OT: looks like we fired on Libya.....

User Forum Topic
Submitted by Coronita on March 19, 2011 - 1:43pm

So much for not get involved....Well, at least we're not sending ground troops...And i guess it's a coalition force....
And the french fired first :)

Submitted by CDMA ENG on September 3, 2013 - 9:32pm.

SD Realtor wrote:
yep...yep... and yep...as horrid as Assad is, I cringe to think what happens if he falls. Utter and complete chaos. Unless you have a plan to 100% occupy that country and cleanse it of all the weaponry I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Hezbolla and Al Quada are foaming at the mouth and trying to figure out how to set quick and deep roots.

CE

Submitted by CDMA ENG on September 3, 2013 - 9:36pm.

spdrun wrote:
Not to mention chemical weapons. What do you think that Napalm and Agent Orange were in all but name?

Poor line of logic...

So firing a gun isn't chemical warfare?

The defining line is whether it works solely on the nervous system.

And Agent Orange wasn't thought to be toxic at its usage. Time has said something different.

I would rather they drop AO on me then Willie Pete...

CE

Submitted by CDMA ENG on September 3, 2013 - 9:40pm.

Blogstar wrote:
Allan, Correct me if I am wrong but Hillary is a private citizen at this time? Taking a highly public role would be not so great for her and could be bad for the party.
Can't see why to call her out? She might endorse Obama publicly, but doesn't want to look too involved.

Plenty of citzens have made loud public proclaimations that get plenty of press... The difference is that they are not contemplating a run at the presidency...

:P

CE

Submitted by SK in CV on September 3, 2013 - 9:46pm.

CDMA ENG wrote:
SD Realtor wrote:
yep...yep... and yep...as horrid as Assad is, I cringe to think what happens if he falls. Utter and complete chaos. Unless you have a plan to 100% occupy that country and cleanse it of all the weaponry I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Hezbolla and Al Quada are foaming at the mouth and trying to figure out how to set quick and deep roots.

CE

The only thing that Hezbollah wants in Syria is weapons. They've staked their claim with the Assad government. It's unlikely they'll be integrally involved in any new power structure in Syria. And the current opposition in Syria is made up of dozens, maybe scores, maybe even hundreds of disparate groups. AQ aligned groups make up only a tiny portion. There are no good guys there. There are bad guys, badder guys, and victims.

Submitted by spdrun on September 3, 2013 - 9:51pm.

The defining line is whether it works solely on the nervous system.

No it isn't -- I recall reading about WW I, where mustard gas was used. It wasn't neurotoxic, just produced deep, slow-healing skin (and internal) burns. Definitely considered a chemical weapon.

Submitted by CDMA ENG on September 3, 2013 - 9:57pm.

Lastly I don't know if anyone is watching the Syria fight on youtube but it is very interesting. Not for the shock value but for tactics that are employed on both sides and the culture of both sides fighting.

Some things that I have observed and I am sure the CIA and DOD are studying indepthly...

- Syria's army are using tanks with no supporting infantry.

- The rebels are getting good hits in on tanks in urban enviroments. T-80s are getting eaten up by RPGs. Partly because there is no infantry support.

- The Rebels spend more time shouting "Allah Akbar" than aiming thier damn weapons. I kid you not... If it wasn't so pathetic it would be funny.

- Despite thier inexperience and poor tactics they face thier enemy pretty valiantly so less fear than most.

- And the one thing that I saw that was very worrisome... I could have swore I saw a SMAW being fired. This is an American weapon. Where did they get that?!? And no Allan it wasn't a Carl Gustuv...

These people are to be feared... By Assad... By us... By Israel...

CE

Submitted by SD Realtor on September 3, 2013 - 10:01pm.

So SK sounds like you advocate adding to the violence. Lots of reasons not to add to the sh-tstorm but I haven't seen anyone post a good reason to add to it, including yourself.

Submitted by CDMA ENG on September 3, 2013 - 10:04pm.

spdrun wrote:

The defining line is whether it works solely on the nervous system.

No it isn't -- I recall reading about WW I, where mustard gas was used. It wasn't neurotoxic, just produced deep, slow-healing skin (and internal) burns. Definitely considered a chemical weapon.

Actually you are correct and finding the definition at a glance appears to be difficult however, your arguement for napalm and AO doesnt really hold.

CE

Submitted by SK in CV on September 3, 2013 - 10:08pm.

SD Realtor wrote:
So SK sounds like you advocate adding to the violence. Lots of reasons not to add to the sh-tstorm but I haven't seen anyone post a good reason to add to it, including yourself.

Absofuckinglutely not. When there are no good options, choose the one that doesn't include dropping bombs.

Submitted by CDMA ENG on September 3, 2013 - 10:08pm.

SK in CV wrote:
CDMA ENG wrote:
SD Realtor wrote:
yep...yep... and yep...as horrid as Assad is, I cringe to think what happens if he falls. Utter and complete chaos. Unless you have a plan to 100% occupy that country and cleanse it of all the weaponry I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole.

Hezbolla and Al Quada are foaming at the mouth and trying to figure out how to set quick and deep roots.

CE

The only thing that Hezbollah wants in Syria is weapons. They've staked their claim with the Assad government. It's unlikely they'll be integrally involved in any new power structure in Syria. And the current opposition in Syria is made up of dozens, maybe scores, maybe even hundreds of disparate groups. AQ aligned groups make up only a tiny portion. There are no good guys there. There are bad guys, badder guys, and victims.

Sounds like Lebanon to me... Circa 80's. In fact AQ and Hezbollah will probably be fighting each other within 15 seconds of victory. Even if Hezbollah did make their bed with Assad you don't think they won't be courting however is in power?

CE

Submitted by SD Realtor on September 3, 2013 - 10:09pm.

Sounds like we are in agreement.

Submitted by SK in CV on September 3, 2013 - 10:23pm.

CDMA ENG wrote:

Sounds like Lebanon to me... Circa 80's. In fact AQ and Hezbollah will probably be fighting each other within 15 seconds of victory. Even if Hezbollah did make their bed with Assad you don't think they won't be courting however is in power?

CE

Hezbollah have their hands full in Lebanon. I doubt they'll be directly involved. Iran may attempt to find another proxy in Syria, but as unpopular as Assad is, it's not likely they'll find one that maintain any significant support. When Assad falls, and eventually he will, for a whole lot of reasons, it will make the Egyptian transition look smooth.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 4, 2013 - 12:06am.

SK in CV wrote:
SD Realtor wrote:
So SK sounds like you advocate adding to the violence. Lots of reasons not to add to the sh-tstorm but I haven't seen anyone post a good reason to add to it, including yourself.

Absofuckinglutely not. When there are no good options, choose the one that doesn't include dropping bombs.

I don't thnik that we'd be adding to the violence. We are already involved by arming the rebels. We can calibrate the totality of our involvement by adding a strike and removing some covert action, if necessary.

The important thing is the there should be an American led response to the use of chemical weapons -- a punishing strike at the infrastructure of the leadership. It doesn't mean that we would invade the country or get directly involved in their civil war.

There are no good options to resolve the conflict. Everyone knows that. That's not the goal.

The goal is for America to lead against the use of chemical weapons.

Submitted by livinincali on September 4, 2013 - 7:02am.

FlyerInHi wrote:

The goal is for America to lead against the use of chemical weapons.

Why should America act alone in punishing somebody for using Chemical weapons. The ban on the use of chemical weapons was established by a multi-nation treaty. That multi-nation committee that made the ban should come to an agreement on the punishment and execution of that punishment. Why should America institute some sort of vigilantly justice without the support of the member nations that established that ban.

Those that support a limited strike seem to think launching a couple cruise missiles against some kind of palace is good punishment for Assad and more importantly it allows Obama to saved face. Obama being labeled weak because he made a bad bet by stating he had a red line is worse than the potential consequences that result in launching a few cruise missiles.

Honestly tell me you'd support a limited strike on Assad if Romney was president and had made the same statements as Obama. Sometimes the guy or girl you support politically does something dumb and you just have to come to the conclusion that they aren't the person you think they are.

Submitted by SD Realtor on September 4, 2013 - 7:10am.

Yes we have been adding to the violence. We are friggin idiots for arming the rebels as well. Do you have any idea what percentage of the weapons we are arming the rebels with falls into the wrong hands?

Do we even know what happens if the rebels overthrow the govt?

Do you have some guarantee that it will be better?

Do you have any idea of what happens to all of the existing chemical weapons if the rebels take over?

As pointed out there is no single rebel force. In fact there is plenty of infighting among various rebel groups.

Here is the point. We have very little control over there. We have greatly contributed to the instability by providing arms. Our involvement has led to plenty more loss of life.

I don't advocate chemical weapon use but before anyone gets on a high horse and waves a flag about the tragedy of them, WAY WAY more lives have been lost due to conventional weapons. Drawing an arbitrary line because of those weapons will not.... do.... crap....

What it will do is make some of our allies like Saudi Arabia happy, and further galvanize enemies of the US in the middle east against us and against Isreal.

I love it... "The goal is for America to lead against the use of chemical weapons"

While America arms everyone else to the teeth....

Nice logic....

Submitted by harvey on September 4, 2013 - 7:42am.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
FIH: So, the only country in history to have used atomic weapons is taking a moral stance against chemical weapons.

Cool. Let's see how this plays out.

So now the strikes that decisively ended a global conflict are ethically comparable to a dictator using chemical weapons in a civil uprising?

Wow.

How will Syria play out?

- We'll fire a few dozen missiles or so, Assad will realize that he now literally has some skin in the game, and he'll stop using the chemical weapons.

- The conflict will rage on with conventional weapons for some undetermined amount of time and US military actions won't affect the outcome.

- The conservative media will talk about this relative blip in American history far longer than it will be relevant, attempting to frame "Syria" as one of Obama's grand failures, ala Benghazi.

- The public will lose interest in a few months or sooner, save for the standing population of those obsessed with proving Obama is the greatest disaster in American history.

The use of chemical weapons does cross a line. Of course there are plenty of arguments as to why that line is pointless. The "rules" of war are riddled with contradictions, but there are still rules. (Read some Vonnegut if you want a fun perspective on the subject.)

We've managed to keep the chemical weapon genie mostly contained for over a century, and a low risk operation in Syria will go a long way to deter their use in the future.

A US strike will not determine the victor, but it will influence the means by which they achieve victory.

And that matters.

Submitted by SD Realtor on September 4, 2013 - 8:11am.

Gotta respectfully disagree Harvey because I think you have constructed the absolute best case scenario. If it does play out that way, I will be greatly relieved.

Submitted by harvey on September 4, 2013 - 8:28am.

SDR,

I agree that my prediction is an optimistic scenario.

But note that I've actually made a specific prediction.

Now I'll leave the thread to our foreign policy and military "expert" - the guy who never actually makes any specific claim, never actually endorses any specific policy or policymaker, and who cannot even attempt to make any point without veering into an irrelevant rant against some politician on the left. A brilliant example:

Quote:
You notice who is remarkably quiet on all this? Hillary Clinton. Wonder why that is? I thought Dubya's foreign policy in the Middle East was too heavy handed, but he knew how to sound a message. This administration is starting to make Carter look actually competent.

The ignorance and irony in the quote above is staggering.

Submitted by NotCranky on September 4, 2013 - 9:05am.

I feel stronger now about the possibility that, behind the scenes, Russia and the U.S. are attempting to negotiate a mutually tolerable power structure in Syria. Assad may go out by (clandestine) agreement between the two powers. Not sure how all that would look if it happens. It seems much preferable to the current trends, so I hope it happens.

Submitted by SD Realtor on September 4, 2013 - 9:21am.

Not bad Russ. That has some merit.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 4, 2013 - 11:14am.

livinincali wrote:

Honestly tell me you'd support a limited strike on Assad if Romney was president and had made the same statements as Obama. Sometimes the guy or girl you support politically does something dumb and you just have to come to the conclusion that they aren't the person you think they are.

I'd support any president taking a stand against the use of chemical weapons against civilians. The world needs to speak up and we are the leader of the world.

Conventional weapons are conventional by definition. There is a humanitarian revulsion against chemical weapons. That's the issue here.

Arming that revels against Assad is another story. I think we should have stayed out. But that's about geopolitics.

How the Syrian conflict will play out is also another issue.

In the mean time, there needs to be a strong response to the use of chemical weapons on civilians.

Livin, btw I don't support Obama all the time. For example, the likely choice of Summers as Fed chair sucks. I hate it.

Submitted by SK in CV on September 4, 2013 - 10:22am.

Blogstar wrote:
I feel stronger now about the possibility that, behind the scenes, Russia and the U.S. are attempting to negotiate a mutually tolerable power structure in Syria. Assad may go out by (clandestine) agreement between the two powers. Not sure how all that would look if it happens. It seems much preferable to the current trends, so I hope it happens.

I agree it's preferable, but I think it's a pipe dream. That's essentially what happened in Egypt, with the military taking the role of interim government. With the >100,000 strong FSA, and maybe just as many or more Al-Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham forces standing in opposition to the current Assad military, any agreement brokered by external parties is problematic. The Syrian population just doesn't have the strong nationalism that is present in the Egyptian population. It is, unlike Egypt, nothing more than somewhat arbitrary lines on a map drawn less than 100 years ago and encompasses dozens of tribes and cultures. Absent those lines, there is no there, there.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 4, 2013 - 11:00am.

SD Realtor wrote:

What it will do is make some of our allies like Saudi Arabia happy, and further galvanize enemies of the US in the middle east against us and against Isreal.

Why the fixation with Israel?

We need to worry about our own long term interest and let Israel worry about Israel. That's how peace will be achieved in the region.

Submitted by SK in CV on September 4, 2013 - 11:21am.

FlyerInHi wrote:
SD Realtor wrote:

What it will do is make some of our allies like Saudi Arabia happy, and further galvanize enemies of the US in the middle east against us and against Isreal.

Why the fixation with Israel?

We need to worry about our own long term interest and let Israel worry about Israel. That's how peace will be achieved in the region.

There would be absolutely nothing beneficial to Israel if the US deploys military force in Syria right now. Though I think SDR is correct, he could have left the last few words off and it doesn't change anything. There is little upside to US involvement and plenty of downside. There is a civil war going on in Syria. More people will die. Whether by conventional weapons or chemical weapons, in the end, they're still dead.

(I do find it interesting that you singled out Israel as not being worthy of US concern, yet didn't mention Saudi Arabia, even though SDR lead his comment with SA.)

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 4, 2013 - 12:26pm.

I singled out Israel because proportionately Israel gets way more support from us. Even Kerry mentions Israel all the time as if we owe it to them.

We are the enablers of Israel. Without us Israel would have to rethink its survival in the region and make peace with its neighbors.

Saudi Arabia is a big country has has plenty if money.

My opinion is that the arc of history bends towards justice and democracy. We just need to support the democratic evolvement of the Middle East and let the chips fall where they may. We need to build our image with the population as fair arbiters. In the long run that would serve us well. If Israel is diminished and the Jewish state is no longer just Jewish because of the Arab population, and if the royal Saudi family falls, then so be it.

We have plenty of natural gas, oil here, oil in Canada and Mexico, solar, nuclear, renewables. We don't need Middle East oil.

Who cares if Iran wants to be the regional power. Make friends with them like Nixon made friends with China. Taiwan is fine now and Israel will be fine.

I know my position is not the prevailing opinion in America and in the West. But as long as the Muslim population is not with us then we will continually be drawn into wars.

I actually believe Rand Paul's position is a welcomed development in American politics. If the Tea party would lose the Israel religious elements, I could support its hands off approach.

Submitted by SD Realtor on September 4, 2013 - 12:27pm.

Hilarious... Trying to formulate a strategy on how to deal with this issue in a vacuum is is insane. Do you think that any retaliation to a US strike will be against Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Bahrain? Turkey? Irag? Egypt? Lebanon?

Jeez man pull your head out. Do you want to start a war just to prove a point? Is that it?

Try to get a bigger sense of the instability of the region. That there is a possibility of reactions to your making a point. I know the logic may be tricky here... Out of all the countries in the middle east, which one may be punished as a response to a US military action. Now if you figured that out, what do you think that country may do...do you think they will just sit there and have no response? Okay now if you figured that out, now what will happen...Was it worth you risking a nice little war in the region just to prove your point?

Then go back to square one and think...... hmmm... maybe this could have been prevented....Maybe there are other things here to consider...

It is not a fixation on Israel. It is a simple follow the logical path of possibility of what could happen. Not saying it will... it could... and really I don't think it is honestly worth the risk.

Submitted by SD Realtor on September 4, 2013 - 12:29pm.

Rand Pauls position would be we don't touch Syria with a 10 foot pole.

Submitted by spdrun on September 4, 2013 - 12:38pm.

They're like a bunch of high-school kids looking for a bar fight. "You don't back me up, we'll all look like pussies. C'mon, be a man, you're making us all look bad."

Congresspeople need to show some sanity, put their foot down, and nix the strike. Maybe if there were more women in Congress...

Submitted by SK in CV on September 4, 2013 - 12:50pm.

FlyerInHi wrote:
I singled out Israel because proportionately Israel gets way more support from us. Even Kerry mentions Israel all the time as if we owe it to them.

We are the enablers of Israel. Without us Israel would have to rethink its survival in the region and make peace with its neighbors.

Saudi Arabia is a big country has has plenty if money.

My opinion is that the arc of history bends towards justice and democracy. We just need to support the democratic evolvement of the Middle East and let the chips fall where they may. We need to build our image with the population as fair arbiters. In the long run that would serve us well. If Israel is diminished and the Jewish state is no longer just Jewish because of the Arab population, and if the royal Saudi family falls, then so be it.

Israel is not just Jewish. Roughly 20% of the citizens are Arabs. Not 20% of the population. The citizenry. Arabs hold seats in parliament. Jewish populations in the surrounding countries, which less than 100 years ago was over a million? Egypt, in the dozens. Syria, maybe a dozen. Saudi Arabia, zero. Iraq, less than 20. The number of Palestinian citizens of Israel, outnumber and have more rights than those of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon combined. So if we're going to be fair arbiters in the middle east, we can only do that in the context of our own democratic framework. The only justice and democracy that has existed in the middle east over the last 100 years is in Israel.

Submitted by FlyerInHi on September 4, 2013 - 12:58pm.

Sdr, I think Israel and SA want us to strike Syria.

I'm saying we strike Syria not to take side, but in response to the use of chemical weapons.

I would welcome a hands off approach. Not sure if rand Paul would withdraw support for Israel. I'm confused between the libertarian, mind our own business position (which I like) and the judeo-christian, anti-muslim agitation of the Tea Party.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.