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.

(Global Post)   Syria: So we were just walking around Damascus and we stumbled upon these rebel tunnels, and wouldn't you know it, we found a whole bunch of chemical weapons just laying there, proving we didn't gas anyone. Funny how that worked out, ain't it?   (globalpost.com) divider line 135
    More: Unlikely, chemical agents, Damascus, Syrians, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel  
•       •       •

5143 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Aug 2013 at 2:43 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-08-24 03:42:03 PM  

ontariolightning: way south:
, its an important message to send before this sort of thing repeats itself yet again.

The only message you'd be sending is "get your hands on chemical agents, release it, blame the government, and NATO will come running to help you.


So, lemme see if I understand the reality that would be required for your premise:

In the reality where that could happen, the Syrian government would have horribly lax control over their WMDs to the point of being criminally bad...

And when they lose them, no one realizes it or contacts their superiors to let them know that WMDs are on the loose...

And the Syrian government doesn't contact the UN to let them know that rebels have stolen their WMDs...

And finally, the rebels are both smart enough, talented enough and wise enough to both steal and use the weapons...but leave blatant proof of it being 'them' and not the Syrian government, thus ruining their plan at the very last stage.

Is that what you're suggesting happened?
 
2013-08-24 03:42:12 PM  
How will the Middle-East ever figure out that their priorities are dumb if we bail their asses out every time they decide that they'd rather ruin their country and put millions of lives at risk than let Shi'ites rule over Sunnis or vice versa?
 
2013-08-24 03:44:51 PM  

DerAppie: way south: I can't believe I'm going to say this but: for everything Al Queda is and has done, they aren't big on chemical weapons and don't possess an army of tanks or jets to cause mayhem with.
In this situation they've become the lesser of two evils and we really don't have to back them. We just have to make sure Assad tumbles down a flight of conveniently places stairs.

Okay, let us see what would happen if the West went and put their weight behind your "lesser" of two evils.

We would help oust Asad, who is relatively moderate, and thus make room for Al Queda to take control. Or at least destabilise things enough that they will get regions under their control. Individual liberties, as much as there are, will go down the drain. Women will lose even the vestiges of rights they have because Al Queda isn't big on those. Locals will either be bullied in helping/supporting Al Queda or be hunted down.

Just how is Al Queda the lesser evil? Because they didn't use a chemical weapon? That is a very simplistic way of looking at things and will hurt the population at large far more than a few gas canisters. Just let them figure their own shiat out and steer away from this clusterfark. There is no good ending and if "we" are getting blamed either way ("You could have helped!" vs "You were the ones who ousted Assad, things were better then!"), then it is better to be blamed after not losing resources and lives of our own.


Why support either of them?  If AQ knocks over and kills Assad, then we'll deal with AQ when they give us reason to deal with them in Syria.

If Assad finishes off AQ, then we'll deal with him when he gives us reason to.

Either way, we have no reason to support either of them, even to the point of one of them winning.
 
2013-08-24 03:45:00 PM  

DerAppie: way south: I can't believe I'm going to say this but: for everything Al Queda is and has done, they aren't big on chemical weapons and don't possess an army of tanks or jets to cause mayhem with.
In this situation they've become the lesser of two evils and we really don't have to back them. We just have to make sure Assad tumbles down a flight of conveniently places stairs.

Okay, let us see what would happen if the West went and put their weight behind your "lesser" of two evils.

We would help oust Asad, who is relatively moderate, and thus make room for Al Queda to take control. Or at least destabilise things enough that they will get regions under their control. Individual liberties, as much as there are, will go down the drain. Women will lose even the vestiges of rights they have because Al Queda isn't big on those. Locals will either be bullied in helping/supporting Al Queda or be hunted down.

Just how is Al Queda the lesser evil? Because they didn't use a chemical weapon? That is a very simplistic way of looking at things and will hurt the population at large far more than a few gas canisters. Just let them figure their own shiat out and steer away from this clusterfark. There is no good ending and if "we" are getting blamed either way ("You could have helped!" vs "You were the ones who ousted Assad, things were better then!"), then it is better to be blamed after not losing resources and lives of our own.


Ousting Assad does not mean we are making room for Al Qaeda to take control. Allowing the situation to continue as is is what is facilitating Al Qaeda
 
2013-08-24 03:45:38 PM  

Infernalist: Okay? Who cares as long as we don't get stuck in a quagmire like Syria?

Sure, throw money at people over there if that means we don't get our military involved. I'm very okay with that. It's just 'money' and compared to what else we could lose over there, 'money' is the least valuable thing.


First it was money... then it's advisers... then there's the gulf of tokin and next thing ya know there's a draft and 50,000 americans and millions of other people are dead.

But let's say it stays at the money and arms. who is being funded and armed? The same group that is the reason we have to be body scanned and/or groped at airports because of. They have always been a tool to achieve political goals. They were so a dozen years ago, 30 years ago, and today. And of course there are the people who are being killed by weapons paid for by the US taxpayer getting pissed off and perhaps seeking revenge.
 
2013-08-24 03:48:03 PM  
Hey Infernalist, the Rebels had raided many chemical weapon storage facilities in Libya, when NATO did their thing.
Also this is war and the Syrian military has lost a few battles. It's not that unlikely that the military would not be able to protect all chemical weapon storage facilities.And the UN does know. The whole world knows. Israel is especially worried about it.
 
2013-08-24 03:49:08 PM  

leadmetal: Infernalist: Okay? Who cares as long as we don't get stuck in a quagmire like Syria?

Sure, throw money at people over there if that means we don't get our military involved. I'm very okay with that. It's just 'money' and compared to what else we could lose over there, 'money' is the least valuable thing.

First it was money... then it's advisers... then there's the gulf of tokin and next thing ya know there's a draft and 50,000 americans and millions of other people are dead.

But let's say it stays at the money and arms. who is being funded and armed? The same group that is the reason we have to be body scanned and/or groped at airports because of. They have always been a tool to achieve political goals. They were so a dozen years ago, 30 years ago, and today. And of course there are the people who are being killed by weapons paid for by the US taxpayer getting pissed off and perhaps seeking revenge.


Okay, it's not 1950-whatever.  It's 2013 and if you want a closer analogy to what's happening, you only have to look back to Libya.

Like him or hate him, this President knows how to do foreign policy.  So stop being terrified of us ending up in a new Vietnam and start realizing that the guys in charge 'right now' are not retards and aren't going to get us into another Vietnam.
 
2013-08-24 03:50:19 PM  

leadmetal: Infernalist: Okay? Who cares as long as we don't get stuck in a quagmire like Syria?

Sure, throw money at people over there if that means we don't get our military involved. I'm very okay with that. It's just 'money' and compared to what else we could lose over there, 'money' is the least valuable thing.

First it was money... then it's advisers... then there's the gulf of tokin and next thing ya know there's a draft and 50,000 americans and millions of other people are dead.

But let's say it stays at the money and arms. who is being funded and armed? The same group that is the reason we have to be body scanned and/or groped at airports because of. They have always been a tool to achieve political goals. They were so a dozen years ago, 30 years ago, and today. And of course there are the people who are being killed by weapons paid for by the US taxpayer getting pissed off and perhaps seeking revenge.


The argument is to arm some of those groups fighting Assad - not all of them. I haven't seen anyone argue that we should arm the Al Qaeda affiliated groups. The argument is that we could supply arms that we could prevent falling into the hands of al qaeda affiliated groups

Enough with the strawmen
 
2013-08-24 03:50:23 PM  

ontariolightning: Hey Infernalist, the Rebels had raided many chemical weapon storage facilities in Libya, when NATO did their thing.
Also this is war and the Syrian military has lost a few battles. It's not that unlikely that the military would not be able to protect all chemical weapon storage facilities.And the UN does know. The whole world knows. Israel is especially worried about it.


And those chem weapons are both numbered and inventoried, so if a chem weapon attack happened, they'd know for certain who did it, wouldn't they?
 
2013-08-24 03:51:11 PM  
Goddamn, there's a lot of scared little girls in this thread.
 
2013-08-24 03:53:42 PM  

Infernalist: ontariolightning: Hey Infernalist, the Rebels had raided many chemical weapon storage facilities in Libya, when NATO did their thing.
Also this is war and the Syrian military has lost a few battles. It's not that unlikely that the military would not be able to protect all chemical weapon storage facilities.And the UN does know. The whole world knows. Israel is especially worried about it.

And those chem weapons are both numbered and inventoried, so if a chem weapon attack happened, they'd know for certain who did it, wouldn't they?


I'm not going to pretend that I know Syria or Libya's protocol for their chemical weapons cache.
 
2013-08-24 03:54:37 PM  
Put me in the rebels are lying group. Every time we open our mouth or support one of these groups someone from said group smacks the shiat out of us 20 years later
 
2013-08-24 03:54:53 PM  

ontariolightning: Infernalist: ontariolightning: Hey Infernalist, the Rebels had raided many chemical weapon storage facilities in Libya, when NATO did their thing.
Also this is war and the Syrian military has lost a few battles. It's not that unlikely that the military would not be able to protect all chemical weapon storage facilities.And the UN does know. The whole world knows. Israel is especially worried about it.

And those chem weapons are both numbered and inventoried, so if a chem weapon attack happened, they'd know for certain who did it, wouldn't they?

I'm not going to pretend that I know Syria or Libya's protocol for their chemical weapons cache.


You can't sincerely believe that they just shoved a bunch of chem weapons into a facility and didn't keep track of which ones were there....
 
2013-08-24 03:57:32 PM  
Infernalist:
You can't sincerely believe that they just shoved a bunch of chem weapons into a facility and didn't keep track of which ones were there....

The U.S military doesn't know the number of nuclear warheads that they have lost. Bureaucracies are incompetent. Especially government ones.,
 
2013-08-24 03:58:39 PM  

Infernalist: DerAppie: way south: I can't believe I'm going to say this but: for everything Al Queda is and has done, they aren't big on chemical weapons and don't possess an army of tanks or jets to cause mayhem with.
In this situation they've become the lesser of two evils and we really don't have to back them. We just have to make sure Assad tumbles down a flight of conveniently places stairs.

Okay, let us see what would happen if the West went and put their weight behind your "lesser" of two evils.

We would help oust Asad, who is relatively moderate, and thus make room for Al Queda to take control. Or at least destabilise things enough that they will get regions under their control. Individual liberties, as much as there are, will go down the drain. Women will lose even the vestiges of rights they have because Al Queda isn't big on those. Locals will either be bullied in helping/supporting Al Queda or be hunted down.

Just how is Al Queda the lesser evil? Because they didn't use a chemical weapon? That is a very simplistic way of looking at things and will hurt the population at large far more than a few gas canisters. Just let them figure their own shiat out and steer away from this clusterfark. There is no good ending and if "we" are getting blamed either way ("You could have helped!" vs "You were the ones who ousted Assad, things were better then!"), then it is better to be blamed after not losing resources and lives of our own.

Why support either of them?  If AQ knocks over and kills Assad, then we'll deal with AQ when they give us reason to deal with them in Syria.

If Assad finishes off AQ, then we'll deal with him when he gives us reason to.

Either way, we have no reason to support either of them, even to the point of one of them winning.


Which was my point. Meddling only leads to more problems.
 
2013-08-24 04:01:25 PM  

ontariolightning: Hey Infernalist, the Rebels had raided many chemical weapon storage facilities in Libya, when NATO did their thing.
Also this is war and the Syrian military has lost a few battles. It's not that unlikely that the military would not be able to protect all chemical weapon storage facilities.And the UN does know. The whole world knows. Israel is especially worried about it.


Put your faith in the President, coward. What are you some kind of terrorist or something?? We've always been allied with al-qaida.
 
2013-08-24 04:01:50 PM  

ontariolightning: Infernalist:
You can't sincerely believe that they just shoved a bunch of chem weapons into a facility and didn't keep track of which ones were there....

The U.S military doesn't know the number of nuclear warheads that they have lost. Bureaucracies are incompetent. Especially government ones.,


Wow, okay, lol  Nevermind, you go ahead and continue posting whatever you like.  lol

you go ahead with your bad self.  lol
 
2013-08-24 04:01:50 PM  
farm7.staticflickr.com
 
2013-08-24 04:04:25 PM  

DerAppie: Infernalist: DerAppie: way south: I can't believe I'm going to say this but: for everything Al Queda is and has done, they aren't big on chemical weapons and don't possess an army of tanks or jets to cause mayhem with.
In this situation they've become the lesser of two evils and we really don't have to back them. We just have to make sure Assad tumbles down a flight of conveniently places stairs.

Okay, let us see what would happen if the West went and put their weight behind your "lesser" of two evils.

We would help oust Asad, who is relatively moderate, and thus make room for Al Queda to take control. Or at least destabilise things enough that they will get regions under their control. Individual liberties, as much as there are, will go down the drain. Women will lose even the vestiges of rights they have because Al Queda isn't big on those. Locals will either be bullied in helping/supporting Al Queda or be hunted down.

Just how is Al Queda the lesser evil? Because they didn't use a chemical weapon? That is a very simplistic way of looking at things and will hurt the population at large far more than a few gas canisters. Just let them figure their own shiat out and steer away from this clusterfark. There is no good ending and if "we" are getting blamed either way ("You could have helped!" vs "You were the ones who ousted Assad, things were better then!"), then it is better to be blamed after not losing resources and lives of our own.

Why support either of them?  If AQ knocks over and kills Assad, then we'll deal with AQ when they give us reason to deal with them in Syria.

If Assad finishes off AQ, then we'll deal with him when he gives us reason to.

Either way, we have no reason to support either of them, even to the point of one of them winning.

Which was my point. Meddling only leads to more problems.


Syria is a problem for the world. An internal uprising against a dictator has already become a proxy war. It isn't the case that if the west does nothing the Syrian people will sort it out and come to some sort of resolution.
 
2013-08-24 04:06:10 PM  
It could have been rebel stock pile. They've used saran gas before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKgGRRuuZBY
 
2013-08-24 04:08:55 PM  

InflamedGonads: [i860.photobucket.com image 464x457]


Actually many believe that Iraq's chemical weapons were shipped to Syria.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1595553304
 
2013-08-24 04:09:23 PM  

Sagus: It could have been rebel stock pile. They've used saran gas before.

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


RT is Kremlin propaganda. Can't believe you would fall for that. Watch a respectable news channel like MSNBC or Fox News

Man. Some people will believe anything they hear.
 
2013-08-24 04:10:56 PM  
Don't believe a single word your government tells you. You're being manipulated. The press are corporate-owned propaganda rags and government cheerleaders. This is yet another war for Israel's security and the profits of the military-industrial complex.
 
2013-08-24 04:15:00 PM  
Syrian information minister says that his country has never used chemical weapons.

http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-regime-never-used-chemical-weapons-mini st er-185932294.html

I hope you're telling the truth, Mr. al-Zohbi.
 
2013-08-24 04:15:14 PM  

Suede head: Don't believe a single word your government tells you. You're being manipulated. The press are corporate-owned propaganda rags and government cheerleaders. This is yet another war for Israel's security and the profits of the military-industrial complex.


Rather, be a responsible consumer of media. I say watch whatever you want and believe what you choose. Trust in logic and critical thinking. DNRTFA.
 
2013-08-24 04:15:26 PM  

Suede head: Don't believe a single word your government tells you. You're being manipulated. The press are corporate-owned propaganda rags and government cheerleaders. This is yet another war for Israel's security and the profits of the military-industrial complex.


There was a popular uprising against an entrenched dictator, who, rather than submitting to the demands of the people, decided to fight them. What the fark does that have to do with western media, Israel, or the military-industrial complex?
 
2013-08-24 04:17:33 PM  

Suede head: Don't believe a single word your government tells you. You're being manipulated. The press are corporate-owned propaganda rags and government cheerleaders. This is yet another war for Israel's security and the profits of the military-industrial complex.


Watch our my Americans. This is a disinfo shill. Probably paid by the Russians and Chinese. Another reason we need to end online anonominity. Hopefully our President is working on that. Put your faith in him, as I have. He keeps us safe from our enemies and gives us freedom.
 
2013-08-24 04:22:35 PM  

ChuDogg: Sagus: It could have been rebel stock pile. They've used saran gas before.

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

RT is Kremlin propaganda. Can't believe you would fall for that. Watch a respectable news channel like MSNBC or Fox News

Man. Some people will believe anything they hear.


Ok, then how about this  huff post link for you
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/05/syria-sarin_n_3220502.html
 
2013-08-24 04:23:19 PM  
Been following this story.  Just last week I was driving to Damascus when a sandstorm rose the road disappeared and the axle froze I was low on gas and lower on hope I covered my eyes and I felt for the rope.
 
2013-08-24 04:26:00 PM  

Ambivalence: Where the hell would rebels even get chemical weapons?  It's not like you can order them from Amazon (you can't, right?).


Now you're just making work for the NSA and the Amazon recommendation system.
 
2013-08-24 04:34:17 PM  

Ambivalence: Where the hell would rebels even get chemical weapons?  It's not like you can order them from Amazon (you can't, right?).

That's not suspicious at ALL.


Well, you can buy bleach and ammonia from them, so in the Faux News realm of things it'd be something like "ZOMG AMAZON SELLS CHEMICAL WEAPONS TO TERRORISTS!!!11"
 
2013-08-24 04:36:23 PM  
I'd believe it was a cover-up if they found a red bandanna in the cave.
 
2013-08-24 04:36:47 PM  

ChuDogg: Suede head: Don't believe a single word your government tells you. You're being manipulated. The press are corporate-owned propaganda rags and government cheerleaders. This is yet another war for Israel's security and the profits of the military-industrial complex.

Watch our my Americans. This is a disinfo shill. Probably paid by the Russians and Chinese. Another reason we need to end online anonominity. Hopefully our President is working on that. Put your faith in him, as I have. He keeps us safe from our enemies and gives us freedom.


Currently given a passing 7/10.  Let's see who bites.
 
2013-08-24 04:38:17 PM  
The US seems to believe every uprising is some triumph of democracy. This is not that, the tree of liberty does not grow in the desert.
 
2013-08-24 04:52:13 PM  

skantea: dj_bigbird: Ambivalence: Where the hell would rebels even get chemical weapons?  It's not like you can order them from Amazon (you can't, right?).

That's not suspicious at ALL.

They got them from Libya. How did they get them from Libya? Hmm.....

And the Syrian army would be crazy to use them, they're beating the shiat out of the rebels, no need to resort to chemical weapons.

Exactly.  Looking at the death toll, and the hopelessness of their situation, it makes perfect sense that they would sacrifice some of their own people to get U.S. Military support.  If they've lost 1 million, then sacrificing 1,000 to turn the tide is acceptable collateral damage.


If so, that wasn't their "own people". It was just the people who happened to be living in an area they currently controlled.
 
2013-08-24 04:53:43 PM  

Ambivalence: Where the hell would rebels even get chemical weapons? It's not like you can order them from Amazon (you can't, right?).

That's not suspicious at ALL.


Captured Syrian weapons.
 
2013-08-24 05:37:24 PM  

Ambivalence: Where the hell would rebels even get chemical weapons?  It's not like you can order them from Amazon (you can't, right?).

That's not suspicious at ALL.


The Rebels get the chemical weapons from the exact same stockpiles that the Syrian military got theirs from.  Territorial control has been swapped throughout this civil war and many weapons storage facilities have been in Rebel hands that may contain chemical weapons.  Add to it the fact that chemical weapons have been distributed to Syrian units to maintain some capability and avoid a surgical strike on depots which may eliminate the weapons from the inventory then there are a lot of these weapons floating around.  So if Syrian chemical weapons were used in this rebel held neighborhood, it still doesn't say who fired the weapons.

Now on the face of it, Assad of course wouldn't shed a tear in gassing these enemies. That being said, he doesn't need to do this because his forces (along with Iraqi, Iranian, Hezbollah, as well as Kurdish support in the east) have been pushing back Rebels in many areas and generally winning in a conventional manner using armor, aircraft, and rockets.  Using chemical weapons isn't needed and would only open the door to enhanced western support of rebel units as well as making things more difficult for his financial backers in Russia and Iran.  It doesn't make sense for him to engage this activity unlike 6 months ago when the Rebels held more territory and there was significant doubt about the outcome.  However, just because it didn't make sense doesn't mean  Assad or a commander under his control decided to use the weapons. Given the reluctance of Assad to allow inspectors in the area may suggest guilt, or knowledge that the weapons came from Syria which may tend to point the finger at the government.

Now the rebels on their face would seemingly be reluctant to kill their own.  However, the rebels are not a unitary command structure and there are various factions that are fighting amongst themselves as well as Assad's forces.  Their military situation has been getting more desperate and they are being pushed back in the East, West and South losing key cities and transport routes.  Given this situation, some factions may consider gassing their own people to be acceptable if it works to attract more significant aid to allow them to reverse the trends.  If this nets the forces more advanced weapons, air support, cruise missile strikes, financial assistance, and training, then the sacrifice of a few hundred or thousand women and children may be worthwhile.

I don't know who gassed the neighborhood.  I don't think it is clear cut as many are suggesting even if we find out they are Syrian weapons.  As much as some may want to use this as evidence to get involved, the situation hasn't really changed.  There is no good outcome for this situation and helping the rebels will only cost us blood and treasure while creating a new Afghanistan in the Middle East with various factions ruling a fragmented Syria.
 
2013-08-24 05:42:27 PM  

jpo2269: Have to say the only complaint that I have against the way the Obama Administration has handled this situation was coming several months ago and saying the use of chemical weapons we be crossing a red line and then not doing anything once it was established chemical weapons have been used several times.

That being said, there really does not seem to be a "winning" strategy with this situation.  Assad is a bad, bad dude but the rebels are not the sort of folks I have any confidence in how they would rule should they be successful in taking down Assad.

Sadly, it seems the Syrian people are the big losers regardless of the outcome.


I'm sure a few were happy with the support of The Bear.

Georgia was a test.
 
2013-08-24 06:15:23 PM  
What a rebel tunnel may look like:

coldpost.tv

/amazed no one posted this yet
//maybe because it was surprisingly hard to find a decent Hoth tunnel image
 
2013-08-24 06:33:15 PM  
Both sides are bad, so vote re, kill them, let them kill each other.
 
2013-08-24 06:34:21 PM  

21-7-b: Syria is a problem for the world. An internal uprising against a dictator has already become a proxy war.


The problem with proxy wars is that, even if you win, you end up with nothing. In the grand scale of things nothing is exactly what both parties risk and therefore all that can be won. It is like a soap opera, some people might/will die on either/both sides but at the end of the day all you get is a return to the status quo to make sure that the next episode has a fixed point to start at. Sure, there might be some references down the line ("Remember when X did Y and we responded with Z? Sure showed them.") but the nothing is being advanced.

If we do nothing things will go FUBAR. If we intervene things will go FUBAR. So why invest resources? All we'll end up with is another shiatload of costs with nothing to show for it.

It isn't the case that if the west does nothing the Syrian people will sort it out and come to some sort of resolution.

21-7-b: Ousting Assad does not mean we are making room for Al Qaeda to take control. Allowing the situation to continue as is is what is facilitating Al Qaeda


And if we do something things still won't get resolved. Just look at your average Arab Spring country. Most got more conservative with women losing what we consider to be basic rights. Chaos doesn't help anyone, as it will be the people who scream loudest and make the most ridiculous promises (or put up the largest show of force) that get the most support. And that is hardly ever the moderate reasonable part of the population. Ousting Assad doesn't mean instant democracy (his family has held the presidency since 1971, no way that shiat went fair). It means a collapse of order, no matter how tenuous "order" is at the moment, things will get worse.

Revolutions keep on revolving once they gain momentum. Groups will splinter of because they don't agree and they will keep on kicking at stuff.
 
2013-08-24 07:03:58 PM  

Pumpernickel bread: In other words, Assad is the lesser of two evils



I'd agree with that.  But our precious little king has already said that 'he has to go', and we are already supporting the jihadis.  Red line after red line has been drawn and then stepped over.

What's a community organizer to do?
 
2013-08-24 07:57:48 PM  

Delay: Laying there? In English only hens and whores lay.


Sally lays down too. Or at least he wants her to.

top-10-list.org
 
2013-08-24 08:57:05 PM  
DerAppie

The problem with proxy wars is that, even if you win, you end up with nothing.

I've got no idea where you get the idea that that is true. Take the Syrian conflict, do you really think (shiate) Iran and (sunni) Saudi Arabia have nothing to lose or gain?

In the grand scale of things nothing is exactly what both parties risk and therefore all that can be won. It is like a soap opera, some people might/will die on either/both sides but at the end of the day all you get is a return to the status quo to make sure that the next episode has a fixed point to start at. Sure, there might be some references down the line ("Remember when X did Y and we responded with Z? Sure showed them.") but the nothing is being advanced.

I don't think you get what a proxy war is. You advance your interests and negate those of your opponent.

If we do nothing things will go FUBAR. If we intervene things will go FUBAR. So why invest resources? All we'll end up with is another shiatload of costs with nothing to show for it.

The idea is to intervene in a manner that assists. If that advances our interests and reduces humanitarian cost, then it would be stupid to dismiss it. As for financial cost, the financial cost of the military intervention in Libya was less than 0.1% of that of Iraq. Quite clearly, then, it is quite possible to intervene in a way whereby, in the scheme of things, the financial cost is absolutely trivial.

And if we do something things still won't get resolved. Just look at your average Arab Spring country. Most got more conservative with women losing what we consider to be basic rights. Chaos doesn't help anyone, as it will be the people who scream loudest and make the most ridiculous promises (or put up the largest show of force) that get the most support. And that is hardly ever the moderate reasonable part of the population. Ousting Assad doesn't mean instant democracy (his family has held the presidency since 1971, no way that shiat went fair). It means a collapse of order, no matter how tenuous "order" is at the moment, things will get worse.

Removing a dictator from power doesn't necessarily mean the collapse of order. Look at the Kurdish region in Syria, or Iraq. Creating a power vacuum isn't what anyone is suggesting.

Revolutions keep on revolving once they gain momentum. Groups will splinter of because they don't agree and they will keep on kicking at stuff

I would be surprised if all people involved in a revolution had exactly the same goals. Likewise, i would be surprised if different groups didn't battle for power. That's how the world works. That's also why we should back certain people and principles, rather than simply leaving them to die at the hands of dictators and fundamentalists
 
2013-08-24 09:15:25 PM  

Ambivalence: Where the hell would rebels even get chemical weapons? It's not like you can order them from Amazon (you can't, right?).

That's not suspicious at ALL.



Well, they could have gotten them from any number of places.

The CIA and the Mossad come to mind:


Jerusalem Post:

Report: Syrian rebel forces trained by West are moving towards Damascus

QUOTES:

"Guerrilla fighters trained by the West began moving towards Damascus in mid-August, French newspaper Le Figaro reported on Thursday.

Le Figaro reported that this is the reason behind the Assad regime's alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus on Wednesday morning, as UN inspectors were allowed into the country to investigate allegations of WMD use.

"The rebels were trained for several months in a training camp on the Jordanian-Syrian border by CIA operatives, as well as Jordanian and Israeli commandos, the paper said.

"The first group of 300 handpicked Free Syrian Army soldiers crossed the border on August 17 into the Deraa region, and a second group was deployed on August 19, the paper reported.

END QUOTES


Note the dates?

So we've already chosen a "side", or at least our "leaders" have.

But if you're going to dive headfirst into yet another conflict that will likely cost Americans trillions of dollars and potentially tens of thousand of US lives, you need to have PUBLIC SUPPORT - and that comes from propaganda, and making it look like AssadCo "gassed his own people" would be just what the doctor ordered - especially given the prior (unproven) allegations, and Obama's "red line" warning.


/Keep your hands and legs inside the car
//Hold on tight
///And HAVE FUN!
 
2013-08-24 09:17:56 PM  

way south: I can't believe I'm going to say this but: for everything Al Queda is and has done, they aren't big on chemical weapons and don't possess an army of tanks or jets to cause mayhem with.
In this situation they've become the lesser of two evils and we really don't have to back them. We just have to make sure Assad tumbles down a flight of conveniently places stairs.

So we rattle his cage and let the people on the street can decide what they want from there. Maybe we can get a good foot in the door with the next government, or maybe we don't have to care if they keep their problems to themselves.

Its better than letting the use of WMDs go entirely ignored in a region that's loaded with these things.


They say they aren't big on chemical weapons, but in Afghanistan we captured video evidence of Al Qaeda testing various chemical agents on dogs. We do know Al Qaeda are masters of propaganda, as any successful terrorist organization must be, since they would be torn apart if they tried to fight any sort of conventional war. The Syrian military, on the other hand, is a conventional army, if a poorly equipped and organized one, and are more likely to carry out a coup against Assad than use nerve agents on their own people.

I think Al Qaeda has been gassing civilians and claiming the Syrian military did it. The Syrian military can only stop them in one way, by locating and capturing the gas stockpile. Once they did so, Al Qaeda had no choice but to abandon the stockpile (the only other option being to fight off the army, which would have left them getting torn apart for nothing, possibly even handing the intel they'd need to find other cells).

Of course, the Syrian military is getting thrashed by Al Qaeda's propaganda victories, and on the verge of getting crushed by the UN and the country handed over to Al Qaeda, which would have the same results as crushing Ian Smith's army in Zimbabwe and handing the country over to Robert Mugabe. No surprise they'd try to convince the UN that the gas came from anywhere other than the Syrian military's own stockpile that they had hoped to someday use on Israel.
 
2013-08-24 09:25:11 PM  

tirob: Syrian information minister says that his country has never used chemical weapons.

http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-regime-never-used-chemical-weapons-mini st er-185932294.html

I hope you're telling the truth, Mr. al-Zohbi.



Whether or not he's telling "the truth" is irrelevant.

What matters is what the propaganda machine can make the befuddled public believe.
 
2013-08-24 09:43:50 PM  

Infernalist: Like him or hate him, this President knows how to do foreign policy.


That's damned funny.
 
2013-08-24 10:05:07 PM  

Tatterdemalian: The Syrian military, on the other hand, is a conventional army, if a poorly equipped and organized one, and are more likely to carry out a coup against Assad than use nerve agents on their own people.



So you think that this was likely a ruse - a "false-flag" operation designed to bring international heat on AssadCo?

I think the available evidence surely points to that scenario - especially when motive is considered.


Tatterdemalian: I think Al Qaeda has been gassing civilians and claiming the Syrian military did it.



So you think the "opposition", the "rebels" are run by Al Qaeda? That's an interesting scenario, especially knowing that the CIA and Mossad have been supplying, training (and likely arming) these "rebels".

[As an aside, I guess that means that paying federal taxes in the US is now illegal - as our tax dollars are going to support "terrorist organizations", and supporting terrorist organizations is a SYRIAS crime]

That reminds me, I need to call my accountant.


Tatterdemalian: No surprise they'd try to convince the UN that the gas came from anywhere other than the Syrian military's own stockpile that they had hoped to someday use on Israel.



Now there's a conundrum. Israel HATES  AssadCo, and they want him out, so they're supporting AssadCo's enemies to further that end.

Problem is, these "enemies" happen to be Al Qaeda (according to you), and Israel also HATES Al Qaeda (who doesn't, right?) yet they (and Uncle Sugardaddy) are arming, training and supplying these SAME PEOPLE that crashed the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and that we (the US, not Israel of course) have sacrificed countless lives and billions of dollars trying (in vain) to defeat in Afghanistan.

If that don't beat all.

So tell us, Tatterdemalian, what is Israel's game plan here? Clearly they're working against AssadCo at the moment - but what are they going to do when he is defeated, and suddenly AL-FARKING-QAEDA is in charge of Syria, and has access to all of Assad's toys?


/ The plot
// It thickens
/// Does it not???
 
2013-08-24 10:08:04 PM  
Amos Quito, I feel the need to help you out.

Just show up to these threads and say, 'the Jews did it' - and then leave.  You'll save yourself, and all the rest of us, an enormous amount of time.


/were you a toothache in a past life?
 
Displayed 50 of 135 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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