Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Firing a few tomahawk missiles is not going to win any war in Afghanistan or Libya, because it didn't ... plus it cost 1.4 million dollars per missile and the US fired over two hundred in the Libyan conflict alone.

Just go in a get the chemical weapons out of harms way no matter what it takes ...

it won't be like Iraq I'm sure of this.

Boots on the ground yes, but not to stay ... keep them moving make a highway to the Med and control it on both sides to escort the weapons out of the country.

Number one priority is not to stay ... no fortresses ... no Alamo's.

You see it too rosy. You do not go into a hostile country which already is a battlezone, guard a few highways without being engaged in heavy combat, know where their chemicals are, role them out of the country, and get out.

It is simplifications like these that has caused - and costed - the Iraq and Afghanistan war already.

---

I assume the Mossad has some pretty good estimations on some weapons storage sites. Take them out from the air. Maybe US satellites can contribute a couple of ideas - if so, take their considered targets out, too.

More objectives probably cannot be achieved without a full scale ground invasion - and that would be madness, and not supported by any people in the West, no matter the nationality.

Let's be realistic.

[Bubblehead1980]

Absolutely disgusted.Have we learned nothing with Iraq? The war drums are being pounded. Why should more American military men and women die? We must be absorb more debt? We are not supposed to be the beat cops of the world. This was wrong under Bush, it's wrong under Obama and wrong under anyone else who pursues this course.

[Wolferz]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Absolutely disgusted.Have we learned nothing with Iraq? The war drums are being pounded. Why should more American military men and women die? We must be absorb more debt? We are not supposed to be the beat cops of the world. This was wrong under Bush, it's wrong under Obama and wrong under anyone else who pursues this course.

Time for another constitutional convention?
That would shake the monkeys out of the tree.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Time for another constitutional convention?
That would shake the monkeys out of the tree.

Oh absolutely, it's time for amendments the restrict federal power and especially those of the executive. The presidency needs to be neutered since no man, even those who claim they will will voluntarily surrender the power. I believe a Rand Paul Presidency would curb much of it but not in the meaningful, permanent way it should. No one man or woman should have the power that the presidency currently enjoys. Once congress delcares war, sure their powers should increase but the crap that has went on since korea must stop. Now, if Syria started firing on US ships or was funding terror attacks etc, maybe but this is just us playing world police and it's ridiculous.

[Oberon]

Got to admit, I find myself in the Bubblehead1980 court here, and I never thought that'd happen.
This strike, is a bad idea, and I think everyone down to the lowliest street cleaner can see that. It's not going to do much against the well hidden Syrian chemical installations, and it's just going to annoy everyone in the region, and you can bet anything that the strike will conveniently miss the FSAs chemical weapons, because you know, they're never going to use chemical weapons because they're the good guys (sarcasm).

Obama has, through some pretty muddled foreign policy, painted himself into a corner, he called Assads bluff, and Assad called it right back.
There are only two reasons I can see a semi-rational leader going ahead with these strikes, 1) Is to try to level the playing field a bit so that this civil war continues indefinitely, because no matter who wins in this war, the US and its allies will lose, so the only way the US can win is to keep it going, however to do that they'd need to hit BOTH sides chemical weapons, and I can't see that happening and 2) is to try to prove after the diplomatic disaster that is Egypt that America still has some power in deciding matters in the Middle East, but unfortunately all its going to prove is how little power they have there.

The only way Obama can back out of this with only a minimal amount of loss of face is to put it to Congress, Congress will shoot it down, this much is pretty certain, and if they don't then the blame can be shared, but they will shoot it down and then Obama can turn around and say "Well, I tried, but they won't let me." and walk away.
Can't see that happening though, either. So it'll be another executive decision.
Can you say "Our government is united in its determination to take all necessary measures in support of freedom and in defence of peace in south-east Asia?"

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Got to admit, I find myself in the Bubblehead1980 court here, and I never thought that'd happen.
This strike, is a bad idea, and I think everyone down to the lowliest street cleaner can see that. It's not going to do much against the well hidden Syrian chemical installations, and it's just going to annoy everyone in the region, and you can bet anything that the strike will conveniently miss the FSAs chemical weapons, because you know, they're never going to use chemical weapons because they're the good guys (sarcasm).

Obama has, through some pretty muddled foreign policy, painted himself into a corner, he called Assads bluff, and Assad called it right back.
There are only two reasons I can see a semi-rational leader going ahead with these strikes, 1) Is to try to level the playing field a bit so that this civil war continues indefinitely, because no matter who wins in this war, the US and its allies will lose, so the only way the US can win is to keep it going, however to do that they'd need to hit BOTH sides chemical weapons, and I can't see that happening and 2) is to try to prove after the diplomatic disaster that is Egypt that America still has some power in deciding matters in the Middle East, but unfortunately all its going to prove is how little power they have there.

The only way Obama can back out of this with only a minimal amount of loss of face is to put it to Congress, Congress will shoot it down, this much is pretty certain, and if they don't then the blame can be shared, but they will shoot it down and then Obama can turn around and say "Well, I tried, but they won't let me." and walk away.
Can't see that happening though, either. So it'll be another executive decision.
Can you say "Our government is united in its determination to take all necessary measures in support of freedom and in defence of peace in south-east Asia?"

Haha.Well, this is not a left or right issue really, it is about right and wrong. Our government is out of control on almost every level(has been but its upped the game last 4-5 years) This need to play beat cop has more to do with one man's(the president, not just obama either) ego and postering than anything.Sure, it's awful what is happening in Syria and i am not against arming the rebels and sanctions etc but strikes that put american servicemen/women and equipment in harms way, risking more of our money, and risking igniting a regional conflict(this is how bigger wars get started) is just outrageous to pretty much anyone but those in D.C. The US is not supposed to be the world's beat cop. Only when our interests are directly threatened should we go to war with congressional approval. Sad that the next constitutional amendments need to be those to curb executive power, the nature of man, eh.

Watch things escalate and a "peacekeeping" ground force has to go in, of course with mostly US troops.Iraq etc all over again but maybe even worst. This will just piss more muslims worldwide off and spark more violence. We are a world and diplomacy etc is fine but playing beat cop is just an outrage. We learned this with Iraq, well the people did.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You see it too rosy. You do not go into a hostile country which already is a battlezone, guard a few highways without being engaged in heavy combat, know where their chemicals are, role them out of the country, and get out.

It is simplifications like these that has caused - and costed - the Iraq and Afghanistan war already.

---

I assume the Mossad has some pretty good estimations on some weapons storage sites. Take them out from the air. Maybe US satellites can contribute a couple of ideas - if so, take their considered targets out, too.

More objectives probably cannot be achieved without a full scale ground invasion - and that would be madness, and not supported by any people in the West, no matter the nationality.

Let's be realistic.

Completely agree with this!

[Packlife]

A quick side note- If the FRENCH are calling for action you know it's bad really really bad lol. Ok now my 2 cents on this. I've been watching the Syrian revolution since it kicked off w/ Assad's troops shooting an beating peaceful protesters in the street. This guy would have somebody's head cut off behind a curtain an tell you that they just stubbed their toe. Now when it comes to the use of chemical weapons, it's not the same as machine guns, artillery, etc like somebody said earlier, they say bullet has no name but gas/nerve agent's simply have "to whom it may concern" meaning everybody, I've heard even some of Assad's troops got hit w/ it when the wind shifted an brought it back on some of them. Gas/nerve agent's represent's the nastiest an ugliest side of war seeing people bent in wrong directions foaming at the mouth unable to breath will scar you deep, it did today when I saw video's of lines of dead kids not a scratch on them flat dead, I watched a little boy try to take 2 breaths before he died. That is not war it's murder an its butchery an should not be tolerated period. An what's worse is innocent women an children can't tell the difference between the regular Monday morning shelling an a Monday morning "special" shelling from good ol uncle Assad. These people do that natural thing when they hear incoming rounds or airstrikes an take cover in their basement's, an before they know it their basement is filling up w/ gas. There's of right after the shells hit an you can see the gas cloud taller than the buildings an was probably a city block or two long moving w/ the wind, it wasn't some home made recipe it was BIG. If these attacks were small in scale I'd say ok maybe it could be some hardcore rebels but seeing how big this attacked look an the casualties were 3,600 affected an 355 died from it, that came from doctors without borders. Assad's troops don't care who they kill. I watched a little documentary called the battle for Syria, w/ english subtitles and a english speaking narrator. One of the rebel leader's described the normal tactics of the SAA (Syrian Arab Army) since the rebel's have RPG's an some other anti-armor weapons the SAA started pulling their tank's way back an sending sniper's in large number's, line's of sniper's as the leader said. The snipers take out as many rebel soldiers as possible then the tanks move up an then the snipers move ahead of them again. They took the camera man to one of these area's by a park an showed pointed in the direction from where the sniper's fire from. A second later a bullet rips right over the camera mans head, the rebel's though they had cleared them all out. These snipers target every an anybody, 1 sniper killed a cleric an would shoot at anybody who tried to retrieve the body. An this rebel leader had been an officer in the SAA, an was explaining how hard it is to fight their revolution since he doesnt have soldiers, he has regular people taxi drivers plumbers, an he explained they dont listen to directions he said if they followed even 15% of what their told to do it's a success. To me it's amazing how long the rebels have been able to hold out against a professional army, not too mention the Hezbollah fighters that have been coming in from Lebanon helping Assad, Hezbollah is actually the reason the rebels have been loosing ground, but we all know that Iran has trained a majority of Hezbollah's fighters in urban warfare. You can go on youtube an find all kind's of video's of the fighting. I've heard some say or its a civil war let both sides work it out, but is it still a civil war considering that Russia is providing Assad w/ all kinds of goodies, Hezbollah is providing fighters, an Iran is providing some kind of aid as well doesn't really seem like a civil war to me. Now I'm not calling for boot's on the ground, but why can't we do what we did in Libya?? Send in jets an tomahawk missiles, take out Assad's air power, an carve out a area for a no fly zone so that innocent civilians have somewhere to go w/ out having to leave the country, as of right now there are 1.9 million refugees an 1 million children refugees, an god knows how many are dead. What worries me most is something like Al-Qaeda coming in an linking up w/ the rebels that want to turn Syria back into a more old school religious traditional country. An Al-Qaeda would have a new warm cozy home to fester an grow strong again, an their payment would be those chemical weapons an a lotta pissed off people who will end up mad that the US didn't come an help them. America is suppose to be the country that sticks up for the little guy, personally I think we've let this thing get way out of hand. It would be one thing if it was an even type match an the rebels could win it on their own, but w/ these gas attacks, an Hezbollah fighters coming in an Russia giving Assad all kinds of equipment takes it in a whole new direction. Sorry if it seemed like I rambled some but I cant stand seeing innocent people being butchered

[Skybird]

Anyone still remember? Obama won the peace Nobel prize at the very beginning of his presidency, and for nothing he had accomplished but things one wanted hiom to accomplish in the future.



I do not mock him for this at least, it was not his fault, but that of those hopeless idiots in Oslo who totally overestimated themselves and the influence they could cast on world affairs.

Then there was the hilariously reality-distorting Cairo speech which distorted en passant a not unimportant part of history, on the fly so to speak. Here Obama tried on others what Oslo had tried on him.

And of course the red line curse he now is haunted by.

Doomed if he bombs and doomed if he bombs not. Well, that is karma. Fate self-made. Next time shut up a while, sucker, while you still can.

I'm against any action over Syria. And one day more has passed, and still they have not said a single word on what the objective, the solid material realistic objective of this now rumored two days bombing campaign should be. To punish Assad? Define "punishment", please. How many tanks destroyed is "punishment", hoe man fuel trucks blown up? If the number is met, then this punishment has been accomplished, yes? And in how far means blowing military stuff and infrastructure up - in how far means this punishment of those making decisions? Is Assad getting a heavy heart over the bloodbath he causes? Hardly.

In war, you do not fight against tanks and planes and trucks, but ideologies, plans, ambitions, enemy efforts. Weapojns are just the tools. It helps to redcue them, but only when their reduction has a meaning concerning a higher mission objective. Else it is meaningless. Your obstacle lay in tactics and strategy, not in numbers of rifles. You define the goal of your effort by objectives to be met, may it be mere survival, may it be "take city A", "deny enemy access to area B", "wipe out division C". It may not always go according to such plans, nevertheless if you start to rumble without having ideas like this about what you want to achieve, you invite trouble for yourself.

It is a known symptom of newbies in chess. They move the pieces back and forth and left and right, but without a plan that adds perspective and strategy to their moving. They do not focus on anything, becasue they have no clue on what that focus could be: they have no plan, no objective which then could be used to focus on, phase by phase. Experienced players indeed put it in words like this: "they do not play chess - they move pieces around". Doing that in conformity with the rules, is still no strategy, still no plan.

So, Mr. Cameron and Mr. Obama, may I ask you for what your objectives are, your strategy, your plan? So far we have not heard a single word on that except pathetic rhetorics, morally obedient proclamations of indignation, and expressions of your wishful thinking.

P.S. And another small detail: still no evidence has been shown and presented that allows to say that indeed Assad's troops have committed the massacre. It could as well have been the rebels. Many of their factions give as much for civilian lives as Assad, and martyrdom ranks high in their ideologic book. I see it as very likely that it were chemicals used, yes. But no word on what sort of weapons or agents. That it was one side or the other I see as a 50:50 case so far. Because we do not know.

That would be a nice story. NATO bombs on behalf of the rebels, and later it turns out that it were the same rebels committing that massacre to fool NATO into the ring.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Anyone still remember? Obama won the peace Nobel prize at the very beginning of his presidency, and for nothing he had accomplished but things one wanted hiom to accomplish in the future.



I do not mock him for this at least, it was not his fault, but that of those hopeless idiots in Oslo who totally overestimated themselves and the influence they could cast on world affairs.

I think that was more about awarding the man who so called pushed America forward past its racist past by becoming the first black man to win the presidency.

Sadly that is a fairy tale.

America will always have this problem, and a man as weak as the president will not be the one to "unify" the races.

I do not want to interfere in Syria, no matter the outcome it will simply breed more hate for America, imperialistic accusations. etc...

There was a time when other countries respected us, now they just fear us. I do not want that.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by soopaman2

I think that was more about awarding the man who so called pushed America forward past its racist past by becoming the first black man to win the presidency.

Which is a violation of Noble'S intent, who clearly said that the Nobel peace prize is to be awared for accomplishments acheived regarding ending wars and demilitarisatioin in general. Women'S rights, ending genocides, ecology, racism porojects - all this is nothing that the Nobel prize has been founded for by Nobel. Many of the past nominations, are abuses. If I were Nobel, I would raise from the grave and end the hijack. Because that is what the Oslo freaks did in their megalomaniac well-meaningness: they hijacked the Nobel founded peace prize and instrumentalized it for causes that Nobel did not wish to engage on. Many Nobel peace prize wionners, are no real winners, but impostors of a kind. And many get the prize not for what they have acieved, but what a small Oslo circle thinks they should try to achieve in the future. In the end, it often is about this circle's intention, not so much about that prize winner's accomplishments. And by raising that expectation, you gain power and control over the winner's decision: he has to justify the vote made by the committee. If I were mean, i would say that is kind of a blackmailing, or pressing.

I have learned to despise the Nobel peace prize very much. Would not like to end up on that list, it would be an offence and a disgrace when reading some of the names.

BTW, Obama, is no black. He is a mixed-blood. And he has no achievement that he accomplished himself for ending racism in the US. Neither did he achieve it, nor is racism abolished. To say he is black (father from Kenya) makes as much sense as to say he is white (mother was).

[There was a time when other countries respected us, now they just fear us. I do not want that.

Oh, being feared allows you to achieve more good stuff than just meaning it well but being weak. I prefer being feared to depending on the good will of others any time. You must not act like a monster, if you do not want to. But to make others believe you are, can be extremely helpful. And to know that you can be, if you want, is reassuring.

[Ducimus]

As just reading some news and i needed to vent:

We're about to hit our debt ceiling again in a month and a half, we're already 16 trillion in debt, and these asshats in washington are probably going to send us into another war. I'm starting to wonder if the petrodollar conspiracy theories have validity to them.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

Time for another constitutional convention?
That would shake the monkeys out of the tree.

Be careful what you ask for. A new Constitutional Convention would be wide open for any changes they wanted to make, with no restrictions. Considering the things you're complaining about and the current strength of the Left, you would probably end up with a much worse situation rather than a better one.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

Oh absolutely, it's time for amendments the restrict federal power and especially those of the executive.

I agree with amendments, but don't cofuse them with a new Constitution. The main reason the president has the power he does is that the members of the original convention knew that George Washington would be the first president, and they trusted him implicitly. That power came back to haunt them, and is still with us today.

On the other hand for all your complaints about the current president, he really doesn't have the kind of power you think he does. He gets a lot of what he wants because Congress is on his side for the most part. The President can suggest and influence all he wants, but he has no power at all to make laws.

Just out of curiosity, exactly what amendments would you propose?

Until the politicians can answer questions about the aftermath they shouldn't push their ideas for intervention.
None have made any real sounds on the "then what?" question

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Be careful what you ask for. A new Constitutional Convention would be wide open for any changes they wanted to make, with no restrictions. Considering the things you're complaining about and the current strength of the Left, you would probably end up with a much worse situation rather than a better one.

Too true. The first thing that would get put on the chopping block, is all the things on the Bill of Rights that the left does not agree with. In their ignorance and arrogance they would make things far worse.

I agree with amendments, but don't cofuse them with a new Constitution. The main reason the president has the power he does is that the members of the original convention knew that George Washington would be the first president, and they trusted him implicitly. That power came back to haunt them, and is still with us today.

On the other hand for all your complaints about the current president, he really doesn't have the kind of power you think he does. He gets a lot of what he wants because Congress is on his side for the most part. The President can suggest and influence all he wants, but he has no power at all to make laws.

Just out of curiosity, exactly what amendments would you propose?

I know your not talking to me, but i figured i'd offer this up anyway. I personally would propose anything that would get rid of the professional politicians that have become a ruling class that should not exist. Mainly, TERM LIMITS. All seats in the house, and the senate should have a 2 term limit. Chief justices should have term limits. Every position in government should have term limits. Continuity be damned.

We currently have the best government money can buy, and THAT needs to change, and it really needed to change decades ago. Go after ALL (yes all) special interests, and do whatever it takes to remove them from politics. The only people congressman should be listening to is their constitutes from their districts from which they were elected. Dream a little dream.

Of course, none of that will happen. What will happen is the "ruling elite" will further cement themselves more power, the "war on terrior" will continue perpetually without end, our government will continue to be bought and paid for investment by the "real owners", and "we the sheeple" will continue to have our civil liberties taken out from under us as we sit on our asses watching