Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Skybird]

Not often that August and me agree on something so completely.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by August

Forget your commando raids.

To eliminate Syria's chemical weapons capability would require a full scale invasion and thorough search of the country. We're not talking about a single building that can be destroyed by a cruise missile or two.

It is munitions dumps and research facilities and assembly plants, many widely flung and probably no more pinpointed than Saddam's stockpiles were. It ain't like they advertize where they keep all off this stuff.

No this would have to be on the scale of the Iraq war to be successful. Anything less would be just useless posturing.

You are right. (edit: This cannot be solved with a few airstrikes and a commando strike)
But that Iraq thing worked out really well.

I say let them kill each other, takes the attention off trying to kill us, and if we do invade, it will just be more of us dying, and endearing them towards harsher ideals.

Let them be, no one helped America break free from Britain (Shut up French, you jumped in at the end, after we started winning)

Let them discover their own independance.

Forcing it breeds contempt, and gives them something to unify against.

[kranz]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Let them be, no one helped America break free from Britain (Shut up French, you jumped in at the end, after we started winning)

seems like someone has to re-take a few lessons of history.
Kosciuszko, Pulaski - do these names sound familiar?

[Mittelwaechter]

During the first Gulf War - Iraq vs. Iran - the US backed the Tabun and Sarin attacks of Saddam Hussein and even showed him - provided satellite data - where to drop the stuff, to hinder an Iranian counterattack in 1987 or 1988.

At least 70% of the Syrian people back Assad, 20% are neutral and 10% back the aggressors - according to NATO data. Who do we want to believe, if not our own side?

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/...rts-and-minds/

So what do we do over there? We simply want to hit Iran again. Syria is just a piece of the puzzle. We (US/NATO/Mossad/Arabian Sunni States) are responsible for the 'revolts' against Assad. We would like to see a Sunni administration, to isolate Iran. That's in the favour of Sunni Saudi Arabia and Quatar - who support the revolts, because they don't even accept Assad's Alewites religion as Islammic, and because they want to weaken Iran.

Iran turned evil when the Iranian people got rid of their dictator, who was a reliable partner in western oil business. Carter's Teheran drama is still not forgiven and Iran sells oil for Rubel and Yuan. They break the rules to use the US-Dollar as world key currency - formerly accepted by the OPEC as the only valid payment. It was the ultimate advantage of the US, because all the world needed US-Dollars to pay their oil. They sold their stuff cheaply to the US, providing a comfortable American Way of Life.

Iraq and Libya wanted to end the Dollar dominance and use Euro or Gold. We know what happend. And the US attacks the Euro - greetings from Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s und Fitch.

US fracking is a symtom of the loss of the US-Dollar superiority. What if not weapons or genfood could the US sell, to get some foreign currency for their oil demand? The green papers are worthless and the world gets out of US control.

But the US military is a mighty tool for politics, so Iran is next - and Syria just an obstacle to progress.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

Let them be, no one helped America break free from Britain (Shut up French, you jumped in at the end, after we started winning)

General Rochambeau and Admiral deGrasse would disagree.

Originally Posted by kranz

seems like someone has to re-take a few lessons of history.
Kosciuszko, Pulaski - do these names sound familiar?

Von Steuben, LaFayette.

[Alex]

@ Mittel' : Ah !
Finally things start getting interesting.
Pleasant to see someone making use of his brain so spotting what's taking place there roughly.

Anyway... One must do something else than raising his flag dumbly while just listening to tv to figure out who's the real greatest enemy of peace in that area.

[kranz]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Von Steuben, LaFayette.

he has to re-take more than I thought.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by kranz

seems like someone has to re-take a few lessons of history.
Kosciuszko, Pulaski - do these names sound familiar?

Dammit ya got me, kinda. We did this alot on our own burden, you can even cite Von Steuben, for teaching European style tactics to what was basically a guerrilla army.


We got major roadways in my area named after both of them.


Kosciuszko Bridge in Queens NY.

Pulaski Skyway in N jersey.

I am not saying we did it absolutely alone, but we had to earn outside confidence with the merit of our soldiers and leadership. Let them earn it, and choose what they want. Not have it forced on them in exchange for help. Then they feel "vassalized" and rebel, much like Iraq and Afghanistan, then it becomes a drawing point for extremists to kill the infidel invader Americans.


You want it done? Let someone else do it, America has had enough foolish funerals over foolish wars.

Look at Iraq and Afghanistan... Two wars that cost many lives on both sides, and nothing is better, it is worse.
Who is the west to choose their fate, is my point

[nikimcbee]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Not often that August and me agree on something so completely.

omg, the Mayans were right. The end is near.

So where are the cries "no blood for Syrian oil?"

[MH]

Last time thing like this happened in syria Assad's father killed tens of thousand in matter of weeks.
You need to understand that whatever is going on in Syria is a matter of long internal history of this country.
Who takes which side and why or neither in current conflict is another thing but not great conspiracy.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by nikimcbee

omg, the Mayans were right. The end is near.

So where are the cries "no blood for Syrian oil?"

The end was near last year, this is just business as usual.


Sooooo anyone else wish to call me stupid in a condescending tone?

Have at it, just don't get red assed when I do it to you later.

I acknowledged I was wrong, but not fully wrong, Americans died for what we got, and we had the balls to do so, no one can take that away.

But no outside power influenced us to do what we did, my point.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

If Syria were to be so foolish it would be the beginning of a swift end game resolution.

I think Assad has enough on his plate within his own country atm.

I could be wrong, had this thought that in some cases a country at war could try to expand it, when attacked and by doing this hope that an allied would occur, in this Iran and maybe a third country.

However I really can't understand it, I really can't. His forces have won many battles in the latest few month. They have gain controlled over some stragetic important cities and crossroad.

Some month ago I read in a danish newspaper saying that if those who was fighting Assad and his regime wouldn't get more help. it would maybe take 1-1½ year for Assad to win the war.

That's the reason I ask myself WHY!!

Markus

[Wolferz]

The U.S. government just wants to create another enemy as a tool for achieving military dominance and cash flow to the contractors.
Every time a perceived enemy is eliminated, another one almost immediately takes its place.
They have been doing this a long time and have become exceedingly efficient at it.
If you can't find one, create one is their creed.

[eddie]

I wonder what it would be like to go 10 years without being involved in some worthless war?

[Jimbuna]

Less jobs/employment in the armament industry.