46
   

Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

 
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 01:25 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
I'm sure any sites will be properly scrutinised, but what if Assad chooses to leave caches of sarin or mustard gas near such sites. A lot of intelligence, command control stuff is near populated areas.

I've not seen anything that would convince me a missile strike would shorten the war or improve the lives of ordinary Syrians.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 01:36 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

I'm sure any sites will be properly scrutinised, but what if Assad chooses to leave caches of sarin or mustard gas near such sites. A lot of intelligence, command control stuff is near populated areas.

I've not seen anything that would convince me a missile strike would shorten the war or improve the lives of ordinary Syrians.


At this point, a missile strike would not be intended to shorten the war or measurably improve the lives of ordinary Syrians. which is why the rhetoric about moraly obscenity and duty is bullshit. It would be,, at best to send a message to Assad and other dictators that the use of chemical weapons will not be countenanced, and at worst (and most likely) extract, to some extent, Obama from the box his big mouth placed himself in.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 01:53 pm
I should add that unless whatever punitive action the US might take is devasting, in personal terms, to Assad, it won't have the intended result of sending a message to other strongmen with chemical weapons.

It's pretty clear that the Assads of the world only care about their personal interests. Stiking out at his military capabilities will only be effective if it can reduce them to the point where he is no longer capable of holding on to power. It's virtually impossible for a few cruise missiles to accomplish such a feat, and there is virtually no chance that Obama will take on a much larger response.

Therefore, unless there is a good shot at sending one of the missiles up Assad's butt, why do anything? Getting involved has a huge down-side and if it can't accomplish the goal of deterence, it's not worth it....unless you are a member of an Administration that is interested in saving face for The Big Guy.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 01:55 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:
I think the vehemence of the 2003 reaction against France was because Americans knew deep down that we were right, that it was a bad idea to go into Iraq. To listen to the very same idiotic US right preach pacificism and sanctimonuouly lecture us about "drawing the lessons from Iraq" is priceless.

Well, speaking for myself, I still don't think the invasion was a bad idea, so if that viewpoint is present in any Americans, I can't identify with it.

But Iraq did get boring after we rocked Fallujah. Maybe we should have put a bullet in Saddam's head and pulled out of Iraq on the last day of 2004.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 01:56 pm
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:
Laying on of cruise missiles on Assad will cause him to do what? Yes...that's right...he will do what he did again. Then what is the next step? How stupid does our gov't think we are? oh wait..i know the answer there. Let's hope incompetent Congress will vote this down...they've obstructed some potentially good legislation - why not block something morally reprehensible for a change?

What is morally reprehensible is your view that we should have a world where monsters use nerve gas against civilians with impunity.

As for the next step, that is easy. It would be a "no fly zone" (complete with an intensive air bombardment to eradicate Syria's air defenses).
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 02:07 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
Moment-in-Time wrote:
izzythepush wrote:
No no no no no. Nobody thinks that's a good idea. It will release clouds of sarin over a wide area, which could easily drift over to an adjoining country, heavily populated civilian area etc.

Oops! My bad! I'm sure you're correct,

It might be safe to always assume that izzythepush is a blithering moron who doesn't have the slightest idea what he is talking about. He's not as retarded as CI, but he's still far from the brightest bulb in the box.

Chemical weapons have a localized impact. If a city is right next to where they are dispersed, that could be really bad, but there is no chance of any long range damage.

Plus, any warehoused nerve gas will be unmixed and therefore completely inert.

And any bombing of such a site would use high temperature incendiaries that would destroy the nerve gas even if it had been mixed.

That said, I have not heard Obama say he was going to specifically target the nerve gas sites to begin with.


Moment-in-Time wrote:
What would be the purpose of striking if there's not going to be a regime change is my original thought? Everyone realizes we have the capability but what substantive change will be affected if a strike does come about? How will a mere strike deter Assad in the future?

Presumably the strike would harm him and he would be deterred because he does not wish to be harmed again.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 02:29 pm
@oralloy,
You really are an inbred chimp.

Quote:
The Pentagon would probably avoid targeting stockpiles, which could send toxic gases into the air and cause civilian casualties.

"We don't want to hit actual chemical weapons because of the dangers," said Jeffrey White, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former Defense Intelligence Agency official


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/27/hagel-syria-cruise-missiles/2710945/
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 02:46 pm
@oralloy,
We have killed more innocent people through good intentions, for oil, and lies.

"Morally reprehensible" is in our back yard. We don't need Assad to show how immoral our country is.
0 Replies
 
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 04:02 pm
@izzythepush,
WASHINGTON — The expected U.S. missile strike against Syria would be aimed at forces linked to chemical weapons as well as broader military targets, according to military officials and defense analysts.

Broad command and control and artillery and missile launchers, which can fire conventional or chemical weapons, would likely be targeted, analysts said.
The Pentagon would probably avoid targeting stockpiles, which could send toxic gases into the air and cause civilian casualties.

"We don't want to hit actual chemical weapons because of the dangers," said Jeffrey White, an analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former Defense Intelligence Agency official

The Pentagon said Tuesday they are prepared to launch an attack if ordered to do so by President Obama.

"We are ready to go," Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said.

The U.S. Navy's 6th Fleet has positioned four destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean, each capable of carrying up to 90 Tomahawk cruise missiles, though most carry less during normal deployments.

The U.S. Navy fired 212 Tomahawks during the bombing campaign that helped topple Libya's Moammar Gadhafi in 2011.

The campaign against Syria is expected to be more limited, aimed not at decapitating the regime but in sending a message and deterring further use of chemical weapons.

The United States has weapons that can penetrate thick walls and incinerate chemicals inside, said Ralf Trapp, a France-based chemical weapons disarmament expert.

But even with specially designed munitions cruise missiles are not a good way to strike chemical weapons since they are fired from miles away.

"This gets risky if you are doing it long range with cruise missiles," said Kenneth Pollack, an analyst at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution.

Targeting convoys or open ammunition pits would be even more dangerous, since the odds of releasing toxic fumes would be even greater, Trapp said.

Assad's regime has regularly moved its chemical stockpiles around, presumably to keep them out of rebel hands.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/27/hagel-syria-cruise-missiles/2710945/

"We know for a fact it is moving from time to time," Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said earlier this month during a trip to the Middle East. "It's a frequent occurrence."

Even if the U.S. military does not go after stockpiles it would probably try to target the specific units involved in carrying out the attacks if they can identify them, White said.

It's not clear how much intelligence the United States has on the Aug. 21 attack outside Damascus.

Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday the administration has additional information about the attack and "we will provide that information in the days ahead."

Some evidence suggests the attack was carried out by Syria's 4th Division, a unit intensely loyal to Assad that is protecting the capital, White said. Elements of that unit have lobbed artillery shells from surrounding hills into the city, he said.

But Pollack says the attack could have been carried out by a unit that was not firmly under Assad's control. That would complicate the administration's effort to send a message of deterrence to Assad's government.

"It's really hard to deter an entity that is not a unitary rational actor," Pollack said. "Maybe some generals don't respond to Assad."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/27/hagel-syria-cruise-missiles/2710945/
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 04:05 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
Do you think there's anyone, anywhere who pays any attention to Oralboy's deranged nonsense? (Inbreds like Gungasnake and arselickers like Advocate aside.)
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 04:43 pm
If they move the stockpiles of chemical weapons around constantly, we could not be sure we would avoid bombing them, since likely we don't know where they are.
JTT
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 04:46 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
It's pretty clear that the Assads of the world only care about their personal interests.


Finn, the US is the Assads of the world.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 04:55 pm
@JTT,
JTT, no it's not.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 05:07 pm
@edgarblythe,
They could even place them where they think the likely targets are.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 05:53 pm
@Moment-in-Time,
These ridiculous guessing games disappear when we decide not to attack Syria.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 06:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
The only possible authorization can come from the Syrians themselves after letting them know all of the pros and cons.

Otherwise, the US has no authority on its own.
0 Replies
 
Moment-in-Time
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Sep, 2013 06:26 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:

Do you think there's anyone, anywhere who pays any attention to Oralboy's deranged nonsense? (Inbreds like Gungasnake and arselickers like Advocate aside.)


I posted the article directly from the media....what?....Did Oralloy post the same one? I do not read Oralloy's posts; we disagree too much.
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Sep, 2013 01:32 am
@Moment-in-Time,
I posted the same one after Oralboy said there would be no problem bombing stockpiles of nerve agents.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 3 Sep, 2013 02:15 am
@JTT,
Are you going to respond to my post?
I did what you asked and posted your quotes.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Tue 3 Sep, 2013 04:59 am
@spendius,
If you beleive him... Did Bolton complain a lot when Bush ask the Congress to bless his sodding Iraq war?

I'd rather think he simply doesn't wan to be seen as supporting Obama.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.26 seconds on 11/17/2024 at 08:34:09