Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Russia Today)   US about to go balls-deep into Syria to prevent chemical weapons from being used by the Assad regime   (rt.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Assad, USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, chemical weapons, Syrians, United States, Syrian Air Force, Assad regime, The Australian  
•       •       •

2054 clicks; posted to Politics » on 06 Dec 2012 at 9:12 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



152 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-12-06 12:35:37 AM  
Well, you gotta admit. If we have to go in, this would be a valid reason.

BUUUUUUT, I would hope that there was an exit strategy in the plan this time. Just get in, stop the bad guy and destroy the bad stuff, in & out fast, and go home.
 
2012-12-06 12:48:26 AM  
Nothing to worry about here. Syria doesn't have any WMD's and neither did Iraq.
 
2012-12-06 01:35:23 AM  
the US is now ready to launch such action "within days"

And by days we mean seconds, CAP and AEW up, probably a decent strike package up, more staged, with an alpha strike ready to launch in less than 30min with all targets already identified. 

Considering the speed at which the threat can be deployed I'm guessing they'd want to be ready to go in a serious hurry should the national command authority give the order.
 
2012-12-06 04:29:51 AM  
Unfortunately, to avoid Obama looking like W, the Assad regime will drop at least one chemical weapon before we retaliate, and potentially thousands of innocents will die. But when we retaliate, it needs to be devastating and overwhelming in scope. US fighter planes shooting down any Syrian aircraft that leaves the ground, US cruise missiles destroying every Syrian military base and 'command-&-control' government location, with Special Forces infiltrating the country to locate and target other military targets for destruction as well.

We need to make it clear that any despot who tries to use chemical weapons on their populous will be hunted down and brought to justice.
 
2012-12-06 08:07:00 AM  

ArmednHammered: Nothing to worry about here. Syria doesn't have any WMD's and neither did Iraq.


Technically, there are legitimate reasons to go into Syria. Why invent one? Your analogy doesn't pan out.
 
2012-12-06 08:15:48 AM  

MmmmBacon: Unfortunately, to avoid Obama looking like W, the Assad regime will drop at least one chemical weapon before we retaliate, and potentially thousands of innocents will die. But when we retaliate, it needs to be devastating and overwhelming in scope. US fighter planes shooting down any Syrian aircraft that leaves the ground, US cruise missiles destroying every Syrian military base and 'command-&-control' government location, with Special Forces infiltrating the country to locate and target other military targets for destruction as well.

We need to make it clear that any despot who tries to use chemical weapons on their populous will be hunted down and brought to justice.


HywI'm not sure about that... The US needs to decide whether or not we want to intervene. If the answer is yes then we'll see these type of stories in MSM. All he really needs to do is sell a case for intervention.
 
2012-12-06 08:57:13 AM  
You can bet if RT says it will happen that it will never happen.
 
2012-12-06 09:15:52 AM  
I imagine the US is more concerned about the al-Nusra Front getting their hands on chemical weapons. The US governemnt didn't have much of a problem when Assad was killing tens of thousands of his people with conventional weapons.
 
2012-12-06 09:17:25 AM  
If it is anything like our previous engagements in the Middle East, we will be the ones selling them the supplies to make it.
 
2012-12-06 09:17:49 AM  

MmmmBacon: Unfortunately, to avoid Obama looking like W, the Assad regime will drop at least one chemical weapon before we retaliate, and potentially thousands of innocents will die. But when we retaliate, it needs to be devastating and overwhelming in scope. US fighter planes shooting down any Syrian aircraft that leaves the ground, US cruise missiles destroying every Syrian military base and 'command-&-control' government location, with Special Forces infiltrating the country to locate and target other military targets for destruction as well.

We need to make it clear that any despot who tries to use chemical weapons on their populous will be hunted down and brought to justice.


Pretty sure Turkey would undergo a full mobilization. They're already ticked about the refugee situation as it is, but if chemical weapons are used I'd expect to see a few thousand Turkish tanks crossing the boarder in a few days time.
 
2012-12-06 09:18:25 AM  
I am all for preventing the use of such weapons, but does it have to be us? Don't other powers in the region have militaries?
 
2012-12-06 09:19:12 AM  

Carth: I imagine the US is more concerned about the al-Nusra Front getting their hands on chemical weapons. The US governemnt didn't have much of a problem when Assad was killing tens of thousands of his people with conventional weapons.


This. We (and Israel, and Europe) are afraid of terrorists getting chemical or biological weapons.
 
2012-12-06 09:20:11 AM  

nmemkha: Don't other powers in the region have militaries?


That's a pretty dumb question.

They have militaries. Their militaries are generally terrible.
 
2012-12-06 09:21:24 AM  

nmemkha: I am all for preventing the use of such weapons, but does it have to be us? Don't other powers in the region have militaries?


That is what NATO is for. Syria's neighbour, Turkey, has one of the largest miliataries in Europe. This will definitely be a NATO operations with the US not necessarily the only lead.
 
2012-12-06 09:21:42 AM  

nmemkha: I am all for preventing the use of such weapons, but does it have to be us? Don't other powers in the region have militaries?


Not really. Israel does - but they are dependent on us. Turkey does - they are NATO - and are dependent on us. Iraq and Jordan? Dependent on us.
 
2012-12-06 09:22:19 AM  

nmemkha: I am all for preventing the use of such weapons, but does it have to be us? Don't other powers in the region have militaries?


I'd be willing to bet it won't be only us. Chemical weapons are one of those red lines that I think even Russian and China aren't willing to condone.
 
2012-12-06 09:25:03 AM  
Now THIS is what you call blow back. Terrorists getting a hold of chemical weapons then firing them off at a public gathering. Fark me. I hope the rich enjoy all that money they made subjugating the ME through overthrowing governments and installing despots. I hope the West enjoyed all that cheap fuel. The bill is going to come due and it isn't the rich people who don't have gas masks.

And I was worried about war in Iran.
 
2012-12-06 09:27:27 AM  

ArmednHammered: Nothing to worry about here. Syria doesn't have any WMD's and neither did Iraq.


2/10
 
2012-12-06 09:28:29 AM  

vossiewulf: the US is now ready to launch such action "within days"

And by days we mean seconds, CAP and AEW up, probably a decent strike package up, more staged, with an alpha strike ready to launch in less than 30min with all targets already identified. 

Considering the speed at which the threat can be deployed I'm guessing they'd want to be ready to go in a serious hurry should the national command authority give the order.


Man, you totally got a boner talking all Black Ops, didn't you.

/manrection, baby.
 
2012-12-06 09:28:46 AM  

corronchilejano: ArmednHammered: Nothing to worry about here. Syria doesn't have any WMD's and neither did Iraq.

2/10


-1/10 IMO
 
2012-12-06 09:28:58 AM  
It's one thing to be an opportunist and funnel supplies to revolutionaries....but world cop? How about no.


Not our problem.
 
2012-12-06 09:29:07 AM  

MmmmBacon: Unfortunately, to avoid Obama looking like W, the Assad regime will drop at least one chemical weapon before we retaliate, and potentially thousands of innocents will die. But when we retaliate, it needs to be devastating and overwhelming in scope. US fighter planes shooting down any Syrian aircraft that leaves the ground, US cruise missiles destroying every Syrian military base and 'command-&-control' government location, with Special Forces infiltrating the country to locate and target other military targets for destruction as well.

We need to make it clear that any despot who tries to use chemical weapons on their populous will be hunted down and brought to justice.


Unfortunately what can we do? We shouldn't attack/invade assuming use of weapons will occur (e.g. Iraq), so let him use one, the world will get super pissed at him and when cruise missiles start landing into whatever palace Assad is in and all his planes start going up in smoke, the world will cheer that America was on the right side of history.

Turkey will probably be directly involved in this as well being a NATO member and right there on the border, so at least supply and logistical issues will be less a concern this time around.
 
2012-12-06 09:29:36 AM  

nmemkha: I am all for preventing the use of such weapons, but does it have to be us? Don't other powers in the region have militaries?


It's about a unilateral show of force that this sort of behavior is unacceptable.

Well, unilateral except for China and Russia. Those farking babykillers will support Syria until the checks start bouncing.
 
2012-12-06 09:30:06 AM  

mrshowrules: nmemkha: I am all for preventing the use of such weapons, but does it have to be us? Don't other powers in the region have militaries?

That is what NATO is for. Syria's neighbour, Turkey, has one of the largest miliataries in Europe. This will definitely be a NATO operations with the US not necessarily the only lead.


The buildup in the most likely staging area is underway.

Germany is deploying troops and Patriot batteries to the Turkish-Syrian border as we speak. If this happens it is going to be NATO and it is going to be big. Hell - we had a dress rehearsal for this last year called Libya. 
Linky
 
2012-12-06 09:32:06 AM  
As a non-signatory to the Chemical Weapons Treaty, color me surprised. Sarin, cyanide, mustard gas and a few others. Sarin is the micro-droplet dispersal system, methinks. Bad, bad juju.

We could make a pre-emptive strike, crushing grounded air strength and mowing runways, but the really scary thing is, the warheads are convertible. If they have any artillery left after said strike... bad news.

Also, the Russian base there complicates this situation, so yes, I'm going to stick with the poster above and say something bad is going to have to happen before we strike. It would be pleasant of the Chinese and the Russians handled this (they should clean up after their own mess), but i don't see it happening.

/we really can't afford this.
 
2012-12-06 09:32:39 AM  

Skarekrough: nmemkha: I am all for preventing the use of such weapons, but does it have to be us? Don't other powers in the region have militaries?

It's about a unilateral show of force that this sort of behavior is unacceptable.

Well, unilateral except for China and Russia. Those farking babykillers will support Syria until the checks start bouncing.


If China and Russia support overthrowing Assad for killing his own people the world might start looking at what they're doing in Xinjiang/Tibet or Chechnya and get some ideas. They care more about self preservation than anything else.
 
2012-12-06 09:32:41 AM  
balls deep? You know, deeper than knee deep.
 
2012-12-06 09:33:48 AM  
Before we can do anything about Syria, we still need more answers on Benghazi.
 
2012-12-06 09:33:51 AM  

KarmaSpork: We could make a pre-emptive strike, crushing grounded air strength and mowing runways, but the really scary thing is, the warheads are convertible.


Didn't the Prague treaty of '87 enforce a conversion of all chemical weapons to moon roofs?
 
2012-12-06 09:34:19 AM  
Take out the offensive capability of the military, apply the Geneva Communiqué to allow a transitional government from the Syria National Co-ordination Council to make the country safe
 
2012-12-06 09:36:31 AM  

nmemkha: I am all for preventing the use of such weapons, but does it have to be us? Don't other powers in the region have militaries?


It's going to be like Libya. We'll be "involved" but its mostly hands-off, we launch the missiles and supply those on the ground, but we won't put troops down, unless it's special forces. Turkey is going to do most of the fighting with maybe Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan helping a little, but Turkey's got this. They just need logistical support and missile/air power of the US to soften up the regime.
 
2012-12-06 09:37:50 AM  

KarmaSpork: It would be pleasant of the Chinese and the Russians handled this (they should clean up after their own mess), but i don't see it happening.


Call me crazy, but I don't think Russia wants Syria using chemical weapons, either. Especially since - didn't Russia supply those weapons to Syria/Assad in the first place?
 
2012-12-06 09:37:50 AM  
I'd call this just the tip more than balls deep, but what do I know.
 
2012-12-06 09:38:42 AM  

KarmaSpork: It would be pleasant of the Chinese and the Russians handled this (they should clean up after their own mess), but i don't see it happening.


IIRC, the last time Assad was considering using chemical weapons, Putin took a strong stance against it, and Assad backed down.
 
2012-12-06 09:39:29 AM  

somedude210: nmemkha: I am all for preventing the use of such weapons, but does it have to be us? Don't other powers in the region have militaries?

It's going to be like Libya. We'll be "involved" but its mostly hands-off, we launch the missiles and supply those on the ground, but we won't put troops down, unless it's special forces. Turkey is going to do most of the fighting with maybe Lebanon, Iraq and Jordan helping a little, but Turkey's got this. They just need logistical support and missile/air power of the US to soften up the regime.


This, we cannot afford boots on the ground in this incursion. It's better for us to trust our allies to take care of the ground war while we do what we do best - robotic death from above.

www.freedomsphoenix.com
 
2012-12-06 09:40:21 AM  
Did we sell the chemical weapons to them like we did Iraq?
 
2012-12-06 09:40:24 AM  

vernonFL: nmemkha: I am all for preventing the use of such weapons, but does it have to be us? Don't other powers in the region have militaries?

Not really. Israel does - but they are dependent on us. Turkey does - they are NATO - and are dependent on us. Iraq and Jordan? Dependent on us.


Europe picked up the last douche tab, with Qaddafi they had led the charge and we just provided our unique support capabilities that they don't have.
 
2012-12-06 09:41:36 AM  

LarryDan43: Before we can do anything about Syria, we still need more answers on Benghazi.


s2.hubimg.com: send more answers
 
2012-12-06 09:43:10 AM  
Sooo...military folks, enlighten me. If the US sees the sarin gas being loaded onto the planes, can the US jets respond in time? And if a sarin-loaded jet gets blown airport on the runway, does that release the gas?
 
2012-12-06 09:43:40 AM  

sprawl15: Didn't the Prague treaty of '87 enforce a conversion of all chemical weapons to moon roofs?


I dunno about moon roofs, lol, but they did form the NATO RF (NATO Response Force), that was specifically trained for just this situation. They specialize in support, mainly. They set up joint headquarters and facilitate intel sharing, etc. But they are also trained and equipped for decon and treatment of biological weapons. If Turkey comes in (and they will), they'll come under a NATO flag or a UN one.
 
2012-12-06 09:43:47 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: Did we sell the chemical weapons to them like we did Iraq?


Yes? I think we did once in the 80s? I could be wrong though
 
2012-12-06 09:44:23 AM  

Dr Dreidel: KarmaSpork: It would be pleasant of the Chinese and the Russians handled this (they should clean up after their own mess), but i don't see it happening.

Call me crazy, but I don't think Russia wants Syria using chemical weapons, either. Especially since - didn't Russia supply those weapons to Syria/Assad in the first place?


Officially? lol
 
2012-12-06 09:45:23 AM  

urger: mrshowrules: nmemkha: I am all for preventing the use of such weapons, but does it have to be us? Don't other powers in the region have militaries?

That is what NATO is for. Syria's neighbour, Turkey, has one of the largest miliataries in Europe. This will definitely be a NATO operations with the US not necessarily the only lead.

The buildup in the most likely staging area is underway.

Germany is deploying troops and Patriot batteries to the Turkish-Syrian border as we speak. If this happens it is going to be NATO and it is going to be big. Hell - we had a dress rehearsal for this last year called Libya. 
Linky


I wish they could just annex Syria to Turkey for a 20 year period and then let them have a referendum on secession after that.
 
2012-12-06 09:45:25 AM  

whizbangthedirtfarmer: Sooo...military folks, enlighten me. If the US sees the sarin gas being loaded onto the planes, can the US jets respond in time? And if a sarin-loaded jet gets blown airport on the runway, does that release the gas?


only if the weapon is armed will the warhead go off...there will still be cleanup though
 
2012-12-06 09:48:25 AM  
Let them die. Not our problem. Invading muslim countries is an addiction that we desperately need to cure or we might as well bring back the draft.
 
2012-12-06 09:48:34 AM  

KarmaSpork: It would be pleasant of the Chinese and the Russians handled this (they should clean up after their own mess), but i don't see it happening.


Neither the Russians or the Chinese have the logistics and support capabilities to maintain a military operation of any size in Syria.
 
2012-12-06 09:48:51 AM  
Why don't we just declare war on the entire planet and get it over with?
 
2012-12-06 09:51:26 AM  

Giltric: It's one thing to be an opportunist and funnel supplies to revolutionaries....but world cop? How about no.


Not our problem.


Actually, I DO consider the combination of an unstable government and rampant terrorism with chemical weapons to be a problem.
And I'm as hippy-dippy-libby-lib as they come.
 
2012-12-06 09:52:15 AM  

orclover: Let them die. Not our problem. Invading muslim countries is an addiction that we desperately need to cure or we might as well bring back the draft.


we're not invading. We may drop dozens of missiles in there and fly armed drones, but boots on the ground will be limited to Spec Ops if that
 
2012-12-06 09:53:54 AM  
According to this article, Assad has his back agains tthe wall. The rebels have heat seeking missiles and are able to take the offensive without the threat from an air attack. The chemical weapons could be a last ditch effort by Assad to regain control.
 
Displayed 50 of 152 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report