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.

(Independent)   Bashar al-Assad goes with the tried and true defense: "Chemical weapons? What chemical weapons?   (independent.co.uk) divider line 97
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

1500 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Sep 2013 at 9:54 AM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-09 10:55:50 AM
Mr Rose's entire conversation with the leader of the Syrian regime is set to air at 2am  tonight on PBS.

WTF? no wonder the average American is clueless and ignorant about world affairs. One would think that in light of the current situation something related like this would take precedence over primetime slots currently taken up by the likes of Real Housewifes, The Kardashians, DWTS etc..
 
2013-09-09 10:57:20 AM

PainfulItching: Esroc: What would happen, realistically, if the U.S. more or less told the world to fark off and fix it's own problems? Like, say we completely backed out of the middle east entirely and just let them slaughter each other like they want? Granted, we'd be ignoring atrocities, but I don't see soldiers marching on Pyongyang so obviously atrocities aren't the real reason we're playing World Police.

It's exactly how WWII started. Germany started taking over real estate they claimed was theirs that was taken away at the end of WWI, and by the time anyone could mount a defense, they had most of Europe. Same thing with Japan, they were able to take a bunch of islands in the Pacific in practically no time in a well planned operation.

Then it took all of that effort and lives to dislodge them later. Meanwhile those atrocities were done on a much wider scale, since there were many more "enemies" (usually because of religion or ethnicity) to deal with.

Sound familiar?


Buy Syria is not taking over other countries
 
2013-09-09 10:58:47 AM

drjekel_mrhyde: Have you ever seen a 4 year old gun shot victim where a  bullet went in their stomach and came out their nose due to gangs or even having someone else brain matter on your face? I have in the US and it's not pretty


I don't dispute that.

It's still not "the same farking thing".  No more than is the carnage of a car wreck.

Which is how I lost my Dad.
 
2013-09-09 10:59:48 AM
As sad as it is innocent are dying, how the hell is that our problem? Russia and China are vehemently opposed to our involvement and no other nations have totally taken our side in support. If we attack, we look like arseholes sticking our big nose where it doesn't belong.

We need to stay out of Syria until the rest of the world is horrified and wants to take action. The we can says "see I told you so", swoop in, and save the day.
 
2013-09-09 10:59:54 AM

SuperNinjaToad: WTF? no wonder the average American is clueless and ignorant about world affairs. One would think that in light of the current situation something related like this would take precedence over primetime slots currently taken up by the likes of Real Housewifes, The Kardashians, DWTS etc..


Um, it's a UK paper.

2 AM in London is 9PM EST.

Are you suuureeee you want to rant about clueless and ignorant Americans?
 
2013-09-09 11:05:16 AM
... and now we've got a Dugway two-way in play ...
 
2013-09-09 11:06:18 AM

This text is now purple: PainfulItching: It's exactly how WWII started. Germany started taking over real estate they claimed was theirs that was taken away at the end of WWI, and by the time anyone could mount a defense, they had most of Europe. Same thing with Japan, they were able to take a bunch of islands in the Pacific in practically no time in a well planned operation.

Then it took all of that effort and lives to dislodge them later.

Germans were dislodged from Austria, Germanic Czechoslovakia, and Alsace-Lorraine under after the war. Japan never left the Ryukyu Islands. Basically, no one really cared about Germany and Japan taking over areas that were traditionally German or Japanese. Still don't.


I'm guessing you are talking about the end of WWI. Germany was also under treaty to not have an army nearly the size they did in 1937. Same with Japan's navy. At the time, Germany could have seemed perfectly reasonable in wanting to annex those german speaking areas. Japan simply wanted to expand it's ability to get supplies of rubber and other minerals. There were extremely loud voices in the US about not getting involved in Europe or Asia in any form.

And the Soviet Union was sending farm equipment to Cuba in 1962.
 
2013-09-09 11:11:48 AM

drjekel_mrhyde: PainfulItching: Esroc: 

Buy Syria is not taking over other countries


Iran would in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it. Like if no one stood up to someone who could not control the world's largest cache of chemical weapons.
 
2013-09-09 11:14:26 AM

This text is now purple: Tatterdemalian: What matters, at least to those who still remember the horrors of the WMDs used in World War I

Florence Green died on February 4, 2012. She was the last surviving veteran of WWI.


And because the last survivor is dead, the memory is required to die with her. That mindset is going to make the world mighty interesting when the last survivor of Hiroshima and Nagasaki passes on.

/fine, burn your hands off up to your armpits playing with that fire
//nobody's allowed to stop you, so you have the right and obligation to start WWIII
///because you can, therefore you must
 
2013-09-09 11:32:41 AM

PainfulItching: Germans were dislodged from Austria, Germanic Czechoslovakia, and Alsace-Lorraine under after the war. Japan never left the Ryukyu Islands. Basically, no one really cared about Germany and Japan taking over areas that were traditionally German or Japanese. Still don't.

I'm guessing you are talking about the end of WWI. Germany was also under treaty to not have an army nearly the size they did in 1937. Same with Japan's navy. At the time, Germany could have seemed perfectly reasonable in wanting to annex those german speaking areas. Japan simply wanted to expand it's ability to get supplies of rubber and other minerals. There were extremely loud voices in the US about not getting involved in Europe or Asia in any form.


Germany didn't seem perfectly reasonable in 1937 -- in the case of Alsace-Lorraine, Austria, and arguably Danzig -- they were perfectly reasonable. Everything they did was consistent with the ideals of the Versailles treaties and the League of Nations.

None of this absolves France and Britain for falling asleep at the wheel, though. They sold Poland out something fierce.
 
2013-09-09 11:33:56 AM

Tatterdemalian: This text is now purple: Tatterdemalian: What matters, at least to those who still remember the horrors of the WMDs used in World War I

Florence Green died on February 4, 2012. She was the last surviving veteran of WWI.

And because the last survivor is dead, the memory is required to die with her. That mindset is going to make the world mighty interesting when the last survivor of Hiroshima and Nagasaki passes on.

/fine, burn your hands off up to your armpits playing with that fire
//nobody's allowed to stop you, so you have the right and obligation to start WWIII
///because you can, therefore you must


When the last survivor is dead, the memory of gas attacks is gone.

You can still take lessons from it, but the visceral memory is lost.
 
2013-09-09 11:34:10 AM

drjekel_mrhyde: Deucednuisance: drjekel_mrhyde: I felt bad about the women and children in the chem attack, but you can go to any trauma ward in the US and see the same farking thing

People are dying from Sarin in trauma wards all over the US?

Why weren't we told?

Have you ever seen a 4 year old gun shot victim where a  bullet went in their stomach and came out their nose due to gangs or even having someone else brain matter on your face? I have in the US and it's not pretty
/The chemical video was posted online for shock value


Who cares about gun shots that happened 4 years ago?

/hyphens are your friend.
 
2013-09-09 11:50:02 AM

This text is now purple: PainfulItching: Germans were dislodged from Austria, Germanic Czechoslovakia, and Alsace-Lorraine under after the war. Japan never left the Ryukyu Islands. Basically, no one really cared about Germany and Japan taking over areas that were traditionally German or Japanese. Still don't.

I'm guessing you are talking about the end of WWI. Germany was also under treaty to not have an army nearly the size they did in 1937. Same with Japan's navy. At the time, Germany could have seemed perfectly reasonable in wanting to annex those german speaking areas. Japan simply wanted to expand it's ability to get supplies of rubber and other minerals. There were extremely loud voices in the US about not getting involved in Europe or Asia in any form.

Germany didn't seem perfectly reasonable in 1937 -- in the case of Alsace-Lorraine, Austria, and arguably Danzig -- they were perfectly reasonable. Everything they did was consistent with the ideals of the Versailles treaties and the League of Nations.

None of this absolves France and Britain for falling asleep at the wheel, though. They sold Poland out something fierce.


Given the number of the casualties suffered by both at the hands of Germans less than 20 years earlier, can you blame them for flinching?  Especially with the Soviets playing along with Germany?  Cut em a little slack...
 
2013-09-09 11:52:59 AM

PainfulItching: Iran would in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it. Like if no one stood up to someone who could not control the world's largest cache of chemical weapons.


Because if there's one thing Iran is known for it's attacking its neighbors.

Oh wait.
 
2013-09-09 11:57:39 AM

generallyso: PainfulItching: Iran would in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it. Like if no one stood up to someone who could not control the world's largest cache of chemical weapons.

Because if there's one thing Iran is known for it's attacking its neighbors.

Oh wait.


They've been threatening it for years.
 
2013-09-09 12:02:23 PM

PainfulItching: They've been threatening it for years.


Yes yes we've all seen the repeatedly debunked "threats" that amount to little more than intentional mistranslations and declarations that they will fight back against any attack. But how many of their neighbors have they actually invaded? Stop spouting propaganda.
 
2013-09-09 12:03:34 PM

PainfulItching: The DOD/White House hasn't publicly released the full info, saying they have to protect sources. Meaning they probably have people inside somewhere, and I would be shocked if they didn't - I would consider that to be standard operating procedure. They are giving senators the info in closed door meetings, and those senators who were against it, seem to be softening a bit, or at least open to the idea of listening to the possibilities. So there must be something there.


I genuinely hope that's true. It will be embarrassing as fark if we end up finding out in a year or two that we served as Al Qaeda's Air Force.
 
2013-09-09 12:05:18 PM

BigNumber12: PainfulItching: The DOD/White House hasn't publicly released the full info, saying they have to protect sources. Meaning they probably have people inside somewhere, and I would be shocked if they didn't - I would consider that to be standard operating procedure. They are giving senators the info in closed door meetings, and those senators who were against it, seem to be softening a bit, or at least open to the idea of listening to the possibilities. So there must be something there.

I genuinely hope that's true. It will be embarrassing as fark if we end up finding out in a year or two that we served as Al Qaeda's Air Force.


People are grossly exaggerating the presence of Al Qaeda. Nearly everyone who whines about them being present couldn't begin to tell you roughly what percentage of the fighters belong to what groups.
 
2013-09-09 12:07:24 PM

Heron: Your statement above is pure emotional manipulation.


He's just following the example set by his leaders, people like Feinstein and Boxer.

http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Feinstein-Boxer-buck-constitue nt s-on-Syria-strike-4793945.php

America's leaders have learned time and time again that emotional manipulation sways voters on contentious issues like nothing else. After all, nobody wants to be "anti-Children."
 
2013-09-09 12:08:09 PM
 Depends, is there a republican or Democrat administration in the White house?
For some people this would matter.
 
2013-09-09 12:10:15 PM

Esroc: What would happen, realistically, if the U.S. more or less told the world to fark off and fix it's own problems? Like, say we completely backed out of the middle east entirely and just let them slaughter each other like they want?


Yeah, it's pretty humiliating to have the Saudis and such point us at a problem they want fixed, throw a few dollars at our feet, and watch us scramble to comply.

LasersHurt: BigNumber12: PainfulItching: The DOD/White House hasn't publicly released the full info, saying they have to protect sources. Meaning they probably have people inside somewhere, and I would be shocked if they didn't - I would consider that to be standard operating procedure. They are giving senators the info in closed door meetings, and those senators who were against it, seem to be softening a bit, or at least open to the idea of listening to the possibilities. So there must be something there.

I genuinely hope that's true. It will be embarrassing as fark if we end up finding out in a year or two that we served as Al Qaeda's Air Force.

People are grossly exaggerating the presence of Al Qaeda. Nearly everyone who whines about them being present couldn't begin to tell you roughly what percentage of the fighters belong to what groups.


I've heard that roughly ~50% are foreign fighters - people who don't actually give a shiat about local Syrian civilians. Can you cite anything to dispute that?
 
2013-09-09 12:16:56 PM

PainfulItching: It's exactly how WWII started. Germany started taking over real estate they claimed was theirs that was taken away at the end of WWI, and by the time anyone could mount a defense, they had most of Europe. Same thing with Japan, they were able to take a bunch of islands in the Pacific in practically no time in a well planned operation.

Then it took all of that effort and lives to dislodge them later.



I think there's a nice, generous gray area between "complete isolationism" and "interfere in everything." We've been reasonably responsive when one sovereign state invades another, and we should continue to do so. Getting involved in someone else's civil war, or taking sides in a power struggle? Maybe we should sit those out. At the very least overtly, anyway.
 
2013-09-09 12:19:49 PM

PainfulItching: It's exactly how WWII started. Germany started taking over real estate they claimed was theirs that was taken away at the end of WWI, and by the time anyone could mount a defense, they had most of Europe. Same thing with Japan, they were able to take a bunch of islands in the Pacific in practically no time in a well planned operation.

Then it took all of that effort and lives to dislodge them later. Meanwhile those atrocities were done on a much wider scale, since there were many more "enemies" (usually because of religion or ethnicity) to deal with.

Sound familiar?


What is familiar is a country getting off the Central Banking Cartel scam and all of a sudden (no longer being supressed by crippling debt) they flourish.  Therefore they must be attacked and suppressed by all the countries trapped in the spiraling debt or their economies will collapse if they try to compete with a currency that isn't being charged interest when created out of thin air.
 
2013-09-09 12:20:10 PM

SuperNinjaToad: WTF? no wonder the average American is clueless and ignorant about world affairs. One would think that in light of the current situation something related like this would take precedence over primetime slots currently taken up by the likes of Real Housewifes, The Kardashians, DWTS etc..


I keep noticing sports broadcasts interfering with news timeslots, resulting in abbreviated segments on serious world issues, and failure to mention many critical developments at all.

Sad state of the American public, that this seems to be what we prefer. Blitzed out on sports and fictional entertainment, while our elected leaders do whatever they please, and in our name.
 
2013-09-09 12:21:04 PM

BigNumber12: I've heard that roughly ~50% are foreign fighters - people who don't actually give a shiat about local Syrian civilians. Can you cite anything to dispute that?


Not offhand, but remember that they're not all Al Qaeda just because they're foreign.
 
2013-09-09 12:21:28 PM

BigNumber12: Esroc: What would happen, realistically, if the U.S. more or less told the world to fark off and fix it's own problems? Like, say we completely backed out of the middle east entirely and just let them slaughter each other like they want?

Yeah, it's pretty humiliating to have the Saudis and such point us at a problem they want fixed, throw a few dollars at our feet, and watch us scramble to comply.

LasersHurt: BigNumber12: PainfulItching: The DOD/White House hasn't publicly released the full info, saying they have to protect sources. Meaning they probably have people inside somewhere, and I would be shocked if they didn't - I would consider that to be standard operating procedure. They are giving senators the info in closed door meetings, and those senators who were against it, seem to be softening a bit, or at least open to the idea of listening to the possibilities. So there must be something there.

I genuinely hope that's true. It will be embarrassing as fark if we end up finding out in a year or two that we served as Al Qaeda's Air Force.

People are grossly exaggerating the presence of Al Qaeda. Nearly everyone who whines about them being present couldn't begin to tell you roughly what percentage of the fighters belong to what groups.

I've heard that roughly ~50% are foreign fighters - people who don't actually give a shiat about local Syrian civilians. Can you cite anything to dispute that?


The French Foreign Legion is still a thing, (new identities and all, but they do Interpol background checks now). Private military companies are very active. There are active flat out single mercenary pilots, boat captains, etc. Then there are the guys who could not cut it in those worlds who just wandered in and picked up with the first group that would have them.

Not everybody fights under a flag. And if you think AQ or the taliban isn't lurking in the US somewhere, you're smoking the curtains.
 
2013-09-09 12:24:29 PM

PainfulItching: drjekel_mrhyde: PainfulItching: Esroc: 

Buy Syria is not taking over other countries

Iran would in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it. Like if no one stood up to someone who could not control the world's largest cache of chemical weapons.


The only conquest I could reasonably see Iran managing would be the shiate areas of Iraq. Other than that, they're surrounded by Sunni nations who are far better-armed, who would resist Iran's expansion with all of their strength.
 
2013-09-09 12:26:53 PM

Captain Horatio Mindblower: I'm sure Bashar al Assad is a lying piece of shiat. But he's no threat to the United States. It's one thing (and a separate debate) to say we should attack, say, Iran, so they can't develop nuclear weapons. But chemical weapons are a century old; that cat's out of the bag. And hell, half the time, we sold them the bag.

I'll save you all some time and tell you what will happen: the U.S. will attack Syria, Assad will fall, and the new regime will hate the U.S. Your tax dollars at work.


And the new regime will probably be worse than Assad and nuttier than squirrel poo too.
 
2013-09-09 12:30:59 PM

BigNumber12: PainfulItching: It's exactly how WWII started. Germany started taking over real estate they claimed was theirs that was taken away at the end of WWI, and by the time anyone could mount a defense, they had most of Europe. Same thing with Japan, they were able to take a bunch of islands in the Pacific in practically no time in a well planned operation.

Then it took all of that effort and lives to dislodge them later.


I think there's a nice, generous gray area between "complete isolationism" and "interfere in everything." We've been reasonably responsive when one sovereign state invades another, and we should continue to do so. Getting involved in someone else's civil war, or taking sides in a power struggle? Maybe we should sit those out. At the very least overtly, anyway.


Then there's the issue of the world's largest stockpile of chemical weapons which have been released in a civil war on more than one occasion. One of two things have occurred.

1) The Syrian government used it on it's own people
2) The Syrian government can't control it's stockpile of chemical weapons and it got into the wrong hands

Either way, an adult has to step in and take control of that stockpile before it become so much worse. Even Russia has as much as said so this morning. Do you really want to see a massive Auschwitz again? Because sarin is far worse than the stuff that the nazis used.
 
2013-09-09 12:32:00 PM

LasersHurt: BigNumber12: I've heard that roughly ~50% are foreign fighters - people who don't actually give a shiat about local Syrian civilians. Can you cite anything to dispute that?

Not offhand, but remember that they're not all Al Qaeda just because they're foreign.


That's agreeable. So, to broaden my original point - do we want to discover that we've served as Air Force for a roving band of international mujaheddin? That we fell for their trick and toppled a sovereign nation?

And again - foreign fighters of any sort are much less likely to be concerned with the average Syrian on the ground. I'd wager that there are plenty of Imports there who would happily sacrifice 1,000 people they don't know, in order to win control of a country of 22.4 million. All the easier when you consider that the Imports are mostly Sunni, and something like 40% of Syria is non-Sunni - a win-win, as far as many are concerned. On that note - are the religious leanings of the neighborhood in question known?
 
2013-09-09 12:41:04 PM

PainfulItching: The French Foreign Legion is still a thing, (new identities and all, but they do Interpol background checks now). Private military companies are very active. There are active flat out single mercenary pilots, boat captains, etc. Then there are the guys who could not cut it in those worlds who just wandered in and picked up with the first group that would have them.

Not everybody fights under a flag. And if you think AQ or the taliban isn't lurking in the US somewhere, you're smoking the curtains.


Can you clarify the point you're making? That Assad is being overrun by French expats? I guess I'm not following you.

I've seen several accounts asserting that AQ-linked militants are the dominant and best-funded faction among the rebels. A quick search just now yielded  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syria n -rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0  - I'm sure there are more detailed sources out there as well.

And I certainly don't think that there are no AQ or Taliban members 'lurking' in the U.S. What gave you that impression?
 
2013-09-09 12:45:13 PM

PainfulItching: Then there's the issue of the world's largest stockpile of chemical weapons which have been released in a civil war on more than one occasion. One of two things have occurred.

1) The Syrian government used it on it's own people
2) The Syrian government can't control it's stockpile of chemical weapons and it got into the wrong hands

Either way, an adult has to step in and take control of that stockpile before it become so much worse. Even Russia has as much as said so this morning. Do you really want to see a massive Auschwitz again? Because sarin is far worse than the stuff that the nazis used.


Enough with the emotional appeals and Godwins. If it can be shown that the chemical weapons used did indeed come from Assad's stockpile, under his orders, then I'll agree that we absolutely should hit Assad and "take control." But it hasn't been shown where those chemical weapons came from.
 
2013-09-09 12:46:40 PM

BigNumber12: LasersHurt: BigNumber12: I've heard that roughly ~50% are foreign fighters - people who don't actually give a shiat about local Syrian civilians. Can you cite anything to dispute that?

Not offhand, but remember that they're not all Al Qaeda just because they're foreign.

That's agreeable. So, to broaden my original point - do we want to discover that we've served as Air Force for a roving band of international mujaheddin? That we fell for their trick and toppled a sovereign nation?

And again - foreign fighters of any sort are much less likely to be concerned with the average Syrian on the ground. I'd wager that there are plenty of Imports there who would happily sacrifice 1,000 people they don't know, in order to win control of a country of 22.4 million. All the easier when you consider that the Imports are mostly Sunni, and something like 40% of Syria is non-Sunni - a win-win, as far as many are concerned. On that note - are the religious leanings of the neighborhood in question known?


Salient point. The neighborhood issue was brought up at the time of the release of the video. It hasn't been mentioned since though, so the information may have been disproven. It is a suburb of Damascus that is mostly in opposition of the government, however. And densely populated.
 
2013-09-09 12:49:30 PM

BigNumber12: PainfulItching: The French Foreign Legion is still a thing, (new identities and all, but they do Interpol background checks now). Private military companies are very active. There are active flat out single mercenary pilots, boat captains, etc. Then there are the guys who could not cut it in those worlds who just wandered in and picked up with the first group that would have them.

Not everybody fights under a flag. And if you think AQ or the taliban isn't lurking in the US somewhere, you're smoking the curtains.

Can you clarify the point you're making? That Assad is being overrun by French expats? I guess I'm not following you.

I've seen several accounts asserting that AQ-linked militants are the dominant and best-funded faction among the rebels. A quick search just now yielded  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syria n -rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0  - I'm sure there are more detailed sources out there as well.

And I certainly don't think that there are no AQ or Taliban members 'lurking' in the U.S. What gave you that impression?


Just trying to magnify your point that armed foreigners could be involved there. We agree on this. Slow your roll.
 
2013-09-09 12:57:53 PM

PainfulItching: Salient point. The neighborhood issue was brought up at the time of the release of the video. It hasn't been mentioned since though, so the information may have been disproven. It is a suburb of Damascus that is mostly in opposition of the government, however. And densely populated.


It's very frustrating. It would not be difficult at all for even a small number of rebels to have accomplished this with an imported weapon. Almost all Muslim nations are Sunni, and would be quite pleased to see Iran's puppet in Damascus fall - they have plenty of incentive to smuggle weapons, funding, etc to the rebels. And we basically told them how to get us involved in the conflict - we announced to the world that if chemical weapons are used, we're compelled to respond. And who do you think is going to bear the brunt of those airstrikes - 50 'in-the-know' foreign-backed fighters dispersed among the population, or the government of the country, with all of its easy-to-hit infrastructure, palaces, armor, artillery, airfields, etc? We've seen time and time again how much difficulty we have dealing with a small numbers of concealed fighters, but our deadly professionalism against established governments is well-documented.

It feels like we're being played like a fiddle, and that's distressing to me.
 
2013-09-09 12:59:51 PM

PainfulItching: Just trying to magnify your point that armed foreigners could be involved there. We agree on this. Slow your roll.


Apologies. I find this whole situation very frustrating. Some people seem to be unbelievably zealous about jumping into this fray, and I find that so hard to believe after the lessons of the past decade or two.
 
2013-09-09 01:00:52 PM

BigNumber12: PainfulItching: Then there's the issue of the world's largest stockpile of chemical weapons which have been released in a civil war on more than one occasion. One of two things have occurred.

1) The Syrian government used it on it's own people
2) The Syrian government can't control it's stockpile of chemical weapons and it got into the wrong hands

Either way, an adult has to step in and take control of that stockpile before it become so much worse. Even Russia has as much as said so this morning. Do you really want to see a massive Auschwitz again? Because sarin is far worse than the stuff that the nazis used.

Enough with the emotional appeals and Godwins. If it can be shown that the chemical weapons used did indeed come from Assad's stockpile, under his orders, then I'll agree that we absolutely should hit Assad and "take control." But it hasn't been shown where those chemical weapons came from.


Well, that's the only parallel to draw. I don't know of another one. And it's my opinion. Sorry.

But even if it came from his cache and he did not order it, he can't control it. If he can't control it, they have to be handled properly by somebody. The best thing to do would be to get rid of them all together. Ideally.

If they came from somewhere else, it's a whole other can of worms. I guess it depends on where it came from and who released it then. But everything I've seen points to this being a Syrian weapon. Who launched it does not matter at this point. The chem weapons need to be taken off the table. This is my opinion, YMMV
 
2013-09-09 01:11:33 PM

FarkedOver: The logical answer is to lob missiles at Syria and kill ________?

/war, UH good god. What is it good for?


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Next question.
 
2013-09-09 01:12:50 PM

BigNumber12: PainfulItching: Salient point. The neighborhood issue was brought up at the time of the release of the video. It hasn't been mentioned since though, so the information may have been disproven. It is a suburb of Damascus that is mostly in opposition of the government, however. And densely populated.

It's very frustrating. It would not be difficult at all for even a small number of rebels to have accomplished this with an imported weapon. Almost all Muslim nations are Sunni, and would be quite pleased to see Iran's puppet in Damascus fall - they have plenty of incentive to smuggle weapons, funding, etc to the rebels. And we basically told them how to get us involved in the conflict - we announced to the world that if chemical weapons are used, we're compelled to respond. And who do you think is going to bear the brunt of those airstrikes - 50 'in-the-know' foreign-backed fighters dispersed among the population, or the government of the country, with all of its easy-to-hit infrastructure, palaces, armor, artillery, airfields, etc? We've seen time and time again how much difficulty we have dealing with a small numbers of concealed fighters, but our deadly professionalism against established governments is well-documented.

It feels like we're being played like a fiddle, and that's distressing to me.


Richard Lloyd, warhead expert, and Theodore Postol, physicist at MIT estimate that the attack could have used up to 50 liters of sarin. Sarin has to be mixed from 2 binary liquids just before launch, and has to be dispersed just right, otherwise it dissipates with minimal effect or heat destroys it. It's not a stable compound and has to be handled in a very regulated manner.

This is something that has to be drilled and practiced. It's not plunked into a shoulder mounted rocket launcher. It's from an artillery piece.
 
2013-09-09 01:13:41 PM
 
2013-09-09 01:36:58 PM

PainfulItching: But even if it came from his cache and he did not order it, he can't control it. If he can't control it, they have to be handled properly by somebody. The best thing to do would be to get rid of them all together. Ideally.

If they came from somewhere else, it's a whole other can of worms. I guess it depends on where it came from and who released it then. But everything I've seen points to this being a Syrian weapon. Who launched it does not matter at this point. The chem weapons need to be taken off the table. This is my opinion, YMMV



Definitely true. My point is, it would be nice to determine whose weapon this is before we attack the government. Because our ability to prevent foot-soldier-scale use of chemical weapons by the rebels, using airstrikes, is effectively nil.
 
2013-09-09 01:38:27 PM

generallyso: Because if there's one thing Iran is known for it's attacking its neighbors.

Oh wait.


Well if you ignore the Iranian trained, funded and controlled terrorist organization Hezbollah than you are absolutely right.

generallyso: Yes yes we've all seen the repeatedly debunked "threats" that amount to little more than intentional mistranslations and declarations that they will fight back against any attack


besides the routine destruction threats, sure.
And the military parades with signs of 'death to Israel' in arabic are just iranian military joking around.
 
2013-09-09 01:38:55 PM

PainfulItching: [citation needed]
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/rockets-in-syrian -a ttack-carried-large-payload-of-gas-experts-say.html?_r=0

forgot to linkee


That's good to know, and would simplify the situation greatly if we can prove it to the world.
 
2013-09-09 02:06:37 PM

Captain Horatio Mindblower: I'm sure Bashar al Assad is a lying piece of shiat. But he's no threat to the United States. It's one thing (and a separate debate) to say we should attack, say, Iran, so they can't develop nuclear weapons. But chemical weapons are a century old; that cat's out of the bag. And hell, half the time, we sold them the bag.


I've been flipping back and forth on the issue of whether or not to bomb Syria for a while now. Unfortunately, if I could indulge in a bit of "but Bush," the Iraq war really trashed our credibility there.

We're told the Assad regime has chemical weapons and we're told that they've used them on their own people. We're told that there are treaties in place that more or less require us to prevent the use of chemical weapons and giving us the authority to punish those who do. On this basis, we're justified in using airstrikes to defend the people of Syria. The LOGIC is there, and it's sound.

Unfortunately, it can be picked apart with a few questions. We have the evidence. What evidence? Is it sound evidence? Has it been verified? What are these treaties? What do they say our actual responsibilities are? What do UN inspectors say? Has Al-Qaeda really infiltrated the rebellion, or is that just Assad trying to yap his way out of trouble? Is there evidence of that? Is THAT evidence verified? What will be the consequences? More importantly, does it HAVE to be airstrikes? Is there some other solution that might protect the people of Syria without military action?

All this is outside of the purely philosophical consequences. Should we strike Syria, is it our job to be the World Police, etc., etc., etc.

I finally found NPR in my location and was thrilled after months of listening to ClearChannel crap that I'd finally have some kind of in-depth quantitative analysis of important issues. Unfortunately, they haven't shut up about Syria all week, and they haven't answered a single barking one of these questions. I could only listen for a few days' of drive time before I went back to the ClearChannel. I know we aren't being told the whole story, but I'd love it if we could get enough of a story to make a goddamn decision.
 
2013-09-09 03:39:21 PM
Suppose it can be proven that Assad used chemical weapons on Syrians in Syria. Must France therefore attack him? Is Canada compelled to go to war on him? Denmark?

Same here.   The United States is not the world's police force.

These colors don't run the world.
 
rka
2013-09-09 04:13:36 PM

Tatterdemalian: C Could have been Assad, could have been one of his generals, could have been rebels that managed to capture a stockpile, heck, it could even have been an "work accident." (For those that don't speak Palestinian, that means a bomb went off while the terrorists were building it.)

What matters, at least to those who still remember the horrors of the WMDs used in World War I, is the fact that Assad either won't or can't prevent them from being used in Syria any more, and needs to be replaced ASAP by someone who will control them, before we start seeing more cities wiped out with bodies piled in the streets.

/the problem is, I don't think the US is that replacement
//not because we can't control WMDs, but because we won't, for "humanitarian reasons"
///which is why we should have never used "humanitarian reasons" as a substitute for actual humanitarian reasons


The very countries that experienced the horrors of gas attacks in WWI are some of the biggest opponents to doing anything.

If they can't be bothered...
 
2013-09-09 06:25:46 PM

somedude210: there was an article (that was redlit) about a german study that said that Assad never gave the order to use it and that it likely was one of his generals deciding to use the CWs


You can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsibility.
 
Displayed 47 of 97 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report