more for the genocide of the Kurds.

I agree that it is a trite argument. Your comments re peaophilia while emotive are not accurate, by living here you are bound by our laws. Take descrimination, I cannot descriminate based on sexual orientation on the mainland, all I have to do is take a boat across to Isle of Man and that law does not exist. While as a rational human I would not do so it does not mean that it was illegal.
If we are to up hold every nation to our exacting standards, firstly who are we to tell people that they are doing it wrong, and secondly surely that means that we should do something about descrimination where we see it, like russia where the government policy is to descriminate. But no, Russia is too big for us to militarily intervene so we let them go at it, do we denounce them? No, do we do any form of protest, no we just happily go to the winter olympics..

Yes, the international community needs to do something, yes this is not something that should be leveraged for international posturing but realistically, what can be done? Other than the depopulation of the country?

[daboarder]

just because people haven't acted upon this before doesn't mean they shouldn't now.

[Psychosplodge]

I've realised one of the things bugging me about it. I think after listening to him on the radio, Milliband and co are busy playing party politics to score points off the other muppets, rather than any acts of representation or conscience.

[Wolfshade]

No I agree with that senitemnt.

I just really cannot see what can be done militarily, other than a full scale invasion disarming/capturing/slaughtering the regieme's army and the rebel alliance.

[Denzark]

Now we get to the nitty gritty. We are not talking about old school area bombing whereby everyone cops a piece. What could be done? Precision attacks of Assad heavy weapons (tanks) and artillery, also his command and control nodes, to degrade his capability and redress the balance between him and the FSA.

Yes, there will be collateral. Yes, human error means civilians will die. He learns that he must keep things conventional or he suddenly finds he has less toys in the pram.

I don't know if anybody read the whole legal piece the UK government put together before the vote, but it was quite heavy on proof being necessary first.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/matthewholehouse/100233137/syria-uk-legal-position-in-full//

[daboarder]

Me neither, so where does that leave us, doing something terrible to prevent something worse, if thats what we decide fine by me.

[Wolfshade]

By "rebalancing" all you do is become a defacto ally of the rebels, which is not a good thing. Also, history shows us that when two armies are evenly balanced then a war is protracted and the casualties are staggering.

The other thing is that you have already decided that Assad is responible for non-con attacks which while I am 90%+ sure of before igniting this powder keg I would need more.

[daboarder]

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

just to lighten the mood

[Wolfshade]

Germany has ruled out military action.

[eldargal]

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

just to lighten the mood

That's really amusing.:)

[Denzark]

By "rebalancing" all you do is become a defacto ally of the rebels, which is not a good thing. Also, history shows us that when two armies are evenly balanced then a war is protracted and the casualties are staggering.

The other thing is that you have already decided that Assad is responible for non-con attacks which while I am 90%+ sure of before igniting this powder keg I would need more.

I don't think history showed us anything of the sort - this is Libya, just Assad is more powerful and more dangerous than Gaddafi. When Gaddafi's forces were given the good news from the air, this contributed to his downfall.

As to the burden of proof, the Joint Intelligence Committee has clearly laid the blame at the regime's feet. I have sufficient experience of how the UK assesses intelligence to take this at face value.

Don't come back with Iraq on the subject of wrong intelligence, because that was dollops of Labour spin. Besides, these chemicals have unequivocally been used - Saddam had not been chucking mustard around since the 80's. And, having sufficient sand on my boots in the last 6 years, I can tell you I'm proud of what we did in Iraq, even if the justification for going in may have been tosh.

[Mr Mystery]

I'm kind of hoping that the money that would be spent on military action is instead stockpiled to help rebuild when it's resolved, one way or the other.

[Wolfshade]

I wasn't going to mention Iraq for those reasons you mentioned.

Libya again is different, the UN passed resolution on that.

[Denzark]

I'm kind of hoping that the money that would be spent on military action is instead stockpiled to help rebuild when it's resolved, one way or the other.

Its not, its already spent on international aid for countries with nukes and space programmes like India. Also, the welfare budget.


I wasn't going to mention Iraq for those reasons you mentioned.

Libya again is different, the UN passed resolution on that.

Cameron told Neville Miliband he would ask for a UNSC resolution, however, knowing full well it would be blocked by Ruschina they laid out the legal basis. But the military objective would be the same, I think.

[eldargal]

I don't think history showed us anything of the sort - this is Libya, just Assad is more powerful and more dangerous than Gaddafi. When Gaddafi's forces were given the good news from the air, this contributed to his downfall.

As to the burden of proof, the Joint Intelligence Committee has clearly laid the blame at the regime's feet. I have sufficient experience of how the UK assesses intelligence to take this at face value.

Don't come back with Iraq on the subject of wrong intelligence, because that was dollops of Labour spin. Besides, these chemicals have unequivocally been used - Saddam had not been chucking mustard around since the 80's. And, having sufficient sand on my boots in the last 6 years, I can tell you I'm proud of what we did in Iraq, even if the justification for going in may have been tosh.

The difference is in Syria the rebels may be using chemical weapons too, they are certainly committing atrocities something which was less clear in Libya.

[Wildeybeast]

Don't come back with Iraq on the subject of wrong intelligence, because that was dollops of Labour spin. Besides, these chemicals have unequivocally been used - Saddam had not been chucking mustard around since the 80's. And, having sufficient sand on my boots in the last 6 years, I can tell you I'm proud of what we did in Iraq, even if the justification for going in may have been tosh.

Without wanting to sound like I'm having a pop, what did we do in Iraq? From my uneducated viewpoint it looks like there are far more people dying in Iraq now than there ever were under Saddam. What was the point in installing a 'democratic' government if it is incapable of protecting it's people?

[eldargal]

In a war against fundamentalist religious terrorism we turned a secular dictatorship into a fundamentalist religious state. With, as you say, more people dead and dying than under aforementioned dictator.

I believe it's called an 'own goal'.:rolleyes:

[Wolfshade]

Sounds a bit like Egypt...

[Denzark]

Without wanting to sound like I'm having a pop, what did we do in Iraq? From my uneducated viewpoint it looks like there are far more people dying in Iraq now than there ever were under Saddam. What was the point in installing a 'democratic' government if it is incapable of protecting it's people?

The vast majority of Iraqis I spoke to were massively happy for us to be there, and to have delivered them out from Saddam's claws. The fact it is turning into a shoitehole now I would lay more at DFID/FCO than the MOD, because we are not there to build nations - DFID/FCO did not think the necessary moves ahead to assist in the best building of a nation state.

Anyhow, they are doing it their way, which ain't perfect but you need to read Seven Pillars of Wisdom to get this (if you can tolerate turgid homoerotic crap). Are there more people dying now than under Saddam? Really? Do you know how many UN independently assessed measures of nationhood (education, infant mortality, longevity etc) have all improved?

I won't rant off topic about it, but MILITARILY we did damned well.

Its considering things like this, Iraq, Syria, that makes me think a Heinlein Starship troopers esque slide to the right is inevitable and also moral. See also Leto II's Golden Path. People will be bored and their wills crushed by the discipline, but at least the pax regina will reign.

Feeling a bit empty today, sorry if I am off.

[eldargal]

The vast majority of Iraqis I spoke to were massively happy for us to be there, and to have delivered them out from Saddam's claws. The fact it is turning into a shoitehole now I would lay more at DFID/FCO than the MOD, because we are not there to build nations - DFID/FCO did not think the necessary moves ahead to assist in the best building of a nation state.
Of course, the vast majority (60%) are Shiites who are quite happy their faction is ruling the country after decades of oppression from the Sunni minority.

Also, how we did militarily is redundant because the ultimate goal of bringing a Western style democracy to the MidEast failed, instead we handed a puppet state in a vital, oil rich region to our (well, Americas anyway) main rival in said region. Battle won, war lost.

Even if things are better in Iraq, it costs hundreds of thousands of lives and something like two trillion USD. This was over an estimated cost of 50-60 billion back in 2003.

I'm not sorry to see Saddam go, unlike some anti-war groups by the way they carry on, but let's not pretend we did well there. We did not.

Also most of the measures you mention (education, infant mortality, longevity) were forced down by Western sanctions. Iraq had near Western levels of education and health in 1987, well into Saddams regime.

[daboarder]

the thing is, you don't hear about the good things, because the news doesnt report them, you need to go looking. Take Afghanistan, msot of the work being done by the australians over there is more things like building schools and the like than actual fighting.....

[Wolfshade]

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/

(bear in mind this is the guy who also brought us warnings of the lizardmen...)

[Wildeybeast]

I find myself siding more with EG on this one. I don't see we can separate out the military action from the diplomatic one. I'm not criticising our armed forces, they did what they were told and did it well, but when what they were told to do was so poorly thought out, I fail to see how it can be in any sense considered a success. The initial justification was utter horse poop, the end outcome was unclear and thus we had no hope of ever successfully getting there. I am sure most Iraqis are glad to be rid of the genocididal dictator but I'm pretty sure none of them imagined freedom would look anything like it does today. It was very much out of the frying pan and into the fire for them.

At least in the likes of Lydia and Syria there is already a transitional government ready to take the place of the ousted regime and a significant majority of the people there have asked for western intervention.

[eldargal]

the thing is, you don't hear about the good things, because the news doesnt report them, you need to go looking. Take Afghanistan, msot of the work being done by the australians over there is more things like building schools and the like than actual fighting.....
You don't hear about it no, but you can find out if you look, which is what I do. Not just basing it on media coverage, that's been bollocks for years with major terrorist attacks killing dozens of people being completely ignored or almost completely.

I'm not trying to denigrate our soldiering either, as Denzark said militarily we did extremely well. The problem was the whole exercise was a giant waste of money which ended up with people who we don't like, Shiite fundamentalists, in control and in cahoots with their ideological and financial backers in Tehran. So we spent two trillion USD on giving Iran a puppet state. Yay?

[Wildeybeast]

I'll just leave this here:

http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/

(bear in mind this is the guy who also brought us warnings of the lizardmen...)

David Ike?

[eldargal]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/q71/1238722_637902706243029_670307530_n.jpg

[Bigred]

For me the issue is one of scale.

On one side we have the government of Syria with an airforce, heavy artillery and lots of military grade chemical weapons (both gas, napalm, and probably others)
On the other side we have the rebels with whatever stolen and homemade stuff they can locally produce.

The goal needs to be to get rid of the ability of these weapons to be used on large standing populations - especially of civilians.
If a strike knocks out all the known stockpiles of the weapons and get rid of the delivery systems for using them on populations on a large scale - I would still consider that a plus, and a marker for future rogue nations who would consider their use.

If 6 months from now, both sides are reduced to using tiny batches of whatever they can cook up and have to deliver personally at close range - that may just be the best result the rest of the world can achieve.

It's the Mig-21s dropping napalm on schools and large gas attacks fired from range that has to be eliminated from the civil war.

[eldargal]

Yep, I think the problem is a lack of detail. We don't know what is being planned (which is fair enough from a military perspective). If they are just going to bomb Assad controlled airfields and suspected stockpiles and then let them fight it out, fair enough. Minimal casualties, clear achievable objectives. If they want to start tipping the war in one sides favour beyond just stripping Assad of chemical weapons capacity we start getting into problems.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

At least in the likes of Lydia and Syria there is already a transitional government ready to take the place of the ousted regime and a significant majority of the people there have asked for western intervention.

Neither of these claims is quite true. The Libyan "transitional government" - now the government, sort of - doesn't really control much of Libya. It acts more as a kind of broker between the various warbands/interest groups, mostly successfully (although there are still outbreaks of violence). It doesn't govern, though. The Libyan state was effectively shattered by the civil war, and the regions have mostly gone their own way, and sometimes they squabble among themselves. A few months ago there was another outbreak of fighting and a few hundred people were killed. Racist pogroms were also quite common after the fall of Ghaddafi. A nice pliable government didn't just seamlessly step in.

This is even before we consider what happened to the wider region - suddenly an awful lot of fighters for Causes throughout the region had weapons and military experience, and things spread into Mali and elsewhere. However long the fighting in the region is going to go on is anyone's guess.

Likewise, although there is a group calling itself the Syrian provisional government, it's debatable exactly how much support it has even among the disparate rebel groups, let alone the Syrian people at large (plenty of whom still support Assad, remember).

As far as I'm aware, there's nothing like a "significant majority" in favour of western intervention. It's not even possible to get reliable information on something like that - how are you going to conduct a poll, exactly? As ever, there's a few vocal groups who will tell you that they're all in favour of western intervention - mostly those who would benefit directly from it (the 'provisional government'). On the other hand, there are plenty of groups out there who absolutely do not want western "aid", whether that's because they're anti-west or because they see overturning Assad with Western aid as inhibiting their own legitimacy and ability to get things done in the post-Assad world. A lot of the wider region also does not want western intervention.

It's a real complicated situation, guys.

[Phototoxin]

1
Gove has apparantly called the people who voted against it, particularly in his own party, "a disgrace". Cos standing up for the beliefs of those you represent in a democratic governement is disgraceful apparantly...

As ever, the comments section on the BBC (if filtered by best rated and lowest rated) is a wonderful cross section of stellar human beings, and people who could be used as evidence for post natal abortion...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

As a person who is pro-life and who tries to be a pacifist (since lets face it most hot blooded humans have at some point wanted to inflict violence against perceived injustices, hence why I am not *actually* advocating nuking Israel) I have to wonder if post natal abortion should be encouraged in these instances!

[Mr Mystery]

Gove is a horrible little Weasel.

I simply count us lucky that given their track record currently, there's not much chance of the Tories getting a second sitting this time around. Alternatives may not be great, but hey. The Tories will just put Gove back in charge of education, and given his performance, that would be disastrous!

[Cap'nSmurfs]

Anything which upsets Michael Gove is alright by me.

As I see it, the Tories didn't win the last election, and they're sure as hell not going to win this one. Whether anyone else will, and whether it'll actually change anything, is another matter entirely.

[Mr Mystery]

Word!

[Cleon]

If a strike knocks out all the known stockpiles of the weapons and get rid of the delivery systems for using them on populations on a large scale - I would still consider that a plus, and a marker for future rogue nations who would consider their use.

The problem here is that using an air strike or missile to take out a sarin gas or other nerve agent stockpile is a REALLY bad idea if there is anyone even remotely nearby that you value the lives of (as once released it might go anywhere, not it will kill everybody).

This is where the difficulty with military action comes in. The only way to safely eliminate a stockpile of these weapons is to take the area and hold the ground long enough for specialists with the correct equipment and protective gear to come in and incinerate the agent. This is rather difficult to do against an organised military force in their own capital (and all signs are that the Syrian army is still potent especially in the areas around Damascus), with a semi modern and probably at least locally intact air defence grid without either deploying overwhelming force to the point where we are effectively fighting the war or their permission to do so.

Where David Cameron has err'd in my opinion is by pushing for military action (which we don't want to take, but we don't want the Syrians to know we don't want to take.) too soon and being forced to rule it out, we've effectively folded our hand as a nation and are now irrelevant.

What we should have been doing is sabre-rattling in an attempt to get the Russians to agree that in exchange for us (and primarily the US) not taking military action, they will get the Syrians to hand over their stockpiles to the Russian forces in Tartus to ensure there are no chemical attacks (large scale at least) by Assad's forces in future as to do so would be an insult to Putin personally and they can't afford to piss him off.

I know my preferred outcome is a little naive and there is too much pride at stake, but I don't see any chance for good outcomes here and it would at least allow the West (US, UK, France, etc.) to get a win and say "We acted to prevent further chemical attacks". The Russian's would get a win in being the big hero on the world stage. The Syrian Regime would get win as they wouldn't get struck (and they claim they aren't using the weapons anyway so wouldn't lose) and the Rebels would get a win as no more incoming chemical attacks.

[DarkLink]

You don't hear about it no, but you can find out if you look, which is what I do. Not just basing it on media coverage, that's been bollocks for years with major terrorist attacks killing dozens of people being completely ignored or almost completely.

I'm not trying to denigrate our soldiering either, as Denzark said militarily we did extremely well. The problem was the whole exercise was a giant waste of money which ended up with people who we don't like, Shiite fundamentalists, in control and in cahoots with their ideological and financial backers in Tehran. So we spent two trillion USD on giving Iran a puppet state. Yay?

On top of that, we built a bunch of schools and roads and stuff, and a lot of people there refuse to use them because we were the ones who built them.

[Wildeybeast]

Neither of these claims is quite true. The Libyan "transitional government" - now the government, sort of - doesn't really control much of Libya. It acts more as a kind of broker between the various warbands/interest groups, mostly successfully (although there are still outbreaks of violence). It doesn't govern, though. The Libyan state was effectively shattered by the civil war, and the regions have mostly gone their own way, and sometimes they squabble among themselves. A few months ago there was another outbreak of fighting and a few hundred people were killed. Racist pogroms were also quite common after the fall of Ghaddafi. A nice pliable government didn't just seamlessly step in.

This is even before we consider what happened to the wider region - suddenly an awful lot of fighters for Causes throughout the region had weapons and military experience, and things spread into Mali and elsewhere. However long the fighting in the region is going to go on is anyone's guess.

Likewise, although there is a group calling itself the Syrian provisional government, it's debatable exactly how much support it has even among the disparate rebel groups, let alone the Syrian people at large (plenty of whom still support Assad, remember).

As far as I'm aware, there's nothing like a "significant majority" in favour of western intervention. It's not even possible to get reliable information on something like that - how are you going to conduct a poll, exactly? As ever, there's a few vocal groups who will tell you that they're all in favour of western intervention - mostly those who would benefit directly from it (the 'provisional government'). On the other hand, there are plenty of groups out there who absolutely do not want western "aid", whether that's because they're anti-west or because they see overturning Assad with Western aid as inhibiting their own legitimacy and ability to get things done in the post-Assad world. A lot of the wider region also does not want western intervention.

It's a real complicated situation, guys.

I wasn't suggesting they were any good, merely highlighting the fact that when we invaded both Iraq and Afghanistan with a goal of regime change we in fact had no new regime to change to and also that there was no demonstrable will for regime change in either of those countries.

[Wolfshade]

To echo what Cleon says striking stockpiles would probably result in an uncontrolled release of the agents with the explosions pushing the gas out in all directions at staggering speed, any prevailing wind to take them out and about.

Indeed they would need to be taken and held to be taken out of the situation, either that, or you take out the ability to deliver the gas which is somewhat easier

[Bigred]

Cleon wrote:


The problem here is that using an air strike or missile to take out a sarin gas or other nerve agent stockpile is a REALLY bad idea if there is anyone even remotely nearby that you value the lives of (as once released it might go anywhere, not it will kill everybody).

I remember reading a few days back that the US Air Force said they had a select group of munitions that burn hot enough to do it safely from the air, but that they has limited aircraft that could carry them and they were not in the Med.

So perhaps whatever these munitions are, they are being moved into strike position over the last days and the cruise missile are for the more traditional targets like air defence, C3, and the like.

[Bigred]

Cleon wrote:


The problem here is that using an air strike or missile to take out a sarin gas or other nerve agent stockpile is a REALLY bad idea if there is anyone even remotely nearby that you value the lives of (as once released it might go anywhere, not it will kill everybody).

I remember reading a few days back that the US Air Force said they had a select group of munitions that burn hot enough to do it safely from the air, but that they has limited aircraft that could carry them and they were not in the Med.

So perhaps whatever these munitions are, they are being moved into strike position over the last days and the cruise missile are for the more traditional targets like air defence, C3, and the like.

[Wolfshade]

Then to deliver by air you need to take out the air defences and fighters, which are more modern than libya, though despite this the Israeli jets have not suffered to greatly when running incursions.

[Nabterayl]

This is possibly naive of me, but the British (well, Great Britain's) response seems to me like the way to go here. Okay, calling the use of chemical weapons a "red line" was maybe stupid. Probably shouldn't have done that. Yes, it makes us look a little silly to let that line be crossed without retaliating. But the idea that the punishment for using WMDs is to lose war materiel makes me deeply uncomfortable. The notion of hitting your target and not utterly obliterating it just strikes me as morally irresponsible, and the idea that the "target" in this case is properly construed as materiel seems ... well, ridiculous.

[Phototoxin]

This is possibly naive of me, but the British (well, Great Britain's) response seems to me like the way to go here. Okay, calling the use of chemical weapons a "red line" was maybe stupid. Probably shouldn't have done that. Yes, it makes us look a little silly to let that line be crossed without retaliating. But the idea that the punishment for using WMDs is to lose war materiel makes me deeply uncomfortable. The notion of hitting your target and not utterly obliterating it just strikes me as morally irresponsible, and the idea that the "target" in this case is properly construed as materiel seems ... well, ridiculous.

Again, how is using chemical weapons a Red line when Israel have used them. I can link you to gory pictures if you want.

[DarkLink]

In a war against fundamentalist religious terrorism we turned a secular dictatorship into a fundamentalist religious state. With, as you say, more people dead and dying than under aforementioned dictator.


But a lot fewer died in the war than in the past century of tyrannical dictatorship.



Also, how we did militarily is redundant because the ultimate goal of bringing a Western style democracy to the MidEast failed, instead we handed a puppet state in a vital, oil rich region to our (well, Americas anyway) main rival in said region. Battle won, war lost.


You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. We did basically everything we could, and the Iraqis still screwed it up. That's on them. Sure, with hindsight there's probably a lot of things we could have done better. But I think Teddy Roosevelt would have a thing or two to say about that sort of criticism.

Also, no we don't get oil from Iraq. Or at least not a significant amount. Europe gets a lot more from them now, in fact, and you can thank us for that. Saddam offered us a ridiculously good deal, like $5 a barrel, as a bribe to keep us out, and we turned it down. When the new government took over, a bunch of European based oil companies jumped on the opportunity and now a significant portion of Iraq's oil goes to Europe. But America? The vast majority of our oil is either domestic, or from Canada or something. About 10% comes from Saudi Arabia, and then from the rest of the middle east combined we get a trickle.



https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/q71/1238722_637902706243029_670307530_n.jpg

Made me laugh:).


Cleon wrote:



I remember reading a few days back that the US Air Force said they had a select group of munitions that burn hot enough to do it safely from the air, but that they has limited aircraft that could carry them and they were not in the Med.

So perhaps whatever these munitions are, they are being moved into strike position over the last days and the cruise missile are for the more traditional targets like air defence, C3, and the like.

I'm guessing, based on your description of burning hot and the target of chemical weapons in question, that they're talking about thermobaric bombs. The bomb drops, disperses a flammable chemical that reacts with the surrounding oxygen, then ignites that gas causing a massive shock wave. That would probably do a great job of burning any chemical weapons wafting around. It would probably also kill every single person in the area, too.

[Nabterayl]

Again, how is using chemical weapons a Red line when Israel have used them. I can link you to gory pictures if you want.
Well, it's a red line because the president said it was. The president specifically said, "Mr. Assad, you better not use chemical weapons, or else." As far as I understand it, that's what this is about for America. Assad used chemical weapons. We now have the choice of either (i) figuring out an "or else" or (ii) looking silly.

Personally, unless the "or else" is "or we will take from you everything you hold dear with all the force and all the immediacy we can muster" - and I for one am not willing to commit national resources to that kind of response, even if it was a good idea, which I'm not convinced it is - I vote for looking silly.

[eldargal]

But a lot fewer died in the war than in the past century of tyrannical dictatorship.



You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. We did basically everything we could, and the Iraqis still screwed it up. That's on them. Sure, with hindsight there's probably a lot of things we could have done better. But I think Teddy Roosevelt would have a thing or two to say about that sort of criticism.

Also, no we don't get oil from Iraq. Or at least not a significant amount. Europe gets a lot more from them now, in fact, and you can thank us for that. Saddam offered us a ridiculously good deal, like $5 a barrel, as a bribe to keep us out, and we turned it down. When the new government took over, a bunch of European based oil companies jumped on the opportunity and now a significant portion of Iraq's oil goes to Europe. But America? The vast majority of our oil is either domestic, or from Canada or something. About 10% comes from Saudi Arabia, and then from the rest of the middle east combined we get a trickle.




Made me laugh:).



I'm guessing, based on your description of burning hot and the target of chemical weapons in question, that they're talking about thermobaric bombs. The bomb drops, disperses a flammable chemical that reacts with the surrounding oxygen, then ignites that gas causing a massive shock wave. That would probably do a great job of burning any chemical weapons wafting around. It would probably also kill every single person in the area, too.
Not much more, conservative estimates of total deaths by occupying forces (just civilians) start at around 190,000, less conservative up to half a million. Excluding Iranians killed by Saddam at the behest of America and with American intelligence in the Iran-Iraq war conservative estimates put the dead under Saddam at 250k up to half a million.

No we didn't, we mishandled the process from the beginning. From sitting around doing nothing for months after the regime fell, to dissolving the Ba'ath party and sending all their police and soldiers home to form the core of the Sunni militia to making a hero of Muqtada al-Sadr to completely stuffing up the siege of Fallujah by letting it drag on and on like they were actually holding back American forces etc. etc. The list is almost endless. A lot of it done against the advice of the British government and military who said all sorts of helpful things learned from counter-insurgency in Ireland and centuries, you know, ruling a third of the world.:p

No you don't get much oil from Iraq but it is still an oil rich region and Iraq it at the centre and by handing control effectively to Iran you strengthened their position massively. The 'war for oil' thing is hugely overstated.

Yeah it's a good picture. I'm no fan of the Bush administration (ideological incompetents) but no particular fan of Obama either, it's rather amusing to see people pass off under Obama things they would be howling over under Bush.

[DarkLink]

My point is, though, we were trying to excise a proverbial infection. It was never going to be pretty. And it's still a few decades too early to see if it really worked.

[eldargal]

Yeah but we could have waited a few decades and things may have worked out on their own, or we could have tried ending sanctions on humanitarian grounds or we could have offered one or other of his sons a huge amount of money to bump off daddy and make a show of bringing Iraq back into the international fold. Point is for the money spent and what was achieved in terms of lives lost the cost-benefit ratio is decidedly skewed against us. Iran, on the other hand, benefited greatly. Arguing that things might work out for the best in a few decades is like saying history would be better if ____, we have no way of knowing.

[DarkLink]

I doubt they would have sorted themselves out very well in the past few decades. I don't disagree with you, I'm just saying that while it's an easy call to make now, in 2003 it wasn't so clear. The idea that, hey, Saddam's being a dick again, maybe we can take him out, turn him over the the people, and give them their country wasn't such a bad idea, especially considering that the west's policy in the region, starting with the British, has been to politically manipulate them into fighting each other so long as the dictator that came out on top was the one willing to work with us. Ideaologically, at the least, it was a change from 'screw them as long as we get what we want' to 'let's give them a chance to make their country a better place'.

[Cap'nSmurfs]

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. We did basically everything we could, and the Iraqis still screwed it up. That's on them.

That's certainly, uh, an opinion. I'd argue that it was screwed up so badly that the Iraqis never had a chance. If "doing everything you could" meant blasting apart infrastructure, dismantling the state and bureaucracy, and then throwing money at various shady outfits from the Imperial headquarters in the Green Zone while Iraq burned, then sure. You're victim blaming here. "We invaded their country and they couldn't put it back together! They let us down!"


Ideaologically, at the least, it was a change from 'screw them as long as we get what we want' to 'let's give them a chance to make their country a better place'.

The two policies aren't actually as different as you might think. The trappings were (slightly) different; the desired end results were not. You're underestimating the extent to which past imperial endeavours were cloaked in the language of enlightenment, liberalism and humanitarian concern. The ideology behind the Iraq invasion was one which would have been deeply familiar to the grandees of the British Empire.

[daboarder]

I'm guessing, based on your description of burning hot and the target of chemical weapons in question, that they're talking about thermobaric bombs. The bomb drops, disperses a flammable chemical that reacts with the surrounding oxygen, then ignites that gas causing a massive shock wave. That would probably do a great job of burning any chemical weapons wafting around. It would probably also kill every single person in the area, too.

For those that don't know, these are also known as fuel air bombs.....and the explosive force, convection currents and area of effect replicate a tactical air burst nuclear bomb. In fact fuel air explosions were developed because people wanted to replicate the affect of a nuclear bomb on a smaller scale and without the fallout.

[DarkLink]

That's certainly, uh, an opinion. I'd argue that it was screwed up so badly that the Iraqis never had a chance. If "doing everything you could" meant blasting apart infrastructure, dismantling the state and bureaucracy, and then throwing money at various shady outfits from the Imperial headquarters in the Green Zone while Iraq burned, then sure. You're victim blaming here. "We invaded their country and they couldn't put it back together! They let us down!"

A gross oversimplification. A pretty vast majority of Iraqis were very happy that we removed Saddam from power. Some wanted us to leave and let them sort their own problems out, but I've heard to many soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen who were actually over there working with the people say this that I can't take any claim to the contrary seriously. Not that everyone was happy, obviously, but the majority were glad to see Saddam go.

The problem was we left a political power vacuum, and the only organized power left was the religious zealots. They called in allies from the rest of the middle east to form a resistance to prevent us from taking complete control, bullied the locals, killed lots of people, and kept the war going, under the excuse of 'western imperialism'. So, yes, it was a mistake to completely dismantle, say, the Iraqi army and police forces outright, because then we were stuck with a lot of untrained recruits of very mixed quality and there was a vacuum for the insurgents to exploit.

Ultimately, a foreign entity only has as much political authority as the populace allows it, unless you use excessive force to take said authority. Since we intentionally handed political authority over the other populace, we clearly couldn't force them to do what we wanted. Yes, we probably could have done a better job keeping insurgents out. But if you know anything about counterinsurgency warfare, it relies on the populace being on your side. The bystanders in Iraq were too passive to allow us to fully combat the insurgency. And, of course, the brunt of the blame lies on the insurgents themselves.

Yeah, we were a partially at fault. And obviously the insurgents were the direct source of the problem. But the populace as a whole bears some of the blame, as well. Just like how America (or any other democracy) can't really complain if we elect a crappy president, seeing as we were the ones who elected them, if you give a populace the ability to choose their government and they hand it over to radical extremists, part of the blame lies on them, to.

So, basically, everyone ****ed up. But at the very core of the multi-faceted issue is the metaphor, while not perfect, that you cannot make a horse drink.




The two policies aren't actually as different as you might think. The trappings were (slightly) different; the desired end results were not. You're underestimating the extent to which past imperial endeavours were cloaked in the language of enlightenment, liberalism and humanitarian concern. The ideology behind the Iraq invasion was one which would have been deeply familiar to the grandees of the British Empire.

One was exploitation, the other was, at least intended to be, emancipation of a sort. I don't give a **** if the British Empire pretended like they were helping, because that's irrelevant to my point. Previously, when one abusive dictator got uppity, we'd just fund a coup detat and install another abusive dictator. Heck, America is the one who put Saddam in power in the first place. The Iraq war, however, was a legitimate attempt, at massive unnecessary expense to ourselves, to give the Iraqis a free democracy. If you can't see the difference, I really can't help you there.

[eldargal]

This is totes amusing (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/video/front-pages-1st-september-2013-052023871.html).

Obama copies Cameron.:p

[daboarder]

I think he made the right choice.

[eldargal]

Yup. Not ruling strikes out but giving more time to work out what the hell is going on and what to do about it.

[White Tiger88]

Yup. Not ruling strikes out but giving more time to work out what the hell is going on and what to do about it.

There screwed if they go in & They are screwed if they don't......... This is a no win Scenario........ No mater what they do some crazy nut job will end up in charge and get the force's trying to HELP killed.

[Lukas The Trickster]

This is totes amusing (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/video/front-pages-1st-september-2013-052023871.html).

Obama copies Cameron.:p

You do know that every time somebody uses the word 'totes', a kitten dies.

[eldargal]

Meh, it's my stupid word of the month, I'll use it heaps and get sick of it. Last month was wombok, be grateful that didn't reach the forums.

[daboarder]

What does wombok even mean? is it a wombat high on crack?

[Gotthammer]

It's a type of cabbage from China, with a sweeter flavour than the European vairety.

[Denzark]

Meh, it's my stupid word of the month, I'll use it heaps and get sick of it. Last month was wombok, be grateful that didn't reach the forums.

I am currently liking 'bellthronk'.