That's basically equivalent to arguing that anything involving military-grade explosives constitutes chemical warfare. In Syria's case we're talking about the brazen usage of a weapon that indiscriminately maims or kills hundreds or thousands of innocents in a single stroke, with many times that number suffering serious injuries and unimaginable pain. And it can easily get far worse in a heartbeat without intervention and deterrents.
The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End
- Thread starter ExposingAmericanLies
- Start date
That's basically equivalent to arguing that anything involving military-grade explosives constitutes chemical warfare. In Syria's case we're talking about the brazen usage of a weapon that indiscriminately maims or kills hundreds or thousands of innocents in a single stroke, with many times that number suffering serious injuries and unimaginable pain. And it can easily get far worse in a heartbeat without intervention and deterrents.
Solution to what? Getting better war movies?
Bells
Staff member
And in 3 years, the war in Syria is estimated to have killed well over 100,000 people.
So I will ask you again.
Is the life of a Syrian child being gassed to death with Syrian weapons worth less than a house?
No one is demanding the US and her allies invade Syria. What the victims and the world expects is that Assad be punished for using CHEMICAL WEAPONS against his civilian population. That punishment can easily come without a single soldier setting foot on Syrian soil and the simplest and cheapest way would be to use missiles to take out Assad's ability to allow his jet fighters to take off.
I will break it down even further for you. How about the cost of a cup of coffee?
Is the life of a Syrian child worth more or less than your cup of coffee? Because each missile they use is going to cost tax payers about the cost of a cup of coffee.
No one is demanding you invade or rebuild Syria.joepistole said:
No one. Not those coming under attack in Syria, no one.
What is being asked by the victims of this chemical attack is that the world community reacts by doing something to protect them. Because at the moment, it is like Rwanda all over again, only this time with chemical weapons. We are watching a leader of a country use chemical weapons to slaughter masses of people.
The US set a standard, even drew the "red line". That red line has been crossed. There are external and independent groups, such as the MSF who have confirmed the use of chemical weapons on the populace. Obama and his predecessors, as well as the world community to which the US belongs to, had stated clearly, that the use of WMD's is illegal.
Syria and Assad in particular, seems to believe that being under the protection of Russia will allow it to gas his populace and he probably believes the US will never do anything to anger or go against Russia. If the US and the world community does nothing to punish him, then it will not stop here. He is testing the waters. He has Russia, his main arms supplier supporting him. But if nothing is done, if he realises that the US and the global community are nothing but empty words, then it leaves the door open to his not stopping the use of WMD's because he knows everyone is too chickenshit to stop him.
Again, no one is demanding you invade or rebuild Syria. What is being asked is that you stop him from doing it again. Because if you do nothing, he will do it again and possibly worse.
No one is asking the US to 'get into Syria'.GeoffP said:
And of course it would not be just the US. Have you not read the news? The French were ready to go the moment the news about the chemical attack hit the headlines. The British weren't far behind.
The world does not need the US to take part in this. But if it does not, then it will be seen as being weak.
You have a President who said, clearly, that the use of chemical weapons would be the "red line", which would result in intervention. You have another President, who with the support of Russia, who believes that he can use it because he doesn't think the world will do anything because Russia has veto power in the UN and has used it consistently to prevent any sanctions being placed against Assad. If we do nothing (and by "we", I mean the global community), then it will not stop here. And Syria's neighbours are well aware of that. If the US does nothing, then I am sure Syria's neighbours will be very concerned. Because before now, the US has done everything it can to not get involved. The "red line" comment was made because no one thought he would have done it. It was the last straw and the one thing the US probably never thought he would use. But he has. He has called that bluff. The US and the West have to respond.
Failure to respond will mean that he knows the US and the West will do nothing and it will pretty much open the way for him to use them at will against the rebels. He knows the US is very reluctant to get involved in another conflict in the ME. Which is why that arbitrary line was placed at the use of chemical weapons.
What was your suggested solution to the Syrian issue CptBork?
Is it let them fight it out themselves?
Agreed. But keep in mind that back in 1988 we supported Saddam Hussein when he gassed the Kurds with Sarin and mustard gas. We even gave him targeting information so he could deliver the gases more effectively.
The reason? He was fighting Iran and we really REALLY didn't like Iran. So we helped him win his war. Now the Syrian rebels are using Sarin against Assad's government - and we're going to help them?
We've made this mistake before.
I'm not against striking Syria for this atrocity, if the Assad government was behind this horrific attack, but it hasn't been confirmed. It hasn't. It's been 'most likely' assumed.
That said, this was a crime against humanity. All crimes against civilians need to be condemned, no doubt. It just sucks for lack of a better word, that we have no conclusive evidence. That's all I'm saying.
Lines in the Sand: A Note for the Record
Just so that I'm on the record, though this is likely not a new point:
I mean, yeah. I'm a pacifist, but I get it. Time is time, and this is the time. To the other, all the chemical suits and atropine in the world won't comfort the soldiers, their families, or the general American public. In the first place, we're very, very weary of war.
And, in the second, great, now we're talking about going into a sarin storm.
I've seen numbers suggesting public support for this mission is somewhere between nine and twenty-five percent.
Who the hell are the nine?
I mean, at twenty-five percent, I get it. There is a lot of sentiment about the nobility of our armed services that can drive us to do the right thing. But this time it's going to cost us in ways Americans aren't prepared to cope with. At twenty-five percent support, I get it. This is what we do, and this is how we're supposed to do it; the caveat, of course, is that "I" am not among the "we" who will actually "do" the doing of "it".
Honestly, I think the nine percent is when we start accounting for the people whose asses are actually on the line.
Truth, Justice, and the American Way? Fuck yeah.
A tag team bout against sarin and reality? Eh ... not so much.
As far as I can tell, the only question remaining is how many Syrians we sacrifice in the bloodfire rain before we send our flesh and blood to boil and die in the poison winds.
Just so that I'm on the record, though this is likely not a new point:
• It's nice, and all, to draw lines in the sand; I'm not going to knock anyone for saying human atrocity is a line we cannot cross. However, the prospect now involves sending our soldiers into a theatre of warfare in which an unhinged tyrant has demonstrated his willingness to erase the theatre itself.
I mean, yeah. I'm a pacifist, but I get it. Time is time, and this is the time. To the other, all the chemical suits and atropine in the world won't comfort the soldiers, their families, or the general American public. In the first place, we're very, very weary of war.
And, in the second, great, now we're talking about going into a sarin storm.
I've seen numbers suggesting public support for this mission is somewhere between nine and twenty-five percent.
Who the hell are the nine?
I mean, at twenty-five percent, I get it. There is a lot of sentiment about the nobility of our armed services that can drive us to do the right thing. But this time it's going to cost us in ways Americans aren't prepared to cope with. At twenty-five percent support, I get it. This is what we do, and this is how we're supposed to do it; the caveat, of course, is that "I" am not among the "we" who will actually "do" the doing of "it".
Honestly, I think the nine percent is when we start accounting for the people whose asses are actually on the line.
Truth, Justice, and the American Way? Fuck yeah.
A tag team bout against sarin and reality? Eh ... not so much.
As far as I can tell, the only question remaining is how many Syrians we sacrifice in the bloodfire rain before we send our flesh and blood to boil and die in the poison winds.
You're talking about the missiles the allies might fire at Assad, right? If so, then you've vastly over-calculated the cost. A TLAM costs about $1 million, so each missile fired costs the taxpayers three tenths of a cent apiece. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile)
It is the total cost of our involvement in Syria that is likely to cost us each surrendering a cup of coffee ($3 a cup = $1 Billion total).
"Limited police action" means ground troops, right? *You are aware that Obama said no ground troops, right? *So either you think he is lying, will change his mind, or you are very confused.
I don't think that Vietnam ever "sounded great", but setting that aside, isn't that a pretty scant basis for comparison since by your own claim there were many other wars that held the same promise? Ie, Libya? There must be some reason that you picked a very badly matched war in terms of scale (financial and human cost). Purposeful strawman?
I never said you claimed it to be "EXACTLY LIKE" Vietnam. What I said was that among the possible choices for comparison, Vietnam is a pretty bad choice because it is not very similar to what is being proposed, while some others are very similar. Thus the choice seems purposely made to highlight the bad things about Vietnam and imply they exist in the better examples and/or the options being proposed, when they don't. There must be some reason you did that. Purposeful strawman?
That's conspiracy theory nonsense, but I'd love to see you try to find a mainstream source to corroborate it.
Just like above; Are we not supposed to laugh when you post such things? The entire western world believes Assad used the gas, but you know different/better? It is tough to fathom you are serious about any of this.
August 6, 1945...no military benefit or need...just to show the ability... : - "...the brazen usage of a weapon that indiscriminately maims or kills hundreds or thousands of innocents in a single stroke, with many times that number suffering serious injuries and unimaginable pain." - And again on August 9,1945.
Go ahead, spin that any way you care to. Rationalize it to fit into any world view you care to. Put any color lipstick on that Pig, heck, add a garter belt and stockings to that Pig if you care to. Step up and "chew up the scenery" in the role of "that Manly Man" if you care to.
Ignore, debase, belittle, marginalize...do anything you care to a FACT - even a "Manly Man" could not change or refute a FACT.
I shall.............wait............. in breathless...antici.........................................................pation, for your fact filled, open minded, sensible response.
There is no court here in which to prove/disprove and even if there was, you and Bilvon would just choose to believe what you want to believe anyway:
Nonsense.
I think Walt Disney did it.
And, of course, all of this conspiracy theory crap about the US is successfully leading the discussion away from what is happening to the Syrian people. Nothing the US ever did in its history has any bearing on whether the Syrian people deserve to be defended from Assad. It is despicable that you guys are punishing the innocent civilians of Syria because of your hate for the US.
I liked reading that, even though I got a lost with your poll and its interpretation. Had you thought of turning this into a poem? Its certainly got the making.
Yes, you back in the corner - do you have a question?
The problem is that pollsters are asking the wrong questions and as a result the answers they get reflect the wrong belief you display here, that we would employ ground troops. If the question was asked in a way that made it clear that ground troops were not on the table, I'm quite certain the response would be different.
Let's say for the sake of argument that I accept your characterization of the US's use of the atomic bomb. So what? What does that have to do with whether the Syrian people deserve to be helped?
Oh, haven't you heard? We just admitted it.
Retired Air Force Colonel Rick Francona, a military attache who was working in Baghdad in 1988, told Foreign Police magazine said that they knew what Saddam was planning.
'The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.
CIA 'helped Saddam Hussein carry out chemical weapons attack on Iran' in 1988
The American Way
I wouldn't disagree, but I would propose a counterpoint for further consideration:
Most realistic people recognize that when it comes to "humanitarian" warfare, such as it is, we cannot bomb our way through to the other side. This is not a war we can fight on the credit of the bravery of being out of range. We cannot airstrike this situation to redemption. If the U.S. deploys its military assets, those resources will be used in such a manner that will result in civilian death. This is a real fact of war, and it is accentuated by the question of getting in close and going after the bad guys, or hanging back safe and clearing the whole sector with fire.
Yes, we can keep our people off the ground, save for a plane crash or two.
But we're going to kill enough Syrians to make the mission counterproductive, as well, if we do so.
If we're not putting people on the ground, this is just an exercise in killing that should not be undertaken. If we're putting people on the ground, we must be prepared for things we simply do not wish to see, or know exist, or whatever.
I agree there is a question about whether we should use ground troops. In the end, though, that question represents, to me at least, the difference between trying to do something useful and just killing a lot of people because we think it looks good.
Yes, we can certainly kill a lot of people because it looks good, and thus avoid the use of ground troops in Syria. But at that point, I'm not sure why we would be going, anyway.
Can we put the French on point?
Russ Watters said:
I wouldn't disagree, but I would propose a counterpoint for further consideration:
• At what point does the collateral damage of the American way of warfare exceed the salvation of a people?
Most realistic people recognize that when it comes to "humanitarian" warfare, such as it is, we cannot bomb our way through to the other side. This is not a war we can fight on the credit of the bravery of being out of range. We cannot airstrike this situation to redemption. If the U.S. deploys its military assets, those resources will be used in such a manner that will result in civilian death. This is a real fact of war, and it is accentuated by the question of getting in close and going after the bad guys, or hanging back safe and clearing the whole sector with fire.
Yes, we can keep our people off the ground, save for a plane crash or two.
But we're going to kill enough Syrians to make the mission counterproductive, as well, if we do so.
If we're not putting people on the ground, this is just an exercise in killing that should not be undertaken. If we're putting people on the ground, we must be prepared for things we simply do not wish to see, or know exist, or whatever.
I agree there is a question about whether we should use ground troops. In the end, though, that question represents, to me at least, the difference between trying to do something useful and just killing a lot of people because we think it looks good.
Yes, we can certainly kill a lot of people because it looks good, and thus avoid the use of ground troops in Syria. But at that point, I'm not sure why we would be going, anyway.
Can we put the French on point?
I think we could find and blow up Syria's chemical weapons, perhaps assassinate Assad, establish a no-fly zone, and help the rebels to win. Maybe it does involve our troops, we should be getting good at this.
Yes, your prominence, up in the front, at the Podium - I have a few questions :
1. Do you believe that it is alright for a Government's Military to use Chemical Weapons on OTHER nations civilian populations - yet a Military that is alleged to have used Chemical Weapons on IT'S OWN CIVILIAN POPULATION should be immediately condemned?
2. Do you believe in the ego-centric "Do as I say, not do as I do" style of leadership?
3. What tenet, law, belief, religion or edict gives ANY GOVERNMENT or NATION the RIGHT TO MEDDLE IN THE AFFAIRS of ANY other?
These are just a few of the questions from that person back in the corner.
Are the any answers from the Podium?