# Syria Gas Attack-  What Now?



## goon175 (Aug 21, 2013)

213 people are dead in Syria from nerve gas.... where in the world did they get that from.....?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/21/us-syria-crisis-gas-idUSBRE97K07O20130821


----------



## RustyShackleford (Aug 21, 2013)

Coming to a street corner near you...


----------



## JBS (Aug 21, 2013)

Sobering pucker moment for anyone paying attention,  that's for sure.


----------



## AWP (Aug 21, 2013)

It's a good thing we didn't draw a line and tell the Syrians not to cross it or else we'd look like buffoons....


----------



## Dame (Aug 21, 2013)

And the toll is rising. http://live.reuters.com/Event/Syria_9?ss=1


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 21, 2013)

Oppo forces have made this claim before iirc. I'm on my phone atm so prob missing something but there is not much evidence so far going by that Reuters link.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 21, 2013)

If true, who really launched the attack?  Assad would be stupid for doing it, but the rebels could blame him to draw other players into the war.


----------



## TheSiatonist (Aug 21, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> It's a good thing we didn't draw a line and tell the Syrians not to cross it or else we'd look like buffoons....



Not sure if you were being sarcastic but not only was it a line but it was a "red line"...



> Almost one year to the day, on August 20, 2012, Obama told NBC's Chuck Todd: "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized...That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."



source


----------



## TheSiatonist (Aug 21, 2013)

BBC video:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23777201


----------



## dknob (Aug 21, 2013)

TheSiatonist said:


> BBC video:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23777201


Damn.

Those poor kids - fuck.

Since becoming an uncle for the first time last year, It's the closest I can relate to having a child (sad I know). If he had to endure what they are enduring; even cannibalizing those responsible wouldn't be a limit to my vengeance.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 21, 2013)

dknob said:


> Damn.
> 
> Those poor kids - fuck.
> 
> Since becoming an uncle for the first time last year, It's the closest I can relate to having a child (sad I know). If he had to endure what they are enduring; even cannibalizing those responsible wouldn't be a limit to my vengeance.


Which is why I believe the Rebels did it, just like the French C-160 shoot down.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 21, 2013)

It's interesting what we as a people find shocking.  There have been 100,000 killed by many estimates, and the world was largely "meh."  Now a couple of hundred are killed by chem weapons, and suddenly it's horrific.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 21, 2013)

Can't find it now but I heard on the news last night there's reports that Assad and the "rebel" leaders have no "control" now.  Things are apparently being run by Iran and Hamas.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 21, 2013)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Its a fucking shame that the Syrian people (fathers, mothers, children and grandparents) are suffering and dying in this way. I don't support some of the rebel groups, but it sickens me that chemical weapons are being used on civilian populations, and we the USA, as well as the UN and every other country are sitting on our asses. Some fucking beacon of freedom we turned out to be.

Another anger point is that a American team with a Sniper rifle was rolled up in Syria a while back and nobody talked about it. 

Russian Spetsnaz have been actually videoed fighting in Syria. Iranian Republican Guard has been videoed fighting in Syria, but yet no major US or UN involvement as of yet. meanwhile some US secret squirrel team got rolled up and nobody said shit...

I don't understand the situation in Syria and I'm not understanding why my brothers and I fought in Iraq to watch it go to shit, just to watch the same shit that happend in Iraq happen in Syria.


----------



## goon175 (Aug 21, 2013)

In line with what Gen. Mattis said the other day, I am convinced that any further involvement with any country in the mid east needs a clearly defined goal. I don't care if that goal is to make said country the 51st state in the union, they better have a fucking goal outside of "we'll roll in, kill some dudes, then play state dept. for a few years, and then decide it is politically intolerable and pull out leaving billions of dollars in equipment behind"


----------



## Confederate Son (Aug 21, 2013)

Wasn't the UN and it's mighty force of Peacekeepers created for shitstorms like this?

I know that's a friggin' joke in reality but it does piss me off more than a little.. Kinda' hard to walk tall and not carry any stick at all...


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 21, 2013)

JAB said:


> I've said it before and I'll say it again. Its a fucking shame that the Syrian people (fathers, mothers, children and grandparents) are suffering and dying in this way. I don't support some of the rebel groups, but it sickens me that chemical weapons are being used on civilian populations, and we the USA, as well as the UN and every other country are sitting on our asses. Some fucking beacon of freedom we turned out to be.
> 
> Another anger point is that a American team with a Sniper rifle was rolled up in Syria a while back and nobody talked about it.
> 
> ...



Do you have a link to that sniper story?  This is the first I've heard about that.

Russians and Iranians are fighting Syrians... in Syria... why would we possibly want to get in the middle of that?  Maybe it makes more sense to draw this out as much as possible, to bleed all three of them.  None of them are friends of ours.

The US cannot afford economically, militarily, or politically, to be the world's policeman anymore.  We are in a huge financial crisis.  Our military is overextended and about to get massively reduced.   No matter what we do in Syria, the people in that region are still going to hate us. 

There are many horrific ways to die, and many people in Syria have died in terrible ways.  I read a story a short time ago that a Syrian woman got *raped to death with a rat*.  That's terrible.  That's horrible.  I feel for that woman.  But there has to come a time when "that's not my problem" comes into play.  I am not convinced that assisting in the downfall of Assad leads to a better result for America.  And I personally am not in a huge hurry to go get involved in someone else's civil war.  Especially when that war is in the Middle East.  If we commit as a nation to do this, I'll go all in and raise my hand to go over.  But I'm hoping we have better sense.

You mentioned watching "what happened in Iraq happen in Syria."  What happened in Iraq is that we got involved in a war we shouldn't have.  That is EXACTLY what is going to happen if we intervene militarily in Syria.


----------



## AWP (Aug 21, 2013)

mara and goon for the win.

When you think about it, nations make foreign policy far more complex than it needs to be.


----------



## Confederate Son (Aug 21, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Maybe it makes more sense to draw this out as much as possible, to bleed all three of them.  None of them are friends of ours.
> 
> The US cannot afford economically, militarily, or politically, to be the world's policeman anymore.  We are in a huge financial crisis.  No matter what we do in Syria, the people in that region are still going to hate us.



Agree X 20! Let Allah sort'm out..


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 21, 2013)

http://www.sott.net/article/242143-CIA-or-Mossad-Snipers-Caught-in-Syria

@Marauder06, I think we could bomb the shit out of the Assad regime, as well as get the UN to step in with a security force. Chemical weapons being used on civi's is not something the worlds super power should sit back and watch IMHO. I agree with many of your points, but find it silly that we are wasting money and blood in Afghanistan, when we could do some good in other places. I am not calling for a full on invasion/occupation of Syria. I am saying lets not sit on the sidelines and watch on TV while people get killed with chemical weapons.

I actually agree with most of your post, just still think we need to take a long look at ourself and figure out what we actually stand for.

As for Russia and Iran, why would we allow those cock-suckers to have further influance in the ME? I don't doubt the problems involved, but I think we are setting our future up for another bullshit cold war by allowing them to influance places like Syria...

$.02


----------



## Kunoichii (Aug 21, 2013)

It's one thing hearing about it, but it's another thing seeing it. I get the media is doing what it usually does, but they are just kids. If that country as a whole doesn't buck up and eat the people responsible alive, they need to.


----------



## goon175 (Aug 22, 2013)

I'm not saying we should or shouldn't get involved. After reading the link Mara posted it would not take much effort to get me back in uniform and over there. I just think that if we do in fact commit money and man power (i.e. American lives) there needs to be a clear goal. If that is to remove all CBRN weapons from the country, fine. If it is to take out Assad, great. If it is to do both those things plus put an interim government into place, I'm cool with that. But it needs to be spelled out, the goal needs to be pursued with ferocity, and then we need to step back once the goal is achieved. If we can't do that, then we need to stay on the sidelines.


----------



## pardus (Aug 22, 2013)

Politicians are incapable of making reasonable decisions.
All we will do by going in there is jump back into another quagmire. 

Why is Syria so important? Because the fucking media says it's important, thats why.

Where is the outrage at Dafur? Congo? Zimbabwe? Tibet? 

I hate seeing innocents victimized, really angers and saddens me but this is a no win situation. The US needs to STFU on this issue unless it goes through the UN IMO, and I really think we should let other countries take the lead on this. 
I also think it's unconscionable that we are supplying and supporting our sworn enemy because they are fighting someone else we don't like.

Does anyone think that honors the thousands of US troops killed and maimed in the GWOT?


----------



## AWP (Aug 22, 2013)

pardus said:


> I also think it's unconscionable that we are supplying and supporting our sworn enemy because they are fighting someone else we don't like.


 
Pick up a copy of Kaplan's Warrior Politics, it discusses this issue or variations of it. It is a great, quick, thought-provoking read.

The problem with looking at two sides in a conflict is the human tendency to pick a side which leaves us choosing the lesser of two evils. A) Who says we have to pick a side and B) who says WE aren't a side? Nations have to act in THEIR best interests. A nation shouldn't squander "blood and treasure" just to do the right thing. The right thing is for that nation's citizens, not the residents of Country X. If the two intersect, so much the better.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 22, 2013)

JAB said:


> http://www.sott.net/article/242143-CIA-or-Mossad-Snipers-Caught-in-Syria
> 
> @Marauder06, I think we could bomb the shit out of the Assad regime, as well as get the UN to step in with a security force. Chemical weapons being used on civi's is not something the worlds super power should sit back and watch IMHO. I agree with many of your points, but find it silly that we are wasting money and blood in Afghanistan, when we could do some good in other places. I am not calling for a full on invasion/occupation of Syria. I am saying lets not sit on the sidelines and watch on TV while people get killed with chemical weapons.
> 
> ...


What if the Rebels used the weapons and not the regime? or Hamas used them or the Iranians?  Do we bomb Assad because he is the easiest target, and that way we can say we did something?

Let then duke it out, I am tied of saving mu slime's from themselves.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 22, 2013)

JAB- thanks for posting a link to that video.  I'm not convinced it's legit, though.  It's interesting to me that the only evidence of it is an Arabic-language propaganda video.  To me, the fact that this hasn't been picked up by more credible news sources makes me doubt its legitimacy.

//

As for the Syria gassing situation, we don't know who conducted the attack.  It may have been the Assad regime.  It may have been the rebels.  It may have been the Russians, or the Iranians.  Heck, it may have been Mossad or the CIA for all we know.  But that's the point- WE DON'T KNOW.  I'm in no hurry to join the crowds of people falling over themselves to demand "action" in Syria.  To those who want "action" in Syria:  Buy a plane ticket and a set of 5.11 pants and go over and join the rebels.  Oh, not willing to do that?  Then why do you think it's OK to expect me to do it for you?

Even if we did know who gassed these Syrians (and I'm assuming that the gassing did actually happen), I'm still not sure how this falls into the spectrum of "things that are my problem."  The rebels are not on our side.  The Syrian government is certainly no friend of ours.  My only concern is how this tangibly affects US interests.  The main interest I see is not allowing Syria to become a failed state, and becoming Afghanistan with more money and a coastline.  Now, what side gives us the better chance of Syria not becoming a failed state, or a state with an extreme Islamist ideology- the rebels, or Assad?  Something to think about.


----------



## Scotth (Aug 22, 2013)

The problem with the middle east is you can't change generations of learned behavior fast enough to bring real change.  Even if you go in and separate the combatants and bring a lull in the fighting you still have to deal with corrupt leadership which is a no win situation.  Look at Vietnam and then Iraq and Afghanistan.  The next leader ends up only being marginally less corrupt then the leader you ousted.  If you can't work with a real partner to rebuild the country it's never going to work.



SOWT said:


> If true, who really launched the attack?  Assad would be stupid for doing it, but the rebels could blame him to draw other players into the war.



I'm with SOWT here.  Assad saw what happened to Sadaam when keep kept challenging the US and I don't see how he would push the world community and risk intervention.  Maybe if he was cornered and losing and had no other options but that is hardly the case right now so it hard to fathom he would go this route.

I feel bad for the people of Syria but sometimes letting them earn their freedom will make them appreciate it more when they get it.  Look at Egypt it is a mess but they will work for a resolution they can all live with.  Their first elected leader didn't respect the people and he got removed and I bet the next guy will learn from Morrisey's mistake.


----------



## AWP (Aug 22, 2013)

Scotth said:


> I bet the next guy will learn from Morrisey's mistake.


 
Becoming a vegetarian or his relationship with Johnny Marr?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 22, 2013)

@Marauder06 do you think I would ask someone to go do what I wouldn't/haven't?

I have some irritation with your last post, so I'll leave it at this....I disagree with your stance that we should not be involved in taking down the Assad regime, but do understand your point of view.


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 22, 2013)

We should not be involved in this shit storm.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 23, 2013)

JAB said:


> @Marauder06 do you think I would ask someone to go do what I wouldn't/haven't?
> 
> I have some irritation with your last post, so I'll leave it at this....I disagree with your stance that we should not be involved in taking down the Assad regime, but do understand your point of view.



Be irritated all you want, it doesn't change the truth or the logic of what I posted.

Everything past the // wasn't directed at you- that's why it was clearly separated from the part that _was_ directed at you, which was merely to thank you for posting a link to the video and to offer my opinion of it.  That said, I can see how my use of the pronoun "you" might be interpreted as singling someone out, when it was meant to be all-encompassing.  I will change that.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 23, 2013)

Curious, is Sarin a persistent agent?

Medics are handling "supposedly dead/contaminated bodies" with no bio-hazard stuff, shouldn't we be getting reports of secondary casualties?


----------



## RetPara (Aug 23, 2013)

Sarin is not supposed to be a persistent agent.  Medical personnel went into the Kurdish villages Uncle Saddam hit with both Sarin & Mustard agents in the Mid-90's.   They reported ground water contamination and some live agents (both Sarin & Mustard) could be found in places that had not be exposed to the weather.


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 23, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> It's a good thing we didn't draw a line and tell the Syrians not to cross it or else we'd look like buffoons....



Oops...too late.


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 23, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Do you have a link to that sniper story?  This is the first I've heard about that.
> 
> Russians and Iranians are fighting Syrians... in Syria... why would we possibly want to get in the middle of that?  Maybe it makes more sense to draw this out as much as possible, to bleed all three of them.  None of them are friends of ours.
> 
> ...



I really wish I could like this post most that once.

Well said Sir.  I see you are paying attention in those IR classes.


----------



## Scotth (Aug 23, 2013)

RetPara said:


> Sarin is not supposed to be a persistent agent.  Medical personnel went into the Kurdish villages Uncle Saddam hit with both Sarin & Mustard agents in the Mid-90's.   They reported ground water contamination and some live agents (both Sarin & Mustard) could be found in places that had not be exposed to the weather.



Exactly.  Unless it's an enclosed area Sarin will dissipate pretty quickly.


----------



## RetPara (Aug 23, 2013)

Scotth what concerns me though is the ground water contamination.  That is a 'forever' issue.  From some of the reporting I have seen over the years when the Iraqis hit the Kurds they used both Sarin & Mustard, if the chemicals were combined during aerosol delivery or prior to that with 50/50 mix of Sarin/Mustard in the load tanks on the aircraft.  Yes, I realize that might not be a safe or text book method, but there were Iraqis.....


----------



## x SF med (Aug 23, 2013)

RetPara said:


> Sarin is not supposed to be a persistent agent.  Medical personnel went into the Kurdish villages Uncle Saddam hit with both Sarin & Mustard agents in the Mid-90's.   They reported ground water contamination and some live agents (both Sarin & Mustard) could be found in places that had not be exposed to the weather.


 
Sarin and Mustard are both considered semi-persistent agents, both can be 'deactivated' by exposure to uv, heavy doses of water and bleaches...  but... they cause permanent or long lasting damage to organics in the vicinity and can cause localized longterm contamination of ground and soft materials.   Yeah, it sucked being an NBC NCO...  this shit is scary.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 23, 2013)

x SF med said:


> Sarin and Mustard are both considered semi-persistent agents, both can be 'deactivated' by exposure to uv, heavy doses of water and bleaches...  but... they cause permanent or long lasting damage to organics in the vicinity and can cause localized longterm contamination of ground and soft materials.   Yeah, it sucked being an NBC NCO...  this shit is scary.


So Sarin delivered at night would drift into homes, where is should remain for awhile, correct?
Wouldn't medical/rescue types get exposed by running into those dwellings?

Something just doesn't seem right to me.


----------



## x SF med (Aug 23, 2013)

SOWT said:


> So Sarin delivered at night would drift into homes, where is should remain for awhile, correct?
> Wouldn't medical/rescue types get exposed by running into those dwellings?
> 
> Something just doesn't seem right to me.


 
Depends on type of burst/employment, concentration and Wx conditions...  but hell yeah, ALWAYS suit the fuck up before going into any area with suspected CBR contamination .... death is not fun... and depending on the agent (when you get there assume the worst possible shit you could ever imagine, multiply by 1000, and prep for that) it could be horrible and slow.


----------



## RetPara (Aug 23, 2013)

What I remember is that it was sprayed from aircraft during the day.  In the Kurd's instance there was no medical/rescue people except other Kurds from surrounding areas.  This attack happened in 1988.  The medical team that went in there did arrive till 1993/94 time frame.  Their report was not circulated very widely in the US.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 23, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> I really wish I could like this post most that once.
> 
> Well said Sir.  I see you are paying attention in those IR classes.



It was all that NCO supervision I had on the first day of class


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 23, 2013)

@Marauder06 I don't disagree with your logic or your POV, especially regarding our economic standing.  My problem with Syria is that we're allowing Russian & Iranian support to the Assad government, that has always been anti-American. Regardless who (rebels or government troops) is using the chemical weapons there, I do believe its a situation that we should attempt to shape and influence. Especially where these chem-wpns are coming from and where they may end up.

I don't think Russia or Iran will posture if the UN or an alliance of countries take out (as in air strikes) the Assad regime. But I may be very wrong.

On the other side of this, the Syrian people. How are we supposed to win over ME populations when we have the power to help them and continue to fail in doing so.

I don't think Iraq was a mistake or a war we should not have been involved in. I think we made some major fuck ups and prolonged the occupation, especially by disbandment of the government services, etc. I also think we promised unicorns shitting rainbows, when we should have STFU and focused on empowering the Iraqis, but that's a moot point now.

The overall issue I am having is here we are watching a country be influenced by two countries we don't want influencing the ME, and chemical weapons are being used, yet we sit on our ass and say it not our problem. I guess we will get involved once one of those chemical weapons finds its way into one of our cities....of course at that point it will be way too fucking late.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 23, 2013)

We are broke because the Liberals won't kick out illegals and are more corrupt then the mafia.
They want to tax the rich and let the freeloaders continue to...well...live for free.....:wall:

Did Iraq and Afghanistan add to this debt?  Yes, but we could climb out if we had a strong plan.
Neither war would have been more then a year 2 tops if we had generals who weren't punks and we weren't bombarded with the Liberal Media plugin constantly feeding the public with lies.
However we don't have a strong plan.
We have some blackmail called a sequester where people agreed to disagree and our ALLIES were forced to give up their HOLY grail....aka the Military.
I am still wondering what the Liberals had to give up.....

Back to what SOWT said, is this attack an act of fiction or the real deal, I don't know!....

However.....I think we should go in and show both sides who owns the lunch room.
That's right syria give us your lunch money....we want some chocolate milk.

It isn't a matter of world POLICE, its a matter of keeping that crap out of our Borders.....


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 23, 2013)

Thank you, Spongebob, for taking a well-reasoned and earnest discussion of issues and turning it into the comments section on a FoxNews.com article


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 23, 2013)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Thank you, Spongebob, for taking a well-reasoned and earnest discussion of issues and turning it into the comments section on a FoxNews.com article



Your welcome......


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 23, 2013)

JAB said:


> @Marauder06 I don't disagree with your logic or your POV, especially regarding our economic standing.  My problem with Syria is that we're allowing Russian & Iranian support to the Assad government, that has always been anti-American. Regardless who (rebels or government troops) is using the chemical weapons there, I do believe its a situation that we should attempt to shape and influence. Especially where these chem-wpns are coming from and where they may end up.
> 
> I don't think Russia or Iran will posture if the UN or an alliance of countries take out (as in air strikes) the Assad regime. But I may be very wrong.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure what will happen if we help topple the Assad regime.  But based on what I see right now, whatever takes over will be far less stable, and far less in our national interests, than what is currently in place.

I think the war in Iraq was a TERRIBLE idea.  It was the wrong enemy, at the wrong place, at exactly the wrong time.  I think everything about that war was wrong, from the theoretical underpinnings that drove what we expected the results would be, to the amount of effort that would need to be expended, to the "intelligence" that supported preventive war.  It was a bad idea, all around.  It still would have been a bad idea, even if it would have worked.   But I think anyone who closely studied history, even going back as far as the Peloponnesian War, would have predicted that Iraq was a complete over-reach for the US. 

There were other countries that deserved our "attention" a whole lot more than Iraq did.  In some ways, Iraq under Saddam Hussein would have been a stabilizing force in the region- or at least it would have been more stable than it has been for the last ten years.  With all that effort we put into Iraq, we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, and instead of having Iran bracketed on the east with a (relatively) stable and (kind-of) pro-Western Afghanistan, and unfriendly-to-the-US-but-really,really hate the Persians" Iraq on their west, we have a completely lost cause in Afghanistan and a more-pro-Iranian-by-the-minute Iraq.

As far as winning over the people of the ME, I don't think it's possible.  The worldview of so much of the populations of those countries is so diametrically opposed to what we do, I think any attempt to use force to implement change is destined for utter failure.  I can think of two real-world, right-now examples of that, and I think you can too since I know you served in at least one of them.

Some people aren't ready for democracy, and some people only understand raw physical force.  Some people don't understand the truth of that last statement.

We have tried for decades to win over the people of the Middle East.  They are not win-able, at least not in a way in which we keep our current value system.  We have *poured billions upon billions into the region*... and we have very little to show for it.









SpongeBob*24 said:


> We are broke because the Liberals won't kick out illegals and are more corrupt then the mafia.
> They want to tax the rich and let the freeloaders continue to...well...live for free.....:wall:
> 
> Did Iraq and Afghanistan add to this debt?  Yes, but we could climb out if we had a strong plan.
> ...



There are plenty of things I blame Liberals for, but the war in Iraq was not one of them.  IMO it was the NeoConservatives, with their misplaced faith in the Democratic Peace Theory, that was most responsible for leading us down that road.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 24, 2013)

@Marauder06 I'm conflicted with your post, as I agree and disagree with much of it. But to keep with the threads intention I'm ganna limit my response to Syria and leave the Iraq war for another thread.

If Assad regime stays in power, we supposedly have already supplied weapons to the rebels. Where will that regime sit after this "civil war"?

Russian influence, if they start to take the lead in the ME how will we maintain our interest without getting into another cold war.

Iranian influence,  if we allow Iran to grow their influence over more of the ME. How will combat the arms race that will inevitably follow (Iran pushes on to nuclear weapons) so what happens with the Suadi's, etc.

If we full stop in the ME in our support, influence and democratic pushes. Who will fill the void and how will it affect us in the future, especially regarding future terrorism?


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 24, 2013)

OK, let's set Iraq aside for a second, although I tend to believe that the past is a primary indicator of the future, and that we cannot divorce ourselves from relevant history when we consider current events.

I think it is highly likely that without major US involvement, the war ends with Assad still in power.  And frankly, I don't have a problem with that.  I think the best option for the US is for Assad to survive, but to be severely weakened.  If he goes, the most likely outcome is a Syria that's either factionalized with no central control, or a Syria overtaken by Islamists, who are already better organized, better armed, and have more of the population behind them than pro-Western factions.  "Stable but weak" Syria is much better for the US, IMO, than "unstable and run by Islamists" Syria.

I want to make it clear that I don't think we should do "nothing" in Syria, I just don't think we should do "everything," which is what our country tends to want to do every time we see a problem in the world.  I think we have national interests in Syria; we don't want the weapons that are there to be used against Americans or our allies, and we don't want the country to become a failed state, because AQ or some other group will use that country, and its resources, to affect American interests.  We don't do a lot of trade with Syria but we do some, and we want to make sure their civil war doesn't spill over into other nations that we care about in the region more than it already has.

So I think most people agree the US should do "something" in Syria.  The question is what that "something" is.  I think an indirect, covert, economy of force mission is much, much better than overt kinetic ops.  Even if an external military effort is required at some point, I don't think the US should lead it.  Turkey is a NATO member, has a competent military, and oh yeah shares a border with Syria.  Why aren't they massing troops and getting ready to go in on the ground?  Why aren't they scrambling jets to enforce a no-fly zone, or to establish sanctuary areas inside Syria?  Well, I don't know for sure why.  It may be because the US advised them not to.  Or it might be because Turkey has a much more realist view of the situation, and knows that large-scale kinetic ops run the risk of dragging them into a quagmire and bringing them into conflict with other powerful nations with which they prefer not to tangle.

Now, at this point, we have to bring Iraq back in, because the parallels between Iraq and Syria are too great to ignore.  Syria and Iraq are/were run by ruthless secular Baath party dictators who had no love for the US.  But we knew who they were, and although they frequently did things we didn't like, we understood them and were able to deal with them on some level because they felt they had something to lose.  After Saddam fell, the country fell apart because the people were too fractured and there wasn't something strong enough to hold them all together.  Islamists moved in, and what was a relatively stable country, and certainly an effective counterbalance to Iran, suddenly wasn't anymore.

The same thing would, IME, happen in Syria.  The Syrians as a country aren't ready for Western-style democracy.  Even if they had free and fair elections today, they would likely end up with the Syrian version of Palestinian Hamas, which would probably be worse for the US than if Assad stayed in power.  Assad tried early on in his reign to institute some limited Western-style reforms when he took power, and ultimately his people appreciated it so much they rebelled against him. 

So yes, let's do "something" in Syria, but let's approach the problem with a firm understanding of the situation and from the "what's in it for us?" mentality.  We don't need any more wide-eyed naivety driving us to yet another conflict our country doesn't have the will to let us win.  Limited, covert operations in Syria?  I'm all for it.  I hope it's going on already; I think we have a collection of copper-faced EFPs we picked up in Iraq, that I would LOVE to be "given" back to their original owners.  But not full-on, overt, kinetic ops.  We've been down that road before, and I think we all know how it ends.


----------



## goon175 (Aug 24, 2013)

> another conflict our country doesn't have the will to let us win.



And there is the throat punch. Regardless of if it is right or wrong to go in, I don't think our country has the palette for anything outside of a Grenada/Panama-type timeline.


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 24, 2013)

goon175 said:


> And there is the throat punch. Regardless of if it is right or wrong to go in, I don't think our country has the palette for anything outside of a Grenada/Panama-type timeline.



Exactly!!!  And without the support of the nation for our men to do what needs to be done it is wrong IMNSHO to put more men into harms way.  I would rather arm both sides and let them kill each other.  As long as they are fighting among themselves they dont have the time to plan attacks here.


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 24, 2013)

JAB said:


> If Assad regime stays in power, we supposedly have already supplied weapons to the rebels. Where will that regime sit after this "civil war"?



Adequately covered by M06 so no need to rehash the same POV.



> Russian influence, if they start to take the lead in the ME how will we maintain our interest without getting into another cold war.



Russian influence over the ME is what it is.  Our influence in the ME, notwithstanding being in open conflict, is pretty much limited to nations such as Qatar, Bahrain, UAE,  and Lebanon sometimes.  Basically countries who have had western influence for many years - British and French mostly and who like women and money.  Getting involved in the Syrian conflict isnt going to tip the number of muslims who like us significantly, remember their news sources arent exactly fair or balanced.



> Iranian influence,  if we allow Iran to grow their influence over more of the ME. How will combat the arms race that will inevitably follow (Iran pushes on to nuclear weapons) so what happens with the Suadi's, etc.



The influence Iran has is what it was before the conflict.  They have been helping all the shit head terrorists from the sidelines for many years.  The US being there wont change that - I give you the Republican Guard's meddling in Iraq and Astan as examples of their efforts in the midst of our presence.  Iran will continue to push for nuclear arms despite our wishes for them not to or the UN Security Council's weak policies and resolutions against such.

I dont believe Saudis actions can be tied to our actions in the Syrian issue.  SA is skeptical of Iran's intentions and even though SA is a [behind closed doors] sponsor of terrorist activities the Persians brand of support for such activities is quite radical to the point of making the Saudi King nervous.  IMO the King will turn a blind eye to actions aimed at stopping/stalling Persia's pursuit of nuclear arms even if its Israel.  



> If we full stop in the ME in our support, influence and democratic pushes. Who will fill the void and how will it affect us in the future, especially regarding future terrorism?



There are plenty of players who could fill the void but hypothetically I am not sure it will be just one nation state.  That said, we wont be coming to a full stop.  We just wont be choosing sides in a shithead vs shithead fight, one I am all for watching from the sidelines while the Agency arms both sides IOT eleminate as many of them as possible without us having to see US soldiers come home in flag draped coffins.

As for the democratic process, it isn't a one size fits all form of governing - there are people's who need to be ruled by the iron fist of a dictator or warlords as some people aren't ready for the responsibility of democracy.  We would do well as a nation to stop pushing it on people. 

Future terrorism; before we start contemplating the who's and from where's it would be a far more useful debate to concern ourselves with closing off our borders thus controlling their ability to walk unfettered into our country.  That said, we will continue to hunt down the leaders and play whack-a-mole as required.  The problem is as soon as we kill a "leader" there is another stepping into the void.  And until we are serious about dealing with it we will continue the game of F3 as they continue to exploit our weaknesses as a nation to deal with a geo-political system of ideals founded in "The Religion of Peace."  We are too soft...


----------



## AWP (Aug 24, 2013)

Russia and Syria have a long track record of working with each other. We aren't going to roll in there and supplant their influence. Russia's designs on the region go back to the Great Game to at least as far as the Persian Gulf. Any attempts to replace Russian influence will take decades. As horrible as it may sound, I think we're better off with a weakened, pro-Russian Assad than the other possibilities. I don't like it, I think it sucks, but as we here in America justify who we vote for in each election: the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 24, 2013)

Good points made by all, I'm still a bit conflicted with the idea of not getting involved but do understand the idea of pitching both sides against each other.

As for what happened or is still happening in Iraq, I guess I have a different view of it. So I'll start another thread about Iraq a little later. I would like to further debate Iraq, as my understanding may be a little narrow or off track from others. 

As for this thread, I'm pushed outside of my knowledge level and will need to do some.more research before re-engaging the topic. I appreciate all the responses to my posts and questions.


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 24, 2013)

JAB said:


> Good points made by all, I'm still a bit conflicted with the idea of not getting involved ...



What are you conflicted about?


----------



## Brill (Aug 24, 2013)

goon175 said:


> And there is the throat punch. Regardless of if it is right or wrong to go in, I don't think our country has the palette for anything outside of a Grenada/Panama-type timeline.



So don't put the shit on the news for politics sake! Send guys who will take care of things and let them live in their black world of shadow wars.  The US could learn a lesson from the IRGC-QF.

Covert action is a viable tool in the foreign policy arms room.


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 24, 2013)

lindy said:


> Covert action is a viable tool in the foreign policy arms room.



Not in the US it isnt; politicians cant take credit for that stuff and as such they arent interested in effect based solutions only affect based ones.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 24, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> What are you conflicted about?



1) Feeding both sides weapons and hope they kill each other.

2) Assad remaining in power is a good thing.

3) Not attaining positive control of the Chemical weapons.

4) Another unstable country in the ME.

5) The follow on affects of all of the above.

Again I am tracking on the view points you guys are giving. A lot of it makes sense and I'm inclined to agree with some of it. However, I am conflicted with the above and I am trying to understand how it becomes a good thing for the region and the USA moving into the future.

That's why I would like to do some more research on the population, history and economics of Syria, before continuing the debate or possibly reversing my opinions/stance on Syria.


----------



## JHD (Aug 24, 2013)

I don't know if the potential outcomes are good things for anyone, but what is the "less bad" outcome for the US?  Both sides of this fight are anti-US.

I have zero military background, but it seems to me e only good outcome IF the US gets involved is to go in like we mean it and totally dominate and run the show our way.  And i don't think that will happen as the politics involved wont allow the military to do what they need to do.

But the ME has been in conflict for centuries.  The only thing they seem to understand is brute force, and the only thing that brings stability is a totalitarian regime.  Anything less, and it seems there will still be conflict.

I don't see us changing their minds at all with any approach we take.  And if we are not in it to win it, we should stay out.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 24, 2013)

JAB said:


> 1) Feeding both sides weapons and hope they kill each other.
> 
> 2) Assad remaining in power is a good thing.
> 
> ...



It is totally legitimate for you to feel conflicted.  People are people wherever they happen to live, and it sucks to seem the innocent suffer.  People with our (Western) values, value human life and freedom.  

It's kind of like the *drowning child argument*; if we see a kind drowning, we have an ethical responsibility to save him, even if it means we get our own clothes a little wet and muddy.  Right?

Except that this analogy has fatal flaws when it's applied to the international system.  It is NOT my responsibility to save anyone, when it means risking my own life, or neglecting the safety of my own children who are swimming elsewhere.  And how many times do I have to jump in and save that same kid, anyway?  Where are his parents, or the other parents from his neighborhood?  And the "little wet and muddy" bit is a complete fallacy.  It's physically perilous anytime you go in to save anyone, anywhere.  Even if you're successful, people will be ungrateful, will still hate you, and will try to exploit your attempts at helping them, to make money for themselves.  Like... I don't know... the people who are trying to sue the UN *because they think peacekeepers triggered a cholera outbreak.*  That's cool Haiti; sue away, good luck with getting rebuilt the next time a natural disaster hits your corrupt, backwards country...

We have to be careful where we expend our resources.  Our country is in a shambles economically and heavily divided politically.  Our military is overstretched.  There is a lot of fragility in our system, and another time/treasure/talent consuming expedition could damage us even further.  Our national policy towards Syria and every other hotspot in the world should be one of realism, not idealism.  I'm personally much more concerned with Egypt than I am Syria, simply because of the geography.  I'm concerned that we have "red lined" ourselves into something we don't really want to do in Syria.

But anyway, it's OK to be conflicted.  We should never be so callous as to simply accept human suffering, but we need to have priorities.  It is a far greater crime to neglect our own people and cause them long term suffering, than it is to neglect the immediate suffering of others.


----------



## AWP (Aug 24, 2013)

Speaking in generalized terms, I think something that's overlooked in foreign policy is how to do something. I think more and more our FP is like the underpants gnomes. We have a starting point and an end state, but no plan on how to arrive there. We become caught up in the "what" and not the "how." Or we manage to do that and ignore the second, third, n-order effects of our actions. Whenever a person or unit or country does something, that action causes ripples like a rock hitting water. I think that sometimes our FP figures out how to get the rock to the pond, and even launch it, but then we brush off or ignore the ripples...often to our detriment.

When we talk about intervening, it needs more than a blanket mission statement. It needs defined goals and a defined process for arriving at them, but it also needs to consider those n-order effects.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 25, 2013)

Article related to this discussion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/o...eign-policy-by-whisper-and-nudge.html?hp&_r=0

"Post-cold-war foreign policy today is largely about “affecting the internal composition and governance of states,” added Mandelbaum, many of which in the Middle East are failing and *threaten us more by their collapse into ungoverned region*s — not by their strength or ability to project power.

But what we’ve learned in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Egypt and Syria is that i*t is very hard to change another country’s internal behavior* — especially at a cost and in a time frame that the American public will tolerate — because it requires changing a country’s political culture and getting age-old adversaries to reconcile.

The primary foreign policy tools that served us so well in the cold war, said Mandelbaum,* “guns, money, and rhetoric — simply don’t work* for these new tasks. It is like trying to open a can with a sponge.”

To help another country change internally requires a mix of refereeing, policing, coaching, incentivizing, arm-twisting and modeling — but even all of that cannot accomplish the task and make a country’s transformation self-sustaining, unless the people themselves want to take charge of the process.

In Iraq, George W. Bush removed Saddam Hussein, who had been governing that country vertically, from the top-down, with an iron fist. Bush tried to create the conditions through which Iraqis could govern themselves horizontally, by having the different communities write their own social contract on how to live together. *It worked, albeit imperfectly, as long as U.S. troops were there to referee. *But once we left, no coterie of Iraqi leaders emerged to assume ownership of that process in an inclusive manner and thereby make it self-sustaining."

And here's the money shot, almost exactly what I was talking about over the past couple of days:



> Some liberals want to “do something” in places like Libya and Syria; *they just don’t want to do what is necessary*, which would be a long-term occupation to remake the culture and politics of both places.





> And conservative hawks who want to intervene just don’t understand how hard it is to remake the culture and politics in such places, where freedom, equality and justice for all are not universal priorities, because *some people want to be “free” to be more Islamist or more sectarian.*


----------



## Poccington (Aug 25, 2013)

Confederate Son said:


> Wasn't the UN and it's mighty force of Peacekeepers created for shitstorms like this?
> 
> I know that's a friggin' joke in reality but it does piss me off more than a little.. Kinda' hard to walk tall and not carry any stick at all...



People can forget about the UN doing anything. They can't even stop Syrian rebels from kidnapping UN peacekeepers in the Golan Heights, nevermind trying to deal with the Syrian situation itself.

There will be no military intervention from the West, if the US isn't leading it, simple as. No other country can wage war on the scale that the US can. So while other countries who cried about Iraq being a "bad" war, yet advocate action in Syria(I'm looking at you France)... The uncomfortable truth for them, is that they can't do anything without the US.

Do I think the US,coming off the back of over a decade of war, should step in and give Assad the good news? Fuck no, it's quite frankly not worth the cost, in both human and monetary terms, to force him out of power. In the case of Syria and Assad, the West is far better off leaving him in power, with what the rebels have become and the groups backing them, it really is a case of better the devil you know with Assad.


----------



## x SF med (Aug 25, 2013)

My answer to the new title of this thread....  Train harder with CBR gear or stay the fuck away from the areas where it is most likely those agents will be used.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 25, 2013)

wow...2 hates and change the name of the thread......awesome!!!!!

I stand by what I said early on, we need to do something.........


----------



## AWP (Aug 25, 2013)

x SF med said:


> My answer....  Train harder or stay the fuck away.


 
This.


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 25, 2013)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> I stand by what I said early on, we need to do something.........



What does our nation stand to gain from doing "something"?  What "something" should we do?

Several of us have enumerated reasons to keep our boys out of it.  If you have better reasons for why we should see our guys coming home in flag draped coffins I am sure we would love to hear them...

Crip


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 25, 2013)

Drudge says a SLCM attack is imminent, as soon as the British TF links up with the Americans.
Cool, the do sometime crowd gets it's wish (Clinton style), and we keep ground troops home.

Sponge, Love ya like a Brother; but I remember Bosnia, and don't see any reason to get involved in another 10 year adventure.


----------



## Confederate Son (Aug 26, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Drudge says a SLCM attack is imminent


Not even worth the cost of a CM.. I'm not sticking up for Clinton here.. (That has and will never happen) but when he finally did zip up his fly at least the target he was lobbing them at was worth every penny.. 

This oh shit now I have to do something because I ran my mouth rhetoric makes me sick.


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 26, 2013)

I am against any action. I can't bear the thoughts of our men and women going into another fucking mess. Really I've tried. We have to stop running into every country with a battle going on.


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 26, 2013)

The UN gets so much respect.  

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/26/un-syria-team-says-vehicle-shot-snipers/



> DAMASCUS, Syria (AP) — A U.N. spokesman says a vehicle belonging to a team investigating the Syrian regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons has been “deliberately shot at multiple times” by unidentified snipers in Damascus.
> 
> Martin Nesirky, who is spokesman for U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, says the Monday shooting occurred in the buffer zone area between rebel- and government-controlled territory.
> 
> ...


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 26, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> The UN gets so much respect.
> 
> http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/26/un-syria-team-says-vehicle-shot-snipers/


So, was it a low pro vehicle, or the standard "white we surrender" vehicle?


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 26, 2013)

SOWT said:


> So, was it a low pro vehicle, or the standard "white we surrender" vehicle?



It was a white 'Yoda Land Cruiser according to a Fox News report I watched moments ago.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 26, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> It was a white 'Yoda Land Cruiser according to a Fox News report I watched moments ago.


With UN written on the side?


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 26, 2013)

This is the picture CNN et all are posting.  I like the "Trojan" on the side of the one truck.


----------



## Poccington (Aug 26, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> This is the picture CNN et all are posting.  I like the "Trojan" on the side of the one truck.
> 
> View attachment 9037



At least Trojan would offer some protection, unlike the UN.


----------



## AWP (Aug 26, 2013)

The only substantial reason to launch Tomahawks at Syria is to keep open Raytheon's production line.


----------



## Coyote (Aug 26, 2013)

x SF med said:


> My answer to the new title of this thread.... * Train harder with CBR gear* or stay the fuck away from the areas where it is most likely those agents will be used.



More gas mask PT... yay!!!

In all seriousness though I wonder how much more it would have to escalate to the point where the west would have to actually intervene with this whole cluster fuck.


----------



## pardus (Aug 26, 2013)

Coyote said:


> More gas mask PT... yay!!!
> 
> In all seriousness though I wonder how much more it would have to escalate to the point where the west would have to actually intervene with this whole cluster fuck.



"Have to"? 

Like we intervened in Dafur etc...?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 26, 2013)

Okay after doing some reading up on Syria, Assad, politics, economics, corruption, and how their civil-war came to be... I'm going to stick with my original opinion "that Assad needs to go" that we need "positive control on (quite a few) weapons" and that we should do so through an "air strike" and possibly some special/covert operations.

This picking the better of two evils argument doesn't hold water IMHO. Assad and his father have been ruling Syria like Saddam (torture, political prisoners, secret police, don't say something bad about the Syrian gov or you won't wake up tomorrow, etc). Syria has been ruled by a "state of emergency" since the 1960s. The Assad family has stolen over $1.5 billion from the Syrian people, and stashed it around the world.

He is anti Israel and Western nations, he has basically murdered and stolen to keep in power.

The civil-war started over the Syrian people wanting democratic elections and basically a government ruled by who the people saw fit to elect. For that protesters were outright murdered by government troops, and continue to be killed to the sum of 100,000 since 2011.

Some tidbits:

Syria's only major economic standing is their oil, by all estimation they will have to start importing oil by 2014. 

Their population is projected to double in 35 years.

Assad family has ruled Syria with an Iron fist since the 1960s under a state of emergency (I.e. standard ba'ath party rules).

Syria maintains a large chemical weapon stock pile, and is believed to have possibly received chemical weapons from Iraq at the beginning of OIF.
Its also believed that Assad as a proxi for Iraq paid bribes to French officials to stay out of OIF and vote against invasion through the UN.

I can't link b/c I'm on my phone, but a lot of the info came from wekipidia and google-fu.

So why should we get involved:

Syria is going to become unstable regardless of our efforts, however we have the ability to possibly destroy some of these weapons and hopefully get some control measures on them. If we attack Assad's government by air strike, we may be able to bring him to the table for an all or nothing disarmerment of all chemical weapons. Also work a deal where he leaves power under a true free election and takes his $1.5 billion he stole and disappear.

I think if we do not act, we will see possibly 2 or 3 times the deaths we have already. I believe large quantities of chemical weapons will get into the hand of the wrong people and I believe that region will come totally unglued. Having major affects of Turkey and inevitably Israel.

I also don't like the continued growth of Iranian influance, and I feel if we allow Iran to have influence in a failed state Syria, we are going to see an arms race across the ME and further economical and political follow on effects globally.

So to be clear, no I do not think we should commit troops or peace keepers. But do think we should use air strikes to either take out Assad or bring him to the table. I think we should get possitive control of the weapons and we should attempt to support (possibly through a proxi) one of the Rebel groups who could bring leadership when the economic and political collapse happens.


----------



## Coyote (Aug 26, 2013)

pardus said:


> "Have to"?
> 
> Like we intervened in Dafur etc...?



'Having to' in terms of us being directly affected (not quite sure what that would be), not being morally obligated to.


----------



## pardus (Aug 26, 2013)

Coyote said:


> 'Having to' in terms of us being directly affected (not quite sure what that would be), not being morally obligated to.



I cant immediately think of any scenario that would directly affect us with Syria.


----------



## x SF med (Aug 26, 2013)

pardus said:


> I cant immediately think of any scenario that would directly affect us with Syria.


 
Um....they quit sending pita makers to the falafel stands in NYC, leaving thousands of hungry office workers?   Only reason I can think of...


----------



## pardus (Aug 26, 2013)

x SF med said:


> Um....they quit sending pita makers to the falafel stands in NYC, leaving thousands of hungry office workers?   Only reason I can think of...



I would go to war for gyros.


----------



## Totentanz (Aug 26, 2013)

JAB said:


> _snip _



Do we intervene now, in the middle of this shitfling, or wait it out, and deal with him after the rebels have gone 12 rounds with him (ASSuming he wins) and his has to deal with both the logistical, international, and political aftermath?

Or if the rebels do win... same question.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 26, 2013)

I think we should hit Assad now, cripple his ability to fight off the Rebels and then offer him a deal (along with whatever rebel group we find in our best interest). 

The deal being he allows for a total disarm of the chemical capability (let them keep conventional weapons) and and a peace period for a free election, Assad would not be allowed to run for office and would do the exile thing.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Aug 26, 2013)

If you guys intervene there is the very high possibility that someone like the Muslim Brotherhood will come in and fill the power vacuum.  If Assad stays in power and he isn't covertly supporting terrorists now you can bet he will be after you start blowing the place up.  Shock and awe (and that's what it will be because everyone likes to watch the Tomahawks and fast movers doing the bizz on the evening news as opposed to a bunch of bearded guys sitting around drinking chai and winning hearts and minds) does not win wars, it wins battles.  You "covertly" intervened in Afghanistan a long time ago and that didn't turn out too well in the resulting upheaval.

Marauder nailed it, sometimes its better the devil you know than the devil you don't.


----------



## pardus (Aug 26, 2013)

Mac_NZ said:


> You "covertly" intervened in Afghanistan a long time ago and that didn't turn out too well in the resulting upheaval.



It probably aided in the fall of the USSR but that in turn also spun the whole world into turmoil.  

Part of me thinks we should have just let the Russians have Afghanistan and let them deal with the resulting headache.


----------



## Scotth (Aug 26, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> OK, let's set Iraq aside for a second, although I tend to believe that the past is a primary indicator of the future, and that we cannot divorce ourselves from relevant history when we consider current events. <clipped>



A great post IMHO and your certainly in the right position Sir.

Plus your post distracted me long enough I didn't feel compelled to respond the SpongeBob's post.  Thanks You


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 26, 2013)

My personal opinion is that we don't need to get involved in Syria right now.  I've had a chance to look over some of the pictures (not all) from the CW attacks as part of an informal discussion amongst other EOD types (have a look at some of them), and I do not expect my word to be held as the end-all regarding this, but blaming the Assad regime strikes me as a little hinky.  The suspected CW warheads are a little bit sloppy to be something purchased by the Syrian government, at least how I see it.  It looks rather similar to the IRAM munition that was the bane of our existence in 2008-09.  I doubt it was made in someplace as primitive as hajji's garage, but it doesn't look like something that rolled from an assembly line.  Also, the stenciling is a little bit sloppy.  If it were factory made, the stencils would be in line.  What I saw was a bit crooked, like it was hand-jammed.  Had the round rolled off the assembly line like that, some QC guy somewhere would be drawing unemployment.  

I remember seeing quite a few Iranian munitions of the 81mm persuasion during my extended vacations.  They tried to get the colors, markings, nomenclature, and such correct so that it would appear to be US munitions.  However, there was always a tell so that we could tell it was an Iranian knock-off of American infantry outreach.  It wouldn't surprise me if someone tried to get something together to make it look like it was an Assad-owned chemical munition.  I know, I know, false flag allegations usually come with a complimentary tin-foil hat fitting.  But this doesn't strike me as being on the up and up, and DAMNED SURE not a good reason to flex what little muscle we have left to get out one of the few non-fundamentalist leaders left over there.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 26, 2013)

I've been saying it for awhile.  But what grand strategic interest is Syria?  There's literally none, based on what I've learned, if we were to support anyone it should have been Assad.  We liked the status quo antebellum, he didn't screw with Israel and we were good.

And now if he loses the people in charge will be akin to the Taliban.  By supporting the rebels already we've helped to destabilize the region and affect our interests (i.e. Israel).


----------



## Totentanz (Aug 26, 2013)

Mac_NZ said:


> If you guys intervene there is the very high possibility that someone like the Muslim Brotherhood will come in and fill the power vacuum.



This.  Its all well and good to say that we will force his hand and he will go into exile, free elections for all, etc. but a) to actually implement that COA is going to require a significant investment to include people on the ground for monitoring and enforcement (even if its the Useless Nations) if that is actually going to work and b) even if we go into that fully invested, I don't see us maintaining full control of the situation as we're trying to negotiate and monitor the progress of some deal with Al-Asaad.  Both Iran and Russia have free tickets to this dance while we're paying full price and they (along with other actors, like the MB) are not going to sit idly by while they United States executes its Plan For Syria at will...  

Tl:dr... if we try to assert our will, it will end up being costly and we will likely not retain the necessary level of control to exact the outcome we desire.


----------



## Brill (Aug 26, 2013)

pardus said:


> I cant immediately think of any scenario that would directly affect us with Syria.



Exact same scenario that played out in Afghanistan in the late 70's & 80's is occurring NOW in Syria except the fighters are already anti-West, have support network, and are very experienced.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 26, 2013)

Are we talking about the rebels that started the counsel of whatever-its-called that became an active member of the Arab League? The one that pulled Syrian soldiers and Officers over to the "free Syria" cause?

Or are we talking about the Mujahadeen fighters who have flocked to Sryia?

There actually several groups operating under the FSA banner, but have little if anything to do with the original revolution/protests. 

The FSA asked for weapons and aid, when they didn't get it from the UN (the US) that is when they started accepting money and weapons from who ever would give it. This is where the AQ involvement comes into play. The Syrians rebels are taking weapons and funding from AQ, however I read and watched several reports that the Syrians don't care about AQ or any other group. That their only objective is to free Syria from the Assad regime and have free elections.

I don't think you can paint the FSA with a broad stroke...


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 26, 2013)

No, one can't paint the FSA with a broad stroke.  You're correct about that.  That being said, many of the fundamentalist Islamist outfits are exponentially better at organizing the indigenous populations to their benefit.  At the risk of sounding cliché, the old adage "The enemy of the enemy is my friend" is likely at play.  Assuming Assad is removed from power, the lesser rebel factions will most likely fall to the fundamentalists, and Syria will become the latest theocracy in the Middle East.  That's not good news for the Alawites, Christians, Druz, or any members of the opposing sect with relation to whichever organization ascends to power.  What does that have to do with us?  Refugees that will need a place to go, that's what.  And I'm willing to lay my reproductive organs that they won't be granted entry to the United States.

Egypt's resistance to the Muslim Brotherhood is the exception to the rule.  I do not put much faith in the rest of the Arab world just because a nation whose population was once a great civilization in its own right has risen up and called a spade a spade.


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 27, 2013)

From May 5. 2013: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505


> Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated," Del Ponte said in an interview with Swiss-Italian television.
> 
> "This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities," she added, speaking in Italian.



August 26, 2013 : http://www.aina.org/news/20130826131925.htm


> Rebel Free Syrian Army spokesman Louay Almokdad denied that rebels had use chemical weapons.
> 
> "In any case, we don't have the mechanism to launch these kinds of weapons, which would need missiles that can carry chemical warheads, and we in the FSA do not possess these kind of capabilities," Mr. Almokdad told CNN.
> 
> "More importantly, we do not aspire to have (chemical weapons) because we view our battle with the regime as a battle for the establishment of a free democratic state. … We want to build a free democratic state that recognizes and abides by all international accords and agreements -- and chemical and biological warfare is something forbidden legally and internationally."



Today: http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/



> On Aug. 23, LiveLeak.com hosted an audio recording of a phone call broadcast on Syrian TV between a terrorist affiliated with the rebel civilian militia “Shuhada al-Bayada Battalion” in Homs, Syria, and his Saudi Arabian boss, identified as “Abulbasit.” The phone call indicates rebel-affiliated terrorists in Syria, not the Assad government, launched the chemical weapons attack in Deir Ballba in the Homs, Syria, countryside.
> 
> The terrorist said his group, which comprises 200 terrorists escaped from al-Bayadah to al-Daar al-Kabera through a tunnel, needed to buy weapons to attack Homs.
> 
> ...


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 27, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> From May 5. 2013: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505
> 
> 
> August 26, 2013 : http://www.aina.org/news/20130826131925.htm
> ...


Yeah, let's bomb the government to punish them for allowing the Rebels to kill people.


----------



## JBS (Aug 27, 2013)

We're trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit.  Stay out.   We won't of course.   We'll be involved.   just giving my opinion.

Syria is about Iran and the reach of US vs Russian power in the broader region in a post-Assad Syria.   If he goes down and is replaced by a leader less hostile to the interests of the United States (or at least more pliable rather than just overtly in the tank for Putin), it's a strategic win for the US and the West. .. hence Russian money and influence (trying to prevent the expansion of even more US power).   Syria toppling is also a major blow to Iranian regional security and erodes their position and ability to retain a defiant stance towards the international community.  This is a strategic struggle about much more than FSA or the gathering,  org and funding of various rebel groups.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 27, 2013)

Which Arab Nation is pressing for us to intervene?

Is Israel asking us to SLCM Syria?

Who gains (other then the Muslim Brotherhood) from Assad losing?


----------



## JBS (Aug 27, 2013)

We definitely gain if Assads successor is friendly to the United States. 

I say stay out not bc it isn't a worthy endeavor but rather bc the top end of State and policy makers are terrible at defining precisely end of campaign parameters and metrics.





SOWT said:


> Which Arab Nation is pressing for us to intervene?
> 
> Is Israel asking us to SLCM Syria?
> 
> Who gains (other then the Muslim Brotherhood) from Assad losing?


----------



## JBS (Aug 27, 2013)

We definitely gain if Assads successor is friendly to the United States. 

I say stay out not bc it isn't a worthy endeavor but rather bc the top end of State and policy makers are terrible at defining precisely end of campaign parameters and metrics.





SOWT said:


> Which Arab Nation is pressing for us to intervene?
> 
> Is Israel asking us to SLCM Syria?
> 
> Who gains (other then the Muslim Brotherhood) from Assad losing?


----------



## JBS (Aug 27, 2013)

Just Google search"Russia warns the US.  I'm sorry about terrible formatting and typos; on a mobile device.  But the posture of Russia on Syria tells this tale and why what we do there is of major strategic importance.


----------



## Dame (Aug 27, 2013)




----------



## Rabid Badger (Aug 27, 2013)

what now? More contracting jobs.


----------



## Scotth (Aug 27, 2013)

The way the administration is talking it all seems pretty much a go for some kind of bombing campaign.  I still don't buy Assad used the chemical weapons.  I think the administration is going to go now to avoid the UN being able to make any report on who is responsible for the chemical attacks.

I hope they are able to take out the chemical weapon depots in Syria and get out and go to a convert effort.  A weaken Assad is the enemy we know which is most cases is better than the religiously driven Muslim Brotherhood coming to power.


----------



## AWP (Aug 27, 2013)

RB said:


> what now? More contracting jobs.


 
When I leave here I'm not returning unless I'm armed...and my resume doesn't lend itself to those opportunities.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 27, 2013)




----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 27, 2013)

https://sphotos-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1237589_566827913380491_1379780672_n.png



> The United States could hit Syria with three days of missile strikes, perhaps beginning Thursday, in an attack meant more to send a message to the Syrian regime than to cripple its military, senior U.S. officials told NBC News.
> 
> The disclosure added to a growing drumbeat around the world for military action against Syria, believed to have used chemical weapons in recent days against scores of civilians and rebels who have been fighting the government for two years.
> 
> In three days of strikes, the Pentagon could assess the effectiveness of the first wave and target what was missed in further rounds, the senior officials said.


----------



## Dame (Aug 27, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> https://sphotos-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1237589_566827913380491_1379780672_n.png


I want to hate that post so badly.


----------



## Scotth (Aug 27, 2013)

It appears the White House will say the Assad regime perpetrate the chemical attacks.  I hope they got it right because if it comes out later that the rebels launched the attack to draw in the international community there will be hell to pay and it will make no WMD in Iraq look like child's play.  If it is true it makes Assad look like a moron.


----------



## pardus (Aug 27, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Yeah, let's bomb the government to punish them for allowing the Rebels to kill people.



Exactly. When are people going to wake up and realize that the rebels include the same terrorists we've spent the last decade fighting!?


----------



## AWP (Aug 27, 2013)

pardus said:


> Exactly. When are people going to wake up and realize that the rebels include the same terrorists we've spent the last decade fighting!?


 
Part of our problem is that we view anyone who had a WMD used against them as the "victim" and the other person as the bad guy. Our binary calculus doesn't allow for "Sorry some bad stuff happened to you, but we still aren't helping out." Also like I mentioned in an earlier post, we reduce conflicts to a "good guy/ bad guy" equation when they are really just all bad guys.

I think we're also suffering from emotionally-induced amnesia. Muslim extremists have shown a total willingness and dedication to killing innocent civilians. VBIED, vest, IDF strike...the method doesn't matter. You VBIED a market and put that on CNN? Most Americans won't think twice about it, much less read the article, and they for damn sure won't call for a military respone. "Sucks to be you" is probably the most you'll get out of most Americans.

Replace that VBIED with a nerve agent and suddenly everyone wants blood and suddenly everyone assumes that Assad did this. There's no way someone would use a WMD on their own people, right? That's horrific! Sacre bleu cheese!

The West needs to wake up.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 27, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> https://sphotos-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1237589_566827913380491_1379780672_n.png


On the bright side, Assad can spend the next 72 hours trucking all of Saddam's stuff back to Iraq.


----------



## dknob (Aug 27, 2013)

Forget the Syrians for one second.. But are WE (Western nations) really better off without him in power? I don't foresee many US-friendly successors.


----------



## JBS (Aug 27, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Also like I mentioned in an earlier post, we reduce conflicts to a "good guy/ bad guy" equation when they are really just all bad guys.


Profound.    W/permission, I'll use that elsewhere. 



> "Sorry some bad stuff happened to you, but we still aren't helping out."


I would adopt that part of your position as my own, but with an additional stipulation that we re-evaluate our "stay out" clause at such time as we can afford to do otherwise.  We've stopped talking about money and our nation's capacity to spend, but it's a factor (or at least it should be).   When we are flowing with cash again, we should then at such time reevaluate our commitment to intervention or lack thereof. 





dknob said:


> Forget the Syrians for one second.. But are WE (Western nations) really better off without him in power? I don't foresee many US-friendly successors.


This is the argument for us having "influence" on the outcome of which bobblehead eventually rises to the top of the heap.   Right now forces friendly to us, and forces unfriendly to us are playing whack-a-mole with whoever rises up, but eventually some group or individual will emerge, and not without help from somewhere.  When it does, we had better be on the right side of that event.    Personally, I think the plight of Syrian civilians is, and always has been, a tertiary concern, if that.


----------



## AWP (Aug 27, 2013)

JBS said:


> Profound.    W/permission, I'll use that elsewhere.


 
Thank you and be my guest.


----------



## dknob (Aug 27, 2013)

JBS said:


> Profound.    W/permission, I'll use that elsewhere.
> 
> 
> I would adopt that part of your position as my own, but with an additional stipulation that we re-evaluate our "stay out" clause at such time as we can afford to do otherwise.  We've stopped talking about money and our nation's capacity to spend, but it's a factor (or at least it should be).   When we are flowing with cash again, we should then at such time reevaluate our commitment to intervention or lack thereof.
> ...



The thing with Arabs and Arab countries...
they (and sometimes we) need Saddams, Assads, and Gadaffis to be in charge of these people.

What they (and we) don't need are Mohammed Omars, Khameneis, Ahmadinejads, and al-Bashirs.

And they ESPECIALLY don't need weaklings like Morsi and similar types (including the future successor of Syria).

Sad but true IMO


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 27, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Part of our problem is that we view anyone who had a WMD used against them as the "victim" and the other person as the bad guy. Our binary calculus doesn't allow for "Sorry some bad stuff happened to you, but we still aren't helping out." Also like I mentioned in an earlier post, we reduce conflicts to a "good guy/ bad guy" equation when they are really just all bad guys.
> 
> I think we're also suffering from emotionally-induced amnesia. Muslim extremists have shown a total willingness and dedication to killing innocent civilians. VBIED, vest, IDF strike...the method doesn't matter. You VBIED a market and put that on CNN? Most Americans won't think twice about it, much less read the article, and they for damn sure won't call for a military respone. "Sucks to be you" is probably the most you'll get out of most Americans.
> 
> ...



Well stated.  A large part of the problem with... well, everything... is that peoples' knowledge about certain subjects tends to be, at best, Wikipedia deep.  What's worse, people tend to believe that they're a lot more informed than they really are, because they read something on the internet, without bothering to analyze the situation critically or to establish the validity of the information.  That causes them to become wedded to a certain position, regardless of information to the contrary.

Too many people look at the fight between Assad, the "ruthless dictator" and the opposition, who of course have to be the "brave rebels."  Guys, hate to break it to you, but sometimes the rebels are bad guys, too.  What we have in Syria at the moment isn't a clear-cut case of "bad guy vs. good guy," we have "bad guy vs. worse guy."  The question is, which side is the "worse guy" as far as US interests are concerned?  Is it the Assad government, or is it the rebels?  Which side should we back, if we even pick a side?  Why isn't "merely monitor the situation for now" a viable course of action for so many Americans? 

"But... but... people are dying!"  Yes, that's true, and it's terrible.  But that is the condition of much of the world.  You know what kills more people every year than the *entire war deaths of Syria*?  *Disease in Africa*.  So why isn't the world focused on that?  Why are the lives of Syrian children worth more to the international community than the lives of African children?  Are America's interests best served by stamping out malaria in Africa, for example, or stamping out the Assad regime in Syria?  For the record, I don't think it's the US's job to do either, I'm just providing some perspective and some food for thought.

I mentioned the "drowning child" analogy in an earlier post in this thread.  I brought it up in class yesterday as part of a discussion with my students about the situation in Syria, and one of  them opined, "but it's not just a drowning kid in Syria.  It's two kids trying to drown each other.  And no matter how many times you pull them out, there are always two more kids ready to jump in.  And if you get in the middle of it, they'll try to drown you, too."  I thought that was some pretty astute insight.

It looks like we are about to do "something" to Syria over the use of chem weapons.  It apparently is going to mostly consist of some missile strikes, maybe in an extreme case a no-fly zone.  I don't think we should do that, but I can see why others might logically agree with that course of action.  It is important to note the "why," though.  If we do anything at all in Syria, it ought to be done in order to secure our interests- whatever they are- instead of to secure the safety of the people of Syria. 

I have yet to see anyone make a solid argument as to why we should undertake a large-scale military intervention in Syria which is based on anything other than emotion.  Our resources are limited, and our interests are broad.  For interventionists, I've seen a lot about the "how" we could go in, I have yet to see a good reason "why," or "what" the results will be and specifically what we stand to gain a nation if we intervene.  I think those questions are infinitely more important than the "how."


----------



## AWP (Aug 27, 2013)

One other thought is in light of the NSA debacle, the Second Amendment, the TSA, Fast and Furious, etc. why should we go to another nation and spill blood for their freedom when ours is eroding here at home? Shouldn't we have an excess of a commodity before we export it?


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 27, 2013)

Well, looks like the interventionists got their wish.

IKIS



> DAMASCUS — The U.S. military took an unusual move Tuesday with the deployment of two battalions... to the Syrian capital, in an attempt to depose Bashar al-Assad.  According to Pentagon planners, _Operation: Softening Blow_ will give the rest of the military an edge over Syrian forces, by softening up defensive positions.  “We think this is a step in the right direction and a humanitarian way of dealing with these people,” said Pentagon spokesman George Little."


 /end selective editing





Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/08/airsoft-syria-attack/#ixzz2dD6hh2ti


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 27, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Well, looks like the interventionists got their wish.
> 
> IKIS
> 
> ...



I expect the administrations insiders are now gathering in that little room to watch the live video feed; similar to when SEAL Team 6 last deployed :wall:.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 27, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> What does our nation stand to gain from doing "something"?  What "something" should we do?
> 
> Several of us have enumerated reasons to keep our boys out of it.  If you have better reasons for why we should see our guys coming home in flag draped coffins I am sure we would love to hear them...
> 
> Crip



I don't wish for any of our guys to come back in coffins!

With that being said, I didn't say "hey, this is the RED LINE, don't cross it!"...someone else did.
What our nation gains is standing up to THAT word.....:blkeye:
Unfortunately, as this unfolds, it looks to me we lose ALOT more then we gain by doing anything other then some type of *COVERT* plan
(TOO LATE THERE, thanks MSM for advertising where US and UK have forces)

I think we need to slow roll this here and really investigate who is responsible.
Then come up with a plan that doesn't involve Russia and Iran lobbing nukes this way.


I remember something similar happening in 98 when we spun up and went thru a few days of Pmask shit and busting caps.:wall:
Just for a few Cruise Missiles to get shot and NBD.
It could go down like that this time, or it could be the beginning of WW3....I'm thinking the later!!!!

We'll see how this plays out!

Regardless, I am man enough to admit that I was wrong as 2 nuns in a bathtub......:-"


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 27, 2013)

There's nothing wrong with 2 nuns in a bathtub...   I think I've seen that movie before.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Aug 27, 2013)

Well the deployment has begun, link.

DAMASCUS — The U.S. military took an unusual move Tuesday with the deployment of two battalions of amateur airsoft players to the Syrian capital, in an attempt to depose Bashar al-Assad, or at a bare minimum, just look like they are at least doing something in the two-year-old civil war.

Indeed, the battalions of fully-grown men — who dress up in military uniforms and shoot each other with Airsoft guns on the weekend — are currently en route to the conflict zone via an extremely short C-130 airbus.

“I’ve been training for this my whole life,” said Jeremy Lyons, a 32-year-old college dropout who swears “Airsoft is just a hobby,” even though his entire Facebook features photos of him looking like a goddamn Navy SEAL.

Sources were unable to confirm whether Lyons had ever actually had sex with a woman.

“We think this is a step in the right direction and a humanitarian way of dealing with these people,” said Pentagon spokesman George Little, although he refused to clear up confusion among reporters of whether he was talking about Syrian civilians or the hundreds of douchebags who play airsoft and think that gives them military experience.

According to Pentagon planners, _Operation: Softening Blow_ will give the rest of the military an edge over Syrian forces, by softening up defensive positions: More specifically, Little said, the hope is that the Syrian army will run out of ammo and fuel from running over Airsofters with their tanks so much, there will be little opposition left.

“Since most of their parents bought their equipment, they’re also better outfitted than Delta Force and SEAL Team 6,” said one official, speaking of the most elite military units.

In the Mediterranean Sea, four U.S. Navy ships are standing by to provide support to the Airsoft battalions, most notably from unarmed aerial drones that will only beam back video footage that everyone can laugh at later.

“They won’t stop shooting at us!” cried one pathetic loser, who intelligence sources believed with 98.7% confidence would die a virgin. “And how do they expect us to eat around here? Has anyone seen Applebee’s? We’d even settle for Shoney’s. Jesus!”

At press time, an advance party of airsofters was seen running through the streets crying, in desperate search of a Holiday Inn Express.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 27, 2013)

"You said you wanted 70 virgins, well here's 2 Battalions worth....."


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 27, 2013)

@Mac_NZ  read the page before this.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Aug 27, 2013)

Yeah but the overlord didn't post the link in it's entirety and I'm thinking of some of our poor members who can't access the glory that is the Duffleblog from a work PC.

My story and I'm sticking to it...


----------



## TH15 (Aug 27, 2013)

Michael Scheuer is awesome- tells it like it is.


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 27, 2013)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> I don't wish for any of our guys to come back in coffins!



No one suggested you do.



> ...With that being said, I didn't say "hey, this is the RED LINE, don't cross it!"...someone else did...



Because the President paints himself into a corner thinking he can just tough talk people into compliance isnt a reason to send our men into harms way.  FWIW, our credibility went to shit a long time ago and it wont be fixed until we have a CinC who stand behind his word everytime he opens his mouth.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Aug 27, 2013)

JBS said:


> This is the argument for us having "influence" on the outcome of *which bobblehead* eventually rises to the top of the heap.   Right now forces friendly to us, and forces unfriendly to us are playing *whack-a-mole with whoever rises up*, but eventually some group or individual will emerge, and not without help from somewhere.  When it does, we had better be on the right side of that event.    Personally, I think the plight of Syrian civilians is, and always has been, a tertiary concern, if that.


Ah, the those damnable lessons learned, and not so long ago, that are now lost. We need only look back to Karzai.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 27, 2013)




----------



## Confederate Son (Aug 27, 2013)

SOWT said:


> On the bright side, Assad can spend the next 72 hours trucking all of Saddam's stuff back to Iraq.


Exact-a-mundo...


----------



## Soldado (Aug 27, 2013)

http://news.nytco.com/2013/08/28/bu...pected-on-times-web-site.html?smid=tw-nytimes


----------



## goon175 (Aug 28, 2013)

Generals/CSM's: "DAMNIT! All of these damn conflicts keep cropping up, keeping me from getting our military back to the good 'ol Garrison days and advancing politically driven social agendas! How am I supposed to integrate women into combat arms if another war starts!"


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 28, 2013)

Here's a little food for thought from an undeniably credible source.  

fmso.leavenworth.army.mil/Archives/GSW/201307/Turkey_02.html

Read that and think about it over your morning coffee.


----------



## RetPara (Aug 28, 2013)

goon175 said:


> Generals/CSM's: "DAMNIT! All of these damn conflicts keep cropping up, keeping me from getting our military back to the good 'ol Garrison days and advancing politically driven social agendas! How am I supposed to integrate women into combat arms if another war starts!"


 Please...................... that's officer type shit....   The 1SG's & CSMs just want to get back to working on their advanced gardening skills with their area beautification projects and ensuring the grass will make a PGA fairway and green look sloppy,,,.,


----------



## x SF med (Aug 28, 2013)

RetPara said:


> Please...................... that's officer type shit....   The 1SG's & CSMs just want to get back to working on their advanced gardening skills with their area beautification projects and ensuring the grass will make a PGA fairway and green look sloppy,,,.,


 
You forgot the rocks along the walkways need to be white enough to be used in a Royal Wedding....


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 28, 2013)

Let's bring this back to the topic at hand.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 28, 2013)

Multiple "leaks" now say the Israeli's provided the electronic data, but it may have been a rouge officer, or an accident.

I am not in favor of a strike, if for no other reason then escalation.


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 28, 2013)

It could very well have been a rogue officer, but that still doesn't completely reconcile (in my mind) why a government entity would use a comparatively primitive delivery platform.  That's like rolling out the gate with "Mad Max hillbilly armor" when you have Frag-5 kits ready to go on your truck.

I could be wrong, as I am only human.


----------



## ebiaihi (Aug 28, 2013)

pardus said:


> Exactly. When are people going to wake up and realize that the rebels include the same terrorists we've spent the last decade fighting!?



That'd ruin all of the feel good "We saved the Syrian people!" crap.


----------



## RetPara (Aug 28, 2013)

Syria is a true 'come as you' affair.  Just because you snagged chemicals, explosives, etc ; does not mean you could or thought to snag a delivery system that was precise, elegant, and professional.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 28, 2013)

News babe was interviewing people about Syria.  The Pro-action folks didn't strike me as someone who has served, was willing to serve, or knew anyone serving.

Guess it's easy when you don't have a dog in the hunt.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 28, 2013)

I read on Fox that apparently some SIGINT was captured that the Syrian gov was responsible for the chemical attack, and that is what POTUS & SECSTATE are basing the "evidence" claim on.

@Marauder06 do you have some open source info you can share outside of wikipedia and news? I'm at a bit of a loss with your post regarding "people who know and the interventionist use of wikipedia". As wikipedia and news/blogs are about the only sources I have to research with. But if you have some other stuff, I would love to read it....

@SOWT I think the argument of "all fine and dandy b/c your not the one going into harms way" stuff is a bit off based. I haven't seen anyone call for boots on the ground in Syria and mostly from what I've seen its all calls for an air strike and a no-fly zone.....

Anyway, looks like we're going to be involved soon enough. I guess we will see what happens.


----------



## pardus (Aug 28, 2013)

JAB said:


> calls for an air strike and a no-fly zone.....
> 
> Anyway, looks like we're going to be involved soon enough. I guess we will see what happens.



Until we have planes go down and pilots in orange jump suits.

Yes, it certainly seems like the government machine is gearing up to do "something".
So nice to see us joining with Al Qaeda after our recent tiffs.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 28, 2013)

We're not joining with AQ, come on dude, hell I'm not even sure AQ is in Syria. From what I've been reading AQ has given money and weapons to rebels and asked them to fight under the AQ banner. Mujhadeen is there, but they are not the main FSA force.


----------



## x SF med (Aug 28, 2013)

JAB said:


> We're not joining with AQ, come on dude, hell I'm not even sure AQ is in Syria. From what I've been reading AQ has given money and weapons to rebels and asked them to fight under the AQ banner. Mujhadeen is there, but they are not the main FSA force.


 
JAB - do a search on Al -Quaeda Syria...   I only got through about 20 pages of return on it before I had to stop...
Any ubiquitous organization in the ME will have at least a presence once anything happens, and currently there is no more ubiquitous organization than AQ ... it gets them funding from the ME Moneymen in the war against the great western Shaitan...  AQ has been there since they were founded, at least partially as an adjunct to the Muslim Brotherhood.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 28, 2013)

pardus said:


> Until we have planes go down and pilots in orange jump suits.
> 
> Yes, it certainly seems like the government machine is gearing up to do "something".
> So nice to see us joining with Al Qaeda after our recent tiffs.


followed by a UN Mandate to create a Peace Keeping force.


----------



## Brill (Aug 28, 2013)

JAB said:


> We're not joining with AQ, come on dude, hell I'm not even sure AQ is in Syria. From what I've been reading AQ has given money and weapons to rebels and asked them to fight under the AQ banner. Mujhadeen is there, but they are not the main FSA force.



You should research more about Al Nusrah Front and The Islamic State of Iraq.

Your assertion above is like saying the Turegs caused all the problems in Mali and not AQIM.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 28, 2013)

lindy said:


> You should research more about Al Nusrah Front and The Islamic State of Iraq.
> 
> Your assertion above is like saying the Turegs caused all the problems in Mali and not AQIM.



I've been reading about Al Nusra, but nothing I've read says that the are AQ. Also what I've been reading says that the FSA propper has been fighting Al Nusra. So if that is the case, rebels fighting the AQ supported Al Nusar, why would we claim all rebels are AQ or that by bombing the Sryian gov, we would be supporting AQ?


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 28, 2013)

From what I've gathered, our benevolent provision of arms to rebels hasn't exactly been discriminatory in nature. If you're fighting against Assad, we want to arm you. The MSM has done a good job of portraying the rebel factions as several groups fighting for the same cause, with Al Nusra getting the most attention as the leaders of the cause. Not many people make the association between Al Nusra and Al Qaeda without doing some more research. They profess many of the same values as AQ, harass non-Muslims like AQ, and fly the black flag of AQ.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 28, 2013)

JAB said:


> ...
> 
> @Marauder06 do you have some open source info you can share outside of wikipedia and news? I'm at a bit of a loss with your post regarding "people who know and the interventionist use of wikipedia". As wikipedia and news/blogs are about the only sources I have to research with. But if you have some other stuff, I would love to read it....



I'm pretty sure what I said was something about some peoples' knowledge being Wikipedia deep, I made no comment about legitimate news outlets.   I'm not sure I made the comment in quotes above that you appear to attribute to me. 

At any rate, I have access to no additional information than that which is publicly available to any other member here, and even if I did, I wouldn't say what that information was or even that it existed.   But news sources are news sources... Wikipedia isn't.  Blogs usually aren't legit sources either, although they often reference legit sources, as does Wikipedia.  But too often, people either go with the first thing they see on the Internet that supports their pre-conceived notions, or they see something and don't consider it critically before passing it off to others as fact.  As an example in this very thread, you mentioned the "CIA sniper in Syria" thing.  The link you provided looked a lot like an Arabic-language propaganda video, with no reliable sourcing or context.  Digging into it just slightly, I found several references saying that the video was, in fact, *NOT taken in Syria...* *but Tunisia, back in 2011*.  Might that be why this story wasn't taken up by the mainstream press?  I have no idea when or where the events depicted took place, but in absence of evidence to the contrary, I tend to believe the simplest answer, which in this case is that the "CIA/Syria" thing is a fake.

There are more than enough legit info sources out there that I don't feel obligated to list them all.  But *here's an example* of what I would consider a legit information source related to the conversation we're having in this thread.



JAB said:


> We're not joining with AQ, come on dude, hell I'm not even sure AQ is in Syria. From what I've been reading AQ has given money and weapons to rebels and asked them to fight under the AQ banner. Mujhadeen is there, but they are not the main FSA force.



lol, come on bro, the AQ connection is evident in even a cursory review of the evidence, it's even in Wikipedia you just have to dig into it a bit: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war#Jabhat_al-Nusra
Legitimate sources:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...r-hard-li/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-behind-benghazi-attack-trains-jihadists-for/
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/30/al-qaida-rebels-battle-syria
Moreover, if you're receiving money, weapons, training, and advisors from someone, and fighting under their banner, how are you NOT that?  If you are funded by AQ, and you're supplied by AQ, and the people who train and assist you are AQ, and you fight under AQ's banner... I've got to think that makes you AQ.



JAB said:


> @SOWT I think the argument of "all fine and dandy b/c your not the one going into harms way" stuff is a bit off based. I haven't seen anyone call for boots on the ground in Syria and mostly from what I've seen its all *calls for an air strike and a no-fly zone*.....



That's how it starts... that's not always how it ends up.  No-fly zones are pretty ineffective w/o a viable ground force.  How effective were air (missile) strikes against AQ in Afghanistan before 9/11?  How long did we have a no-fly in Iraq before 2003?  The only thing these measures are good for is to shore up domestic political strength.  They are pretty much useless strategically.


----------



## JHD (Aug 28, 2013)

Pessimist that I am, even though it may start out as an air strike and no fly zone, circumstances could easily change to where tensions are escalated, resulting in boots on the ground.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 28, 2013)

It's all good, no need for the international war machine to get involved; the bears are here to sort shit out.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/syria-conflict-intensifies-as-bears-enter-war,33659/


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 28, 2013)

Stuff just got real... we better double our commitment to a total of four airsoft battalions.


----------



## AWP (Aug 28, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Stuff just got real... we better double our commitment to a total of four airsoft battalions.


 
If that happens @amlove21 won't be around for the election.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 28, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> If that happens @amlove21 won't be around for the election.


 
OPSEC BRO WHAT THE HELL?!?!?!?!

At least I will be able to be in 4 places at once, you know, with all the mannequins out there with perfectly styled coifs and maroon berets.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 28, 2013)

No fly zones.
Northern Iraq to protect the Kurds, how did that work out?
Southern Iraq to keep Saudi Arabia and Kuwait safe (you can call this one a success, just ignore the Armored Bde in Kuwait and the Marine ARG off the coast).
Bosnia to protect Muslims, how did this end?
Kosovo to protect Muslims, ended a lot like Bosnia, except it hasn't ended yet.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 28, 2013)

SOWT said:


> No fly zones.
> Northern Iraq to protect the Kurds, how did that work out?
> Southern Iraq to keep Saudi Arabia and Kuwait safe (you can call this one a success, just ignore the Armored Bde in Kuwait and the Marine ARG off the coast).
> Bosnia to protect Muslims, how did this end?
> Kosovo to protect Muslims, ended a lot like Bosnia, except it hasn't ended yet.



Also, what are the other consequences likely to be, aside from it not working?  How are other regional powers (Russia and Iran, primarily) going to react?  What is Iraq going to do?  These things have to be thought through before we start lobbing missiles willy-nilly or sending in our fighters.


----------



## reed11b (Aug 28, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Also, what are the other consequences likely to be, aside from it not working?  How are other regional powers (Russia and Iran, primarily) going to react?  What is Iraq going to do?  These things have to be thought through before we start lobbing missiles willy-nilly or sending in our fighters.


Hey, F-22's want to play too! You haterz just don't understand how airpower can win wars. /sarcasm.
Reed


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 28, 2013)

How is Russia going to react? 
http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/puti...e-against-saudi-arabia-if-west-attacks-syria/



> A grim “urgent action memorandum” issued today from the office of President Putin to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is ordering a “massive military strike” against Saudi Arabia in the event that the West attacks Syria.
> 
> According to Kremlin sources familiar with this extraordinary “war order,” Putin became “enraged” after his early August meeting with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan who warned that if Russia did not accept the defeat of Syria, Saudi Arabia would unleash Chechen terrorists under their control to cause mass death and chaos during the Winter Olympics scheduled to be held 7-23 February 2014 in Sochi, Russia.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 28, 2013)

reed11b said:


> Hey, F-22's want to play too! You haterz just don't understand how airpower can win wars. /sarcasm.
> Reed



Airpower.  Hmmm.  I think I have clipart for that:


----------



## JBS (Aug 28, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> How is Russia going to react?
> http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/puti...e-against-saudi-arabia-if-west-attacks-syria/


Read about this elsewhere.   One of those developments that is a big deal treated like a small one.

See my earlier posts about observing Russia if you want to know what's at stake on the strategic level.  Syria + AQ  = relatively small (albeit vital) potatoes.

This move virtually guarantees a low intensity conflict, especially in light of the current US political leadership.


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 28, 2013)

Oh great...Susan Rice.  Im mildy surprised she isnt blaming this all on a spontaneous act based upon reactions to a film.....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...nfirmed-assad-regime-behind-alleged-chemical/



> A senior U.S. official also confirmed a report that initially appeared in the Wall Street Journal that National Security Adviser Susan Rice wanted to get the U.N. inspectors out of Syria last weekend because the U.S. already believed it had the information it needed to confirm the Syrian government’s culpability.
> 
> A White House official would not comment on internal deliberations between Rice and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power.
> 
> ...


----------



## JHD (Aug 28, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Also, what are the other consequences likely to be, aside from it not working?  How are other regional powers (Russia and Iran, primarily) going to react?  What is Iraq going to do?  These things have to be thought through before we start lobbing missiles willy-nilly or sending in our fighters.



This is exactly what I am worried about.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Aug 28, 2013)

Hey Susan Rice, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld called, they want their reason to go to war back.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 28, 2013)

AQ interest in Syria and Al Nusrah as an AQ front:

1) d*esignated as a terrorist organization* by the State Department:


> The Department of State has amended the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and Executive Order (E.O.) 13224 designations of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI) to include the following new aliases: *al-Nusrah Front*, Jabhat al-Nusrah, Jabhet al-Nusra, The Victory Front, and Al-Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant.





> Through these attacks, al-Nusrah has sought to portray itself as part of the legitimate Syrian opposition while it is, in fact, *an attempt by AQI to hijack the struggles of the Syrian people for its own malign purposes. AQI emir Abu Du’a is in control of both AQI and al-Nusrah*.



2) *The Combatting Terrorism Center* at West Point said:


> *Al-Qa`ida has taken a keen interest in the Syrian war*. In mid- to late-2011, its Iraqi affiliate, t*he Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), helped create Jabhat al-Nusra*, a Syrian spinoff


----------



## AWP (Aug 28, 2013)

What is it with America and UN Weapons Inspectors? We need them, we don't, they have to inspect, pull them out, if they find evidence we can go to war, we don't care what they find and we'll go to war anyway, we like little girls on the internet, oh yes we do...


----------



## Totentanz (Aug 28, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> What is it with America and UN Weapons Inspectors? We need them, we don't, they have to inspect, pull them out, if they find evidence we can go to war, we don't care what they find and we'll go to war anyway, we like little girls on the internet, oh yes we do...



This whole back-and-forth appears to be the political equivalent of marking time on your crank.


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 29, 2013)

Annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd  Egypt throws down! 
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/egy...s-bar-to-wests-anti-assad-efforts/2013/08/28/



> The current Egyptian leadership may close the Suez Canal to warships in an effort to block a western attack on Assad's Syria.  The leading anti-Muslim Brotherhood group in Egypt, the Tamarod (Rebellion), announced it will prevent military action threatened by the West against Syria, from using the Egyptian-controlled Suez Canal.
> And the Suez Canal, of course, is the route through which U.S., British and other warships will need to pass for any non-air or land-based military strike against Syria.
> “Supporting the Arab Syrian army is a national duty,” Hassan Shahin, the Tamarod spokesperson wrote, according to _Gulf News_. “The Arab people have to rebel after unmasking the plot of the Free (Syrian) Army and its backers among the Muslim Brotherhood and their allies from the militant groups,” Shahin wrote.
> Egypt’s current foreign minister, Nabil Fahmy, insisted that the only way to proceed regarding Syria is for there to be a political solution. Fahmy firmly opposes any military intervention.
> Back when Mohamad Morsi was in power in Egypt, all of three months ago, the Egyptian government had turned on the Syrian regime,  and ordered the closure of the Syrian embassy in Cairo. Muslim Brotherhood members are among those currently fighting the Assad government.


----------



## Scotth (Aug 29, 2013)

Mac_NZ said:


> Hey Susan Condi Rice, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld called, they want their reason to go to war back.



Fixed it.

Personally,  if you can us this event as an excuse to launch a couple hundred cruise missiles and destroy Syria's chemical weapons stock piles I'm all for that.  I wouldn't trust Assad with those weapons and I sure as hell don't want those weapons to be around if the rebels win.  Beyond that I have no problem walking away.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 29, 2013)

The run to war has turned into a slow jog; guess the convincing evidence wasn't so convincing after all.


----------



## Poccington (Aug 29, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> How is Russia going to react?
> http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/puti...e-against-saudi-arabia-if-west-attacks-syria/



Do people actually believe the story in that article?

It reads like a very bad film plot. The EU Times is a joke, right up there with that gimp Alex Jones.


----------



## Atlas (Aug 29, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> What is it with America and UN Weapons Inspectors? We need them, we don't, they have to inspect, pull them out, if they find evidence we can go to war, we don't care what they find and we'll go to war anyway, we like little girls on the internet, oh yes we do...


So if the UN finds chemical weapons WE go to war.  I'm getting kind of lost on what the whole point of the UN is.  

"Hey good guys, here's a set of rules for you to follow."
"But the people were trying to stop aren't following them."
"Figure it out" /troll face

When I leave basic is there going to be a UN patch on my arm?  It just seems like we are policing the things they should be doing.


----------



## Poccington (Aug 29, 2013)

Well it looks like the whole thing has gotten a bit more interesting, British MP's have tonight voted against the possibility of any military action against Syrian forces...





> *David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons*
> 
> British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.
> 
> ...


----------



## surgicalcric (Aug 29, 2013)

Atlas said:


> ..I'm getting kind of lost on what the whole point of the UN is..



I have been wondering that since I was old enough to learn what their mandate is vice what they do or not depending on the AOR.


----------



## AWP (Aug 29, 2013)

Poccington said:


> Well it looks like the whole thing has gotten a bit more interesting, British MP's have tonight voted against the possibility of any military action against Syrian forces...


 
Good news for once.


----------



## pardus (Aug 29, 2013)

Atlas said:


> So if the UN finds chemical weapons WE go to war.  I'm getting kind of lost on what the whole point of the UN is.
> 
> "Hey good guys, here's a set of rules for you to follow."
> "But the people were trying to stop aren't following them."
> ...



Don't forget "they" is also "we". People in the USA tend to forget that the USA is the strongest part of the UN. Think about that.




Freefalling said:


> Good news for once.



Indeed, that will make it much harder for Obama to release the hounds. I wonder what France will do?


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 29, 2013)

pardus said:


> Indeed, that will make it much harder for Obama to release the hounds. I wonder what France will do?


Surrender, of course!


----------



## pardus (Aug 29, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Surrender, of course!



Stop it. The French Military have balls and aren't afraid of a scrap.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 29, 2013)

pardus said:


> Don't forget "they" is also "we". People in the USA tend to forget that the USA is the strongest part of the UN. Think about that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Big question as the President's minions have already said he'd go it alone.


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 29, 2013)

pardus said:


> Stop it. The French Military have balls and aren't afraid of a scrap.


Lighten up, Francis!


----------



## pardus (Aug 29, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Big question as the President's minions have already said he'd go it alone.



Part of me wants him to so that his golden boy image is destroyed forever. I'd gladly go over there and fight to have that in the history books in fact. Well, I'd gladly go regardless but that would be icing on the cake.



Chopstick said:


> Lighten up, Francis!



If you call me Francis again, I'll kill ya!


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 29, 2013)

pardus said:


> If you call me Francis again, I'll kill ya!


Oh sure.  Then who will make your sammiches?


----------



## AWP (Aug 29, 2013)

pardus said:


> Stop it. The French Military have balls and aren't afraid of a scrap.


 
Their military? No, of course not. Their politicians...that's a different story. I was impressed with the Germans and French I crossed paths with, but not their leadership.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 29, 2013)

I did some serious studying this morning on this topic and it turns out the DEMS who bashed my man Gee Dub are the same ones saying 1..2..3...lets do this.................LEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOYY JEEEEEEEEEEEEENKKKIIIIIIINS!!!!!!

(did I spell that right?!:?)

Less proof, no pudding!!!!

Whatever the case, again I know I am eating crow here but I am glad things are slowing down......

Thanks for not banning me....yet...:wall:


----------



## pardus (Aug 29, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Oh sure.  Then who will make your sammiches?



Hmm... 

Then I'll kill someone else instead... :-/



SpongeBob*24 said:


> I did some serious studying this morning on this topic and it turns out the DEMS who bashed my man Gee Dub are the same ones saying 1..2..3...lets do this.................LEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOYY JEEEEEEEEEEEEENKKKIIIIIIINS!!!!!!
> 
> (did I spell that right?!:?)
> 
> ...



Kudos for the Leroy Jenkins quote, I love that video and very appropriate to this situation too IMO.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 29, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Their military? No, of course not. Their politicians...that's a different story. I was impressed with the Germans and French I crossed paths with, but not their leadership.


Hollande was more than keen to get into Libya and Mali.


----------



## Etype (Aug 29, 2013)

Politicians will never understand that there are no "moderate rebels" and that when any two armed groups in the middle east are killing each other, American haters are dying on both fronts.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 29, 2013)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> I did some serious studying this morning on this topic and it turns out the DEMS who bashed my man Gee Dub are the same ones saying 1..2..3...lets do this.................LEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOYY JEEEEEEEEEEEEENKKKIIIIIIINS!!!!!!
> 
> (did I spell that right?!:?)
> 
> ...


I need to hire a witch and have her turn you into a newt.


----------



## AWP (Aug 29, 2013)

ThunderHorse said:


> Hollande was more than keen to get into Libya and Mali.


 
Colonial ties have to be taken into consideration, but my point was to refute the stereotype of the French quitting the field of battle. If we're going to judge a nation's actions based on events from the previous century, then Iraq and Afghanistan would be "W's" on our scoreboard.

The French have done much better in OEF-A than some other nations here.


----------



## pardus (Aug 30, 2013)

France's only Military weakpoint was WWII and then they were totally outclassed by enemy tactics. 

I would warn that people in glass houses shouldn't be the first to throw stones.


----------



## goon175 (Aug 30, 2013)

Now, if the plan was to go into Syria and kill both the rebels and the military/government, then i'd be all about it! No nation building though. That part sucks.


----------



## pardus (Aug 30, 2013)

goon175 said:


> Now, if the plan was to go into Syria and kill both the rebels and the military/government, then i'd be all about it! No nation building though. That part sucks.



Any other pots of gold you are going for? I'm in, as long as I have a Unicorn machine gun!


----------



## Dame (Aug 30, 2013)

pardus said:


> I'm in, as long as I have a Unicorn machine gun!


Sorry, Lil' Kim is using that just now to kill ex-GFs.


----------



## pardus (Aug 30, 2013)

Dame said:


> Sorry, Lil' Kim is using that just now to kill ex-GFs.



What?


----------



## Dame (Aug 30, 2013)

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/glob...ortedly-executed-his-own-ex-girlfriend/68850/


----------



## Rapid (Aug 30, 2013)

*The French president has said a vote by UK MPs against involvement in military strikes on Syria has not changed France's resolve to take firm action.*

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23897775



> Francois Hollande said all options were being considered, and that a strike within days was not ruled out.
> 
> His comments came after US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel said Washington would continue to seek a coalition for possible military action.



Sigh. It would've been better to let Assad clear up the remnants of the rebels and leave all of them in a weakened state/insurgency. Of course, that's not the 'humanitarian' thing to do... according to the bloody French socialists in government.


----------



## goon175 (Aug 30, 2013)




----------



## dknob (Aug 30, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Their military? No, of course not. Their politicians...that's a different story. I was impressed with the Germans and French I crossed paths with, but not their leadership.



The French government didn't have a problem getting it's feet wet in Mali.


----------



## dknob (Aug 30, 2013)

what - the - fuck?!

The UK won't go in with us.


----------



## Dame (Aug 30, 2013)

France is about it. And considering the rhetoric coming from the WH folks, they are already embarrassing themselves before a single shot is fired.
We are apparently busy "developing facts" :-/ and trying to craft a response "just muscular enough not to get mocked." :whatever:
Oh, and do finish that up before the president heads to the G-20 summit. We wouldn't want to leave Biden in charge.



> MANILA, Philippines (AP) — U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said Friday the Obama administration was consulting with allies to "further develop the facts" about last week's alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria, and options for a response.





> A U.S. official briefed on the military options being considered by President Obama *told the Los Angeles Times *that the White House is seeking a strike on Syria "just muscular enough not to get mocked."


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 30, 2013)

The Clinton strategy for counter-terrorism.

This will work well.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 30, 2013)

dknob said:


> The French government didn't have a problem getting it's feet wet in Mali.



Yep; and they did a pretty good job there too I think, all things considered.

But we've got to also realize that a large part of French success in Mali *was* and *is* directly due to... the American support it received.  This would likely be the case in a French-led incursion into Syria as well.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 30, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Yep; and they did a pretty good job there too I think, all things considered.
> 
> But we've got to also realize that a large part of French success in Mali *was* and *is* directly due to... the American support it received.  This would likely be the case in a French-led incursion into Syria as well.


France could not have done Mali without our help, same goes for Libya.  
I agree, let France be the lead in Syria.


----------



## dknob (Aug 30, 2013)

Intel says 1,400 + dead on the Aug 21st chemical weapon attack. There's no way we are turning back on this is there?


----------



## Scotth (Aug 30, 2013)

The administrations unclassified response on why they believe Assad is responsible.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 30, 2013)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...0ee-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html?hpid=z1

"Former and current officers, many with the painful lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan on their minds, said the main reservations concern the potential unintended consequences of launching cruise missiles against Syria.

Some questioned the use of military force as a punitive measure and suggested that the White House lacks a coherent strategy. If the administration is ambivalent about the wisdom of defeating or crippling the Syrian leader, possibly setting the stage for Damascus to fall to fundamentalist rebels, they said, the military objective of strikes on Assad’s military targets is at best ambiguous.

“*There’s a broad naivete in the political class about America’s obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve*,” said retired Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the run-up to the Iraq war, noting that many of his contemporaries are alarmed by the plan."


----------



## pardus (Aug 30, 2013)

Hmm Interesting report. Not sure I completely buy into it but they have a hell of a lot more intel than I do.



dknob said:


> Intel says 1,400 + dead on the Aug 21st chemical weapon attack. There's no way we are turning back on this is there?



Nothing would surprise me.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 30, 2013)

dknob said:


> Intel says 1,400 + dead on the Aug 21st chemical weapon attack. There's no way we are turning back on this is there?


 
I think the line in the sand was drawn a long time ago, conflict is inevitable and sadly I don't think there's a solution to prevent more blood from being spilled.  The whole region is a giant quagmire full of shit.  If Russia and China want to keep Western boots out of Syria, tell them to sort the fucking mess out.  It's time both countries put up or shut up.  Otherwise we should just call it a day for Earth and the human race and kick off the giant nuke showdown.


----------



## pardus (Aug 30, 2013)

*U.S. Officials say 'no smoking gun' implicating Assad in chemical attack*

Doesnt really change much but interesting nonetheless.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 30, 2013)

Seriously?  "High Confidence" has suddenly turned into "no smoking gun?"

We are sending all kinds of mixed signals here.


----------



## pardus (Aug 30, 2013)

I'm guessing the White House is in collective catatonic schizophrenia right now.


----------



## Totentanz (Aug 30, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Seriously?  "High Confidence" has suddenly turned into "no smoking gun?"
> 
> We are sending all kinds of mixed signals here.



I wonder if they have issued the same statement if the British Parliament had approved military action... :-"


----------



## pardus (Aug 30, 2013)

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-sending-warships-mediterranean-report-082257880.html

Supposedly a planned rotation...


----------



## AWP (Aug 30, 2013)

A US president, armed with sketchy evidence about chemical weapons, send his Sec. State to make the case for invading a middle eastern nation without any allied support?

What year is it?


----------



## Totentanz (Aug 30, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> A US president, armed with sketchy evidence about chemical weapons, send his Sec. State to make the case for invading a middle eastern nation without any allied support?
> 
> What year is it?



something about doomed to repeat it...


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 30, 2013)

YES! NO! MAYBE! YES! NO!.....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/30/obama-no-final-decision-syria-considering-limited-/



> President Obama said Friday that he sympathizes with Americans’ war-weariness but is considering a “limited, narrow” military response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons.


----------



## pardus (Aug 30, 2013)

We should write a very sternly worded letter to them.


----------



## Scotth (Aug 30, 2013)

You have to read the Reuters article.  There is no smoking gun to Assad himself but there is strong evidence that the government did launch the attacks.


> "This was not a rogue operation," one U.S. official said.  However the evidence does not prove that Assad himself ordered that chemical munitions be used, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.  Evidence that forces loyal to Assad were responsible goes beyond the circumstantial to include electronic intercepts and some tentative scientific samples from the neighborhood which was attacked, officials said.



Do you need a wire tap of Assad saying "fire" to hold him responsible?


----------



## Dame (Aug 30, 2013)

Scotth said:


> You have to read the Reuters article.  There is no smoking gun to Assad himself but there is strong evidence that the government did launch the attacks.
> 
> 
> Do you need a wire tap of Assad saying "fire" to hold him responsible?


That's just face saving IMHO. We can't admit we were completely wrong but we have to back out somehow. Just my $.02.


----------



## Rapid (Aug 30, 2013)

Assad himself would never allow this because he's not that fucking stupid. In fact, I doubt many of his commanders are either.

Those that are on his side, that is. We know plenty of them have defected already. Though, why simply defect when you could (first) use your position to give orders that are practically suicidal for the regime?

In the Muslim mind, 1,500 casualties is a small price to pay, in the long term, if it manages to get the West to intervene and change the tide of the conflict.


----------



## AWP (Aug 30, 2013)

Wait....if Assad doesn't order the strike, but it happened anyway, how is that not a rogue operation? Anyway, if a loyal official allowed it to happen, then Assad is responsible and just as guilty, right?

Let's say for the sake of argument that someone in Assad's gov't allowed guns to illegally cross the border ....


----------



## x SF med (Aug 30, 2013)

pardus said:


> We should write a very sternly worded letter to them.


 

NO NO NO...  stern letters are the purview of the UN....  y'know that waste of over 18 acres of prime real estate in NYC that doesn't pay any friggin rent... at least that I can find online....

from the UN website...



> Welcome to the United Nations! The Headquarters of the World Organization is located on an 18-acre site on the East side of Manhattan._* It is an international zone belonging to all Member States.*_ The United Nations has its own security force, fire department and postal administration. Visitors from all over the world often like to send postcards back home with United Nations stamps - these stamps can only be mailed from the United Nations.
> The Headquarters consist of four main buildings: the General Assembly building, the Conference Building, the 39-floor Secretariat building, and the Dag Hammarskjold Library, which was added in 1961. The complex was designed by an international team of 11 architects, led by Wallace K. Harrison from the United States.


----------



## pardus (Aug 30, 2013)

x SF med said:


> NO NO NO...  stern letters are the purview of the UN....  y'know that waste of over 18 acres of prime real estate in NYC that doesn't pay any friggin rent... at least that I can find online....
> 
> from the UN website...



Oh I thought this administration had merged us with the UN, my bad.
I'm going to print some business cards as their landlord and start charging them rent.


----------



## pardus (Aug 30, 2013)

Scotth said:


> You have to read the Reuters article.  There is no smoking gun to Assad himself but there is strong evidence that the government did launch the attacks.
> 
> 
> Do you need a wire tap of Assad saying "fire" to hold him responsible?



I read it and some of that "strong" evidence is shaky, social media and youtube videos? I havent seen any evidence of ANY chemical agent being found yet.

So Obama should be held accountable for collateral damage deaths? What about the beheadings the rebels are doing in Syria, are we holding the rebel leader to the same standards? I don't think so.


----------



## Soldado (Aug 30, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Yep; and they did a pretty good job there too I think, all things considered.
> 
> But we've got to also realize that a large part of French success in Mali *was* and *is* directly due to... the American support it received.  This would likely be the case in a French-led incursion into Syria as well.





SOWT said:


> France could not have done Mali without our help, same goes for Libya.
> I agree, let France be the lead in Syria.



What the ...? America did what?

I think even Spain has done more than the US.


----------



## pardus (Aug 30, 2013)

Soldado said:


> I think even Spain has done more than the US.



Please back that up with proof/evidence.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 30, 2013)

Soldado said:


> What the ...? America did what?
> 
> I think even Spain has done more than the US.



Spain has done more for whom, where?  Did you even follow the links I posted?  They spell things out pretty clearly.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 30, 2013)

Soldado said:


> What the ...? America did what?
> 
> I think even Spain has done more than the US.





pardus said:


> Please back that up with proof/evidence.


Where do you think the tanker support is coming from?  Spain? ROTFLMAO!
Electronic Intel, Log support, PGM Resupply?  Spain? Seriously?

You really need to bring us some proof, and the Spanish version of the National Enquirer doesn't count.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 30, 2013)

http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/01/18/inenglish/1358511737_967612.html

*France upset at Spain for dragging its heels in Mali operation*


> As opposed to other European allies, who automatically said they would furnish France with whatever help it needed, Spain, according to diplomats, was considerably less forthcoming. *Its offer to provide a single transport plane* matched the aid Denmark - a nation with a population nine times smaller than Spain - has contributed to the military operation.



Mmm.  Impressive level of support from Spain.  Good thing France has them on their side, that one transport plane has made all the difference.


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 30, 2013)

After hearing Sec Kerry's remarks I am still against any action.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2013)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324539404578338590169579504.html
The U.S. is markedly widening its role in the stepped up French-led military campaign against extremists in Mali, *providing sensitive intelligence* that pinpoints militant targets for attack, U.S. and allied officials disclosed.
The Obama administration has agreed to* provide air tankers* to refuel French warplanes targeting rebels in Mali, sharply expanding the level of U.S. involvement in the campaign. WSJ


http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/26/world/africa/mali-unrest
So far, *the U.S. Air Force has flown at least seven C-17 cargo missions into Mali*, carrying 200 passengers, mainly French troops, and 168 tons of equipment, according to Maj. Robert Firman, a Pentagon spokesman.


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 31, 2013)

The mindset of the President gives me pause.  

Previously his statement that the military fights on "his" behalf drove me crazy. See video.






Now we have the President referring to the military as "his" military.


http://twitchy.com/2013/08/30/whose-army-president-obama-riles-with-reference-to-my-military/



> "Now, I have not made a final decision about various actions that might be taken to help enforce that norm," he said. "But as I've already said, I have had _*MY MILITARY *_and our team look at a wide range of options."


----------



## AWP (Aug 31, 2013)

As the Commander-in-Chief he's technically or even legally right....but it shows a horrible lack of class, grace, and humility. I can't think that he misspoke either when it is "my" military and "our" team...instead of both being ours.


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 31, 2013)

In my opinion, he comes off sounding like a king or a dictator, not the guy that supposedly took the oath to " faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> As the Commander-in-Chief he's technically or even legally right....but it shows a horrible lack of class, grace, and humility. I can't think that he misspoke either when it is "my" military and "our" team...instead of both being ours.



It's true he's the Commander in Chief, but it's the People's military, not any one individual's.  That's why the officers of the military swear an oath to the Constitution, and pointedly not to any individual or office.


----------



## pardus (Aug 31, 2013)




----------



## Soldado (Aug 31, 2013)

pardus said:


> Please back that up with proof/evidence.



104 of these:





33 of these:





LAV's deployed in situ:
http://www.defensa.gob.es/Galerias/...oteca/imagen/2013/04/DGC-130424-mali-03-G.jpg

A pair more of these:




1 Hercules and 1 C-295 for troops and material.

More info:

http://www.defensa.gob.es/areasTematicas/misiones/enCurso/misiones/eutm-mali.html

http://loquetengaqueser.blogspot.com.es/2013/06/incremento-del-numero-de-efectivos.html


----------



## pardus (Aug 31, 2013)

Soldado said:


> 104 of these:
> 
> 
> 33 of these:
> ...



Not exactly a major contribution (not to say it's not important), and considering the support the USA gave I think your previous comment is unfounded.


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 31, 2013)

Im so glad Obama turned up for his 1:15p, press conference late.  I guess those late nights with Magic Johnson take their toll.  And I really appreciated the lecture to the world about turning a "blind eye".  Sort of like a certain President did to his own people in Benghazi, I presume?


----------



## Soldado (Aug 31, 2013)

pardus said:


> Not exactly a major contribution (not to say it's not important), and considering the support the USA gave I think your previous comment is unfounded.



Unfounded? Did you read the links?

It will be same without the US, the help of the other countries are enough.


----------



## pardus (Aug 31, 2013)

Soldado said:


> Unfounded? Did you read the links?
> 
> It will be same without the US, the help of the other countries are enough.



A, this is an English language forum.
B, I did translate some of it to see the numbers.

Who else in the world has the heavy lift capability the US has? Why didnt they use them instead? Your last sentence applies equally well to Spain.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2013)

If anyone else in the EU could have made up for what the US providing, why didn't they do it from the beginning?  The answer is, "they can't."  No one else in the world has the US's logistics, intelligence, and heavy lift capacity.  The US provided it in Libya, it is providing it in Mali, and most likely will have to do it if any EU country wants to do anything meaningful in Syria.  

Spain's contribution in Mali is significant only for the fact that they sent anyone at all.  But comparing a country giving up a company-sized element of ground troops, a couple of LAVs, and a whopping TWO cargo planes to what the US providing is foolish.


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2013)

http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/31/obama-asks-congress-to-authorize-syrian-strike/

President Obama has announced that he will ask COngress for authorization to strike Syria.

This is brilliant- now he gets credit for trying to "do something," but he can blame it on Congress for "doing nothing," which he knows is the most likely result.


----------



## Hillclimb (Aug 31, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> This is brilliant- now he gets credit for trying to "do something," but he can blame it on Congress for "doing nothing," which he knows is the most likely result.



Implicate others: a great way to diffuse responsibility when needed. At least that's what I thought when I saw congress getting pulled in.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 31, 2013)

Soldado said:


> 104 of these:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, how does that (in your mind) equal or surpass the contribution we are making?


----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 31, 2013)

Hmmm I wonder what the Duffle Blog, the most authoritative source in all of The Internets, has to say about Syria these days.


----------



## alibi (Aug 31, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Hmmm I wonder what the Duffle Blog, the most authoritative source in all of The Internets, has to say about Syria these days.


*US Praises Massacre Of Syrian Civilians Without Use Of Chemical Weapons*


----------



## Etype (Aug 31, 2013)

I love modern media/politics-

- Black people can kill as many black people as they want, but white Hispanics can't kill blacks within the law.
- You can kill as many people as you want with knives or cars, just don't use guns.
- Anthony Weiner's can send a text message and get more publicity than a warrior's death in Afghanistan.
- We can stand by as Americans die, but it's a travesty if Syrians who would love nothing more than to see us die are killed.
- You can kill as many thousands as you want with bombs and bullets, just don't do it with chemicals.


----------



## x SF med (Aug 31, 2013)

Etype said:


> I love modern media/politics-
> 
> - Black people can kill as many black people as they want, but white Hispanics can't kill blacks within the law.
> - You can kill as many people as you want with knives or cars, just don't use guns.
> ...


 
There you go trying to bring logic into this argument....  bullets are only dangerous when fired by American soldiers in the Mideast, should a middle easterner shoot another middle easterner, it does not count, because there was a mutual jihad and the bullets were not fired by the great western devil.   Gas attacks scare people more than bullets and are therefore more dangerous (don't get me wrong, CBR usage scares the living shit out of me) because they bring the media out in droves...

Ideology, iconography and propaganda are the keys right now, and who is doing the best job of them...


----------



## pardus (Aug 31, 2013)

I have a quick question r.e. chem/bio attacks, are all chem agents heavier than air? I'm assuming bio agents are not?


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 31, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> If anyone else in the EU could have made up for what the US providing, why didn't they do it from the beginning?  The answer is, "they can't."  No one else in the world has the US's logistics, intelligence, and heavy lift capacity.  The US provided it in Libya, it is providing it in Mali, and most likely will have to do it if any EU country wants to do anything meaningful in Syria.
> 
> Spain's contribution in Mali is significant only for the fact that they sent anyone at all.  But comparing a country giving up a company-sized element of ground troops, a couple of LAVs, and a whopping TWO cargo planes to what the US providing is foolish.


...and a "drone" base in Niger (Google).


----------



## Chopstick (Aug 31, 2013)




----------



## pardus (Aug 31, 2013)




----------



## Etype (Aug 31, 2013)

pardus said:


> I have a quick question r.e. chem/bio attacks, are all chem agents heavier than air? I'm assuming bio agents are not?


I would assume for a chem agent to be considered effective it would have to have a "neutral buoyancy*" or be just slightly heavier than air.  I would think that all bio agents would be heavier, since they are actual viruses or spores in most cases.  

The only bio agents I know of that we have ever actually been concerned with was anthrax and botulism, both weaponized by Iraq.



*Not sure of the correct term, but you know what I mean.


----------



## pardus (Aug 31, 2013)

Etype said:


> I would assume for a chem agent to be considered effective it would have to have a "neutral buoyancy*" or be just slightly heavier than air.  I would think that all bio agents would be heavier, since they are actual viruses or spores in most cases.
> 
> The only bio agents I know of that we have ever actually been concerned with was anthrax and botulism, both weaponized by Iraq.
> 
> ...



Danke.

I seem to remember reports in WWI that mustard or maybe chlorine were heavier that air, sinking into trenches, shell holes and bunkers. Kind of a bummer for those taking cover...


----------



## AWP (Sep 1, 2013)

pardus said:


> Danke.
> 
> I seem to remember reports in WWI that mustard or maybe chlorine were heavier that air, sinking into trenches, shell holes and bunkers. Kind of a bummer for those taking cover...


 
That is correct.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 1, 2013)




----------



## DA SWO (Sep 1, 2013)

pardus said:


> Danke.
> 
> I seem to remember reports in WWI that mustard or maybe chlorine were heavier that air, sinking into trenches, shell holes and bunkers. Kind of a bummer for those taking cover...


Yes, and it forced people out of the trenches into the open, exposed to gunfire.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 1, 2013)

Russia is eating our lunch politically over this whole Syria thing.



> The Russian leader said he was convinced the suspected chemical attack was a provocation aimed at drawing the U.S. military into Syria's civil war, implying he believed the attack was carried out by the Syrian rebels.
> 
> If the Americans have evidence proving the involvement of President Bashar Assad's regime, they should present it to the United Nations inspectors and the U.N. Security Council, he said. "*If it is not presented, that means it does not exist*," Putin said.





> "We have to remember what has happened in the last decades, how many times the United States has been the initiator of armed conflict in different regions of the world," Putin told Russian journalists, including from state television, covering his visit to Vladivostok in the Far East. "Did this resolve even one problem?


"

http://news.msn.com/world/putin-urges-us-to-hold-off-on-striking-syria/


----------



## goon175 (Sep 1, 2013)

> "We have to remember what has happened in the last decades, how many times the United States has been the initiator of armed conflict in different regions of the world," Putin told Russian journalists, including from state television, covering his visit to Vladivostok in the Far East. "Did this resolve even one problem?



Damn.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 1, 2013)

A little blast from the past....
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2008/10/us_strike_in_syria_d.php



> Al Qaeda leader Abu Ghadiya was killed in yesterday's strike inside Syria, a senior US military intelligence official told _The Long War Journal_. But US special operations forces also inflicted a major blow to al Qaeda's foreign fighter network based in Syria. The entire senior leadership of Ghadiya's network was also killed in the raid, the official stated.
> 
> Ghadiya was the leader of al Qaeda extensive network that funnels foreign fighters, weapons, and cash from Syria into Iraq along the entire length of the Syrian border. Ghadiya was first identified as the target of the raid inside Syria late last night here at _The Long War Journal_. _The Associated Press_ reported Ghadiya was killed in the raid earlier today.
> 
> ...


----------



## pardus (Sep 1, 2013)

> He (Putin) urged Obama to reflect on the results of the U.S. military intervention in Afghanistan



That Commie bastard has some gall, I guess he forgot his 10 year genocidal war there.


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 1, 2013)

No military intervention.


----------



## AWP (Sep 1, 2013)

I turned 18 in Dec. 1991. Since I became an adult and by my count, regardless of how well our men fought:

Somalia - Loss
Bosnia - Ongoing (though you could also argue as a loss or a win)
Cruise missle strikes in the Sudan and Afghanistan - Loss
Kosovo - Win (airpower only)
Iraq - Loss (Some will argue the opposite)
Afghanistan - Loss
GWOT in the Philippines - Win or Winning
Africa - Very debatable
Colombia - Maintaining the status quo/ winning

Think about it and look at the patterns. Regardless, our track record is kind of ugly....


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 1, 2013)

I have NO idea if this story is accurate, and I'm not vouching for the news source.  But:

http://www.examiner.com/article/bre...attack-result-of-mishandling-chemical-weapons

"In a report that is sure to be considered blockbuster news, the rebels told Dale Gavlak, a reporter who has written for the Associated Press, NPR and BBC, they are responsible for the chemical attack last week.

Gavlak is a Middle Eastern journalist who filed the report about the rebels claiming responsibility on the Mint Press News website, which is affiliated with AP.

In that report allegedly the rebels told him the chemical attack was a result of mishandling chemical weapons."


----------



## Scotth (Sep 1, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Bosnia - Ongoing (though you could also argue as a loss or a win)



Not trying to start a fight just curious why you could consider Bosnia a loss?  Because we are still there maybe?

Somolia was a lost because of US domestic politics and not because of the military.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 1, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Not trying to start a fight just curious why you could consider Bosnia a loss?  Because we are still there maybe?
> 
> *Somolia was a lost because of US domestic politics and not because of the military*.



Yeah but that's all of them bro, lol.  We probably could have "won" every conflict we've been engaged in since WWII, if not for political considerations.  Then again, the military is used for political goals, not for its own ends.


----------



## AWP (Sep 1, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Not trying to start a fight just curious why you could consider Bosnia a loss?  Because we are still there maybe?
> 
> Somolia was a lost because of US domestic politics and not because of the military.


 
Originally we the people were sold on a short term stay. What was it? 2 years or something? Now we're on 14/15-something years? I won't even "what if" it by saying "if we pulled out tomorrow," but as it stands we're there for a lot, lot longer than anyone thought.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 1, 2013)

pardus said:


> I have a quick question r.e. chem/bio attacks, are all chem agents heavier than air? I'm assuming bio agents are not?


 
No all chem agents are not heavier than air, and not all heavy chem agents are persistent, and not all light agents are non persistent...  clear as mud...


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 1, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I turned 18 in Dec. 1991. Since I became an adult and by my count, regardless of how well our men fought:
> 
> Africa - Very debatable


Disagree here. Well, not that it's debatable- but that we are currently winning handily. I believe it to be much less a debate. The last ten years of warfighting have enabled us to avoid making the same mistakes, and the way that we navigate certain issues and actually prosecute targets is extremely efficient, and we are showcasing this in Africa. 

I think that time will show we have done very, very well in Africa for what our main purpose is- AT and counterproliferation of forces/weapons/mindset. 

Now, as far as letting each brand of cat/dog/lion run their own country, under a democratic rule, and giving them a solid city state in which all can live? No. But that's not why we are in Africa, is it?

As far as length of stay- we are going nowhere, if I had to guess. I definitely plan on seeing The Dark Continent again in my career- if not a couple more times. We shall see.


----------



## pardus (Sep 1, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I have NO idea if this story is accurate, and I'm not vouching for the news source.  But:
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/article/bre...attack-result-of-mishandling-chemical-weapons
> 
> ...



As you can see in this article, Russia investigated the Sarin attack and concluded that it was the rebels, they have supposedly handed their findings to the UN.

The Russian Ambassador to the UN speaks at the 2:46 mark, though the whole thing is worth a look as it talks about a chemical factory the rebels have, with chemicals from Saudi Arabia, which gels with what I heard earlier, and backs what @racing_kitty thought about the rockets used. "Not industrial manufactured".


----------



## AWP (Sep 1, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> Disagree here.


 
Fair enough, though it kind of drives home one of the patterns I mentioned. Perhaps "very" wasn't appropriate, but I was thinking more in terms of Somalia, Mali (though that seems to have turned the corner last year), and radical influence in places like Egypt, Libya, Algiers, etc.

We could probably split hairs over what constitutes a win. Counterterror and weapons proliferation. Done. If we try to keep it in line with our muddled end-states in places like Iraq and Aghanistan I think we could call Africa a work in progress at best.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 1, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Fair enough, though it kind of drives home one of the patterns I mentioned. Perhaps "very" wasn't appropriate, but I was thinking more in terms of Somalia, Mali (though that seems to have turned the corner last year), and radical influence in places like Egypt, Libya, Algiers, etc....If we try to keep it in line with our muddled end-states in places like Iraq and Aghanistan I think we could call Africa a work in progress at best.


I'm in total agreement here. 

I guess I was framing it differently too. In the construct which you referenced, I think I would be more inclined to agree with you wholeheartedly. But even in Somalia, Mali (places which have been much much worse) and the "on the brink countries" (South Sudan, Algiers, Kenya), I think we are effecting the proper change there. 

But bottom line- for over all, I don't think "work in progress" is 100% wrong- I'm of the opinion that we are on the "getting better" side of it though.


----------



## AWP (Sep 1, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> But bottom line- for over all, I don't think "work in progress" is 100% wrong- I'm of the opinion that we are on the "getting better" side of it though.


 
Good news for a change...now if I could just take the GWOT to Costa Rica...


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 1, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Originally we the people were sold on a short term stay. What was it? 2 years or something? Now we're on 14/15-something years? I won't even "what if" it by saying "if we pulled out tomorrow," but as it stands we're there for a lot, lot longer than anyone thought.


Bosnia is an EU operation IIRC, we have a small Liason Cell, but SFOR is over (Bush II did it about year 5).

The problem with these ops is everyone gets used to them, and no one takes a hard look at why we are there (i.e. Kosovo).


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 1, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Good news for a change...now if I could just take the GWOT to Costa Rica...


Best. Idea. Ever. 

If only....


----------



## x SF med (Sep 1, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> Best. Idea. Ever.
> 
> If only....


 
Or Belize....  Belize is nice...


----------



## AWP (Sep 1, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Bosnia is an EU operation IIRC, we have a small Liason Cell, but SFOR is over (Bush II did it about year 5).
> 
> The problem with these ops is everyone gets used to them, and no one takes a hard look at why we are there (i.e. Kosovo).


 
Another small plus for a change.


----------



## pardus (Sep 1, 2013)

A snippet of the behavior our Al Qaeda alined allies are perpetrating in Syria.
Thank god we are closing GITMO with all the inhumane treatment going on there! Now we can go to Syria and see the flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate where the children dance and laugh and play with gumdrop smiles.

The meat of it starts at 2:50


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 1, 2013)

I'll quit school and hop that contract if I get to ride a unicorn into battle.


----------



## pardus (Sep 1, 2013)

racing_kitty said:


> I'll quit school and hop that contract if I get to ride a unicorn into battle.



I'd go in a heartbeat, sadly we're not going to be killing the right people.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 1, 2013)

Truth in humor from Jon Stewart.  But the sad thing is this was from months ago and it shows a clip of Obama from August *2012.*  Keep drawing that line in the sand until you back yourself into a corner then bunt to Congress? What kind of leadership is that?  No wonder the entire world is laughing and Britain wants no part of this.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 1, 2013)

x SF med said:


> Or Belize....  Belize is nice...



Not nearly as awesome as CR..


----------



## talonlm (Sep 1, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Keep drawing that line in the sand until you back yourself into a corner then bunt to Congress? What kind of leadership is that?  No wonder the entire world is laughing and Britain wants no part of this.


 
"Bunting to Congress" is a pretty slick move for Obama to make right now, politically speaking.  Buys him time to try to talk allies into at least openly supporting a strike and gives him a potential "out" if Congress does not agree to the use of force.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 1, 2013)

x SF med said:


> Or Belize....  Belize is nice...


Columbia, trust me on this.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 1, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> But the sad thing is this was from months ago and it shows a clip of Obama from August *2012.*  Keep drawing that line in the sand until you back yourself into a corner then bunt to Congress? What kind of leadership is that?





talonlm said:


> "Bunting to Congress" is a pretty slick move for Obama to make right now, politically speaking.  Buys him time to try to talk allies into at least openly supporting a strike and gives him a potential "out" if Congress does not agree to the use of force.



I was having this conversation today- this is one of the smartest political moves I have seen the President's administration make. While some may take Chop's view of it (which, I want to point out, is completely legit and a good point), I think it is more interesting to look at it from the other side of the coin.

How genius was this move? In essence, here is what President Obama did- he looked at the last 5 (or so) major military engagements where the CINC made the call to strike, and studied the aftermath. The brouhaha that ensued? "The President acted alone! The President waged unlawful war and should be impeached!"

So what did he do? He adapted to that political inevitability and cut the naysayers off at the knees.

Look what this bought him. At the end of his tenure, in year 7 and 8, he gets to point to this and only wins. If he is seen poorly for it, his battle cry is "Look! I got hammered on this very thing before, and I wanted to be the first President that was transparent, the first President that was humble enough to ask for help, to use the full force of our political system- and I am bashed for it." He then gets to rail on about how mean everyone was to his administration, how he was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

And what if Congress decides to go in? What if, on the recommendation of Congress, we bomb the living shit out of Syria, and we put boots on the ground?

"Well, America- _*I*_ didn't unilaterally do this! I asked for help from Congress! Congress represents us _*all. *_We chose to do this. I didn't agree with it- but I am not the King of America, I am the President, and I have to follow checks and balances..."

In my opinion, this move was absolutely genius. Win win win, all the way around, with literally zero downside.

Well, except for innocent people dying in Syria while a bunch of white, rich American men pretend to give a shit about some brown poor people. But hey, topic for another post.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 1, 2013)

If its so genius why did he wait well over a year to do it?  Because he allowed himself to be backed into a corner.  I think he looks weak and inept but that is my opinion.

ETA additional thought.  I also think President Nobel Peace Prize is going to drag us into WWIII.  I hope I am wrong.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 1, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> If its so genius why did he wait well over a year to do it?  Because he allowed himself to be backed into a corner.  I think he looks weak and inept but that is my opinion.
> 
> ETA additional thought.  I also think President Nobel Peace Prize is going to drag us into WWIII.  I hope I am wrong.


I hope you're wrong too- but I also think a true "WWIII" scenario isn't feasible in today's environment. I don't necessarily disagree with you on how he looks coming out of this- but I don't agree with you either. 

He waited a year to do it because he could. Nothing forced his hand, until this literally slapped him in the face. Remember- say what you will, but the UN didn't come back and say "The regime used chemical warfare" a year ago. It was suspected, and rightly so (because I think they did). This time was different as far as damnable proof goes.


----------



## talonlm (Sep 1, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> If its so genius why did he wait well over a year to do it?  Because he allowed himself to be backed into a corner.  I think he looks weak and inept but that is my opinion.
> 
> ETA additional thought.  I also think President Nobel Peace Prize is going to drag us into WWIII.  I hope I am wrong.


 
He waited this long because this is the right time (politically) to "bunt".  He needs time for breathing space--even the UK is hesitating on this--and he needs an "out," which would be provided should Congress not approve the vote.  Should Congress approve it, Obama has Congress to blame when everything wrong and him leadership to point to should all of us be wrong and some miracle occurs and everything works out okay.  It's a brilliant move.


----------



## Dame (Sep 1, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> I hope you're wrong too- but I also think a true "WWIII" scenario isn't feasible in today's environment. I don't necessarily disagree with you on how he looks coming out of this- but I don't agree with you either.
> 
> He waited a year to do it because he could. Nothing forced his hand, until this literally slapped him in the face. Remember- say what you will, but the UN didn't come back and say "The regime used chemical warfare" a year ago. It was suspected, and rightly so (because I think they did). This time was different as far as damnable proof goes.



FWIW, plenty of others agree including Michael Reagan.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 1, 2013)

I wonder how may more innocent Syrians are going to die from Obama's brilliant political genius?  And how many more Americans?


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 1, 2013)

As long as the answer to the second question is "zero," I don't care too much about the answer to the first.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 1, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> As long as the answer to the second question is "zero," I don't care too much about the answer to the first.


I wish I could agree more with this, and I think this very sentiment has to make it's way to capitol hill. We have to start putting the lives of American men and women first when we make a choice on something that does not directly affect the United States or it's interests. We _have_ to.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 1, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> As long as the answer to the second question is "zero," I don't care too much about the answer to the first.


Do you really think that is going to end up being "zero"?
This piece sums up very well my view of our President.  I am very very worried for our country.


> http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/obama-indicts-obama/?singlepage=true


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 1, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I wonder how may more innocent Syrians are going to die from Obama's brilliant political genius?  And how many more Americans?


Chop, I know what you mean, but I want to put you to task here. Let's say that in this - civil war, sectarian violence, righteous Arab Spring runoff, whatever- thing, more innocent Syrians _do _die, because we all know that is a reality. Do you feel the United States is obligated to intervene militarily? If yes, how so? If the first two questions are satisfied, how important is it, meaning- do we go in alone? At the behest of the UN? In the face of Russia, Iran, others? 

The base of the argument is this- unfortunately, we are talking about human life. And you know what? That sucks. But does it suck enough, on a global scale, to risk the lives of our sons, brothers, mothers, sisters, fathers, friends? Again? I say this from the ground level, from the operational optic. No, I am not. I will employ and deploy my teams because that what we do. But if I was king for a day? If I got to make one decision? Humanitarian aid. Lots of it. Support the UN. Sanction the living shit out of Syria and the countries that align themselves with those that would kill innocent civilians. Medical care. But that't it. 

Have we learned nothing of civil war in mesopotamia and American military intervention?


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 1, 2013)

I do not think the US should be involved in Syria.  It is being reported that now Saudi Arabia backs striking Syria. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/saudi-arabia-syria_n_3853460.html)
Since they are all about this now, I say let THEM do it.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 1, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I do not think the US should be involved in Syria.  It is being reported that now Saudi Arabia backs striking Syria. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/01/saudi-arabia-syria_n_3853460.html)
> Since they are all about this now, I say let THEM do it.


Fair enough.


----------



## goon175 (Sep 1, 2013)

> And what if Congress decides to go in? What if, on the recommendation of Congress, we bomb the living shit out of Syria, and we put boots on the ground?
> 
> "Well, America- _*I*_ didn't unilaterally do this! I asked for help from Congress! Congress represents us _*all. *_We chose to do this. I didn't agree with it- but I am not the King of America, I am the President, and I have to follow checks and balances..."



Didn't work out too hot for GWB when we invaded Iraq. He went to congress AND had broad international support but still got hammered for war mongering.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 1, 2013)

goon175 said:


> Didn't work out too hot for GWB when we invaded Iraq. He went to congress AND had broad international support but still got hammered for war mongering.


Sure. But the President played this completely different this time- he hasn't made a decision, he put it entirely on Congress. Might play out differently. 

That, and GWB was playing against the blue side, much better at playing the indignant "how DARE you!" card.


----------



## goon175 (Sep 1, 2013)

> Sure. But the President played this completely different this time- he hasn't made a decision, he put it entirely on Congress. Might play out differently.
> 
> *I'm not sure I agree with that, the administration has been pretty public about "doing something"*
> 
> ...


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 2, 2013)

Well- aren't they "doing something" now? Aren't they "encouraging conversations, and furthering the diplomatic process"?


----------



## pardus (Sep 2, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> Aren't they "encouraging conversations, and furthering the diplomatic process"?



LOL with who? Certainly not the Syrians or Russians.


----------



## JHD (Sep 2, 2013)

I agree that is anyone should step in it should be the Saudis.  Let them do it and pay the cost of it.  They have more skin in the game, and we have none.


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 2, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> Sure. But the President played this completely different this time- he hasn't made a decision, he put it entirely on Congress. Might play out differently...



I dont believe the President wants to get involved militarily but the Syrians called his bluff.  I believe he is putting this back on Congress, not because he gives two shits about the democratic process or Constitution - Mr If Congress Wont Act I will, but because it gives him an out.  In the end he can say, "Look I tried but Congress didn't have the balls to do it."


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 2, 2013)

It has been over a year that Obama has been drawing red lines in the sand.  And now with this further dilly dally on his part by dragging in Congress, it gives the Syrians plenty of time to move their assets around into areas where their citizens are being used at human shields.  This is considered brilliant?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/01/us-syria-crisis-shields-idUSBRE9800EU20130901

This is in my opinion a very good analysis of the situation.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...bamas-unsteadiness-mr-president-this-/?page=1

And then of course this continued delay of a decision gives the Syrians additional time to sit around and hack our own USMC Website.  What is next?
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/5...ectronic-army-hacks-marine-website-hacked.htm

ETA at the moment Marines.com is still down.


----------



## 0699 (Sep 2, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> The base of the argument is this- unfortunately, we are talking about human life. And you know what? That sucks. But does it suck enough, on a global scale, to *risk the lives of our sons, brothers, mothers, sisters, fathers, friends*? Again? I say this from the ground level, from the operational optic. No, I am not. I will employ and deploy my teams because that what we do. But if I was king for a day? If I got to make one decision? Humanitarian aid. Lots of it. Support the UN. Sanction the living shit out of Syria and the countries that align themselves with those that would kill innocent civilians. Medical care. But that't it.


 
I can't think of anything in Syria worth a single American life.  Just like Iraq & Afghanistan, do we really think "intervention" will keep them from killing each other?  Hell, it's like a regional sport.


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 2, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> I was having this conversation today- this is one of the smartest political moves I have seen the President's administration make. While some may take Chop's view of it (which, I want to point out, is completely legit and a good point), I think it is more interesting to look at it from the other side of the coin.
> 
> How genius was this move? In essence, here is what President Obama did- he looked at the last 5 (or so) major military engagements where the CINC made the call to strike, and studied the aftermath. The brouhaha that ensued? "The President acted alone! The President waged unlawful war and should be impeached!"
> 
> ...


It's only brilliant if you buy into the notion that we should be doing anything in Syria.   I don't. 

I don't understand why POTUS continues to push the Syria issue.  It makes no sense.  He chose to insert himself into the issue and painted himself into a corner with his short-sighted comments, as he's done on numerous other unrelated issues.  To make matters worse, as Freefalling stated in an earlier post, POTUS has tried to present this silly good guy vs. bad guy argument when the fact is they're all bad guys.  Screw 'em.  Let them kill themselves off for a bit.


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 2, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> Sure. But the President played this completely different this time- he hasn't made a decision, he put it entirely on Congress. Might play out differently.


Non concur.  He's been very public about pushing our involvement.   He's got Kerry out trying to sell it.  The argument is weak and there is little public support for action (rightfully so).  This is a very different situation than Iraq and certainly Afghanistan.   When the Brits, Aussies, and Kiwis say "we're out", that should be a strong indicator that course correction is needed. Pretty much the only one on his side of the issue is France.  As the saying goes, that dog don't hunt.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 2, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Do you really think that is going to end up being "zero"?
> ...



Closer to zero than any of the other options we're considering.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 2, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> Sure. But the President played this completely different this time- he hasn't made a decision, he put it entirely on Congress. Might play out differently.
> 
> That, and GWB was playing against the blue side, much better at playing the indignant "how DARE you!" card.


Slightly Disagree, the Bamster has to ask Congress for permission, so if it goes bad they will (and they will) claim he didn't give them all the intel.

The Republicans should vote no/Present and let the Democrats pass the authorization, or put a rider that reduces spending in other non DHS Federal Agencies to pay for this; then let the Dems squirm.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 2, 2013)

Anytime we go to war, it needs to be in support of a vital national interest.  One of OUR vital national interests.
The decision to go to war must include a specific, tangible desired endstate.
Anytime we go to war, which specifically includes this Syria thing, it needs to be authorized by Congress.
There should be a war tax that directly affects every American citizen for any war.
The draft should be instituted for any war that lasts longer than 90 days (which has been most of them).


----------



## Scotth (Sep 2, 2013)

Blizzard said:


> It's only brilliant if you buy into the notion that we should be doing anything in Syria.   I don't.



The reason you get involved is it gives us a good excuse to take out Syria's chemical weapons stock piles.  Are you happy with Assad having chemical weapons?  How are you going to feel about the rebels having those stock piles if they win?

Look who the rebels are and that's why we should act now.

Congress isn't thinking strategically they are thinking only about political winning and losing.


----------



## Scotth (Sep 2, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I wonder how may more innocent Syrians are going to die from Obama's brilliant political genius?  And how many more Americans?



You can't blame Obama for the Syrian's who have died in the conflict and not support intervention.  Your kind of batting from both sides of the plate on the issue.


----------



## Totentanz (Sep 2, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> Sure. But the President played this completely different this time- *he hasn't made a decision, he put it entirely on Congress.* Might play out differently.
> 
> That, and GWB was playing against the blue side, much better at playing the indignant "how DARE you!" card.



Of course, it seems like you've decided when your SecState can't contemplate that Congress might agree with the British House of Commons and disapprove military action.

ETA: And when you're reaching out to a former rival to sell Congress on the idea of intervention.


----------



## AWP (Sep 2, 2013)

Assad's chemical weapons are only a problem if he doesn't control them. We could give him everything in storage at Dugway and it wouldn't matter. He's not dumb or hell-bent on martyrdom so he's not going to use them outside of his country. The danger is if he falls and the new management's approach to chem weapons.

Saddam, Assad, whoever...they aren't complete and utter morons like we like to paint them. Evil? Sure. Stupid? I don't think so. If they truly meant all of their "Kill Israel" rhetoric Israel would have been gassed  already. The despots know the second they open that genie's bottle the 8th Air Force will channel Curtis LeMay for an urban renewal project.

I'm only worried about the nation's weapons in the hands of the "freedom fighters."


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 2, 2013)

Scotth said:


> The reason you get involved is it gives us a good excuse to take out Syria's chemical weapons stock piles.  Are you happy with Assad having chemical weapons?  How are you going to feel about the rebels having those stock piles if they win?
> 
> Look who the rebels are and that's why we should act now.
> 
> Congress isn't thinking strategically they are thinking only about political winning and losing.


It's a civil war.  Let them kill each other if they want.


----------



## JHD (Sep 2, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Assad's chemical weapons are only a problem if he doesn't control them. We could give him everything in storage at Dugway and it wouldn't matter. He's not dumb or hell-bent on martyrdom so he's not going to use them outside of his country. The danger is if he falls and the new management's approach to chem weapons.
> 
> Saddam, Assad, whoever...they aren't complete and utter morons like we like to paint them. Evil? Sure. Stupid? I don't think so. If they truly meant all of their "Kill Israel" rhetoric Israel would have been gassed  already. The despots know the second they open that genie's bottle the 8th Air Force will channel Curtis LeMay for an urban renewal project.
> 
> I'm only worried about the nation's weapons in the hands of the "freedom fighters."



Agree 100%.  Sadistic sociopath dictator does not equal stupid dumbass with a death wish.


----------



## Scotth (Sep 2, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> I dont believe the President wants to get involved militarily but the Syrians called his bluff.  I believe he is putting this back on Congress, not because he gives two shits about the democratic process or Constitution - Mr If Congress Wont Act I will, but because it gives him an out.  In the end he can say, "Look I tried but Congress didn't have the balls to do it."



I don't know if people have really considered the down the road win this is going to be for Obama.  Has anyone given thought to what Assad is going to do after the Brit's an American congress blocked intervention he is now free to do whatever he wants.  He can let loose the dogs of wars with no fear of international intervention.

What will congress do then after saying no now?  The President gets to stand there and say I told you so even though he never really wanted to get involved in the first place.  I think any political win for congress is going to be very short lived and the Syrian situation is going to escalate substantially.


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 2, 2013)

I wrote my Congressman and Senator to vote NO on military action. We as a country must not.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 2, 2013)

WHAT "allies" in the region is Sec. Kerry talking about? 

The Saudis, whose citizens continue to fund and harbor AQ?
The Turks, who are such great allies they wouldn't let us cross into Iraq through their territory?
The Iraqis, who like us so much that they politely asked us to pack up all our toys and go home?
The Egyptians, whose view of "democracy" looks a lot like Islamic extremism?

And even the countries that are more favorably disposed to the US:
The Jordanians, who would probably not want another torrent of refugees flooding into their country?
The Israelis, who know that they will be the recipient of the majority of retaliation for any US attack?

The concept of "alliances" only goes as far as the interests of both countries are concerned.  I'm not interested in going to yet another war in the Middle East simply because our erstwhile "allies" in the region might get all butt-hurt if we don't.

Oh, right, this is about the "innocent Syrian people."


> Thousands of Syrians have chanted "*Death to America*" during funeral processions in Damascus for at least 44 people killed in twin suicide bombings that rocked the capita


l.

Anyone seen much polling on regional attitudes towards the US?  Here's a hint:


----------



## AWP (Sep 2, 2013)

I blame Hitler for a lot of this and yes I'm serious.


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 2, 2013)

Scotth said:


> I don't know if people have really considered the down the road win this is going to be for Obama.  Has anyone given thought to what Assad is going to do after the Brit's an American congress blocked intervention he is now free to do whatever he wants.  He can let loose the dogs of wars with no fear of international intervention.


And what is the downside of that again?  Maybe he'll wipes out all the "rebels"?  OK.  Again, it's a civil war.


----------



## reed11b (Sep 2, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Anytime we go to war, it needs to be in support of a vital national interest.  One of OUR vital national interests.
> The decision to go to war must include a specific, tangible desired endstate.
> Anytime we go to war, which specifically includes this Syria thing, it needs to be authorized by Congress.
> There should be a war tax that directly affects every American citizen for any war.
> The draft should be instituted for any war that lasts longer than 90 days (which has been most of them).


I agree with 75% of that statement, but I do not want to serve with draftees. Period.
Reed


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 2, 2013)

reed11b said:


> I agree with 75% of that statement, but I do not want to serve with draftees. Period.
> Reed



I second that statement. If I was still in I would not want to serve with draftees. A draft will fuck the country and the military up.


----------



## Scotth (Sep 2, 2013)

Blizzard said:


> And what is the downside of that again?  Maybe he'll wipes out all the "rebels"?  OK.  Again, it's a civil war.



Why do you keep telling me about this civil war?  Do you not think I understand that point?  In my first post that you quoted I said nothing about getting involved in the civil war I said you use it as an EXCUSE to take out there chemical weapons stock piles.  In the second post I said nothing about getting involved in the civil war and said basically when the House votes to stop any involvement in Syria it alleviates any future "why doesn't the President do something here" talk and it becomes "why doesn't congress do something" which makes it a brilliant move for Obama.  Regardless if we get involved or not this issue isn't going away anytime soon.

If you had read my post earlier in this thread I argued against getting involved in these middle east civil wars because you can't win but that still doesn't mean that civil war is the only issue on the table.  There are other considerations and we should look at them as well and see if there is something that we can do to make a positive outcome.  Destroying Syria's chemical weapon stockpiles is one of those issues we can deal with and then walk away.  It doesn't take boots on the ground, it's relatively inexpensive and causalities will be very limited.  It's a good ROI to prevent a case were the rebels win down the road and take control of those stock piles.


----------



## reed11b (Sep 2, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Destroying Syria's chemical weapon stockpiles is one of those issues we can deal with and then walk away.  It doesn't take boots on the ground, it's relatively inexpensive and causalities will be very limited.  It's a good ROI to prevent in case the rebels should win down the road.


You highly over-rate the abilities of airpower.
Reed


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 2, 2013)

Lots of good discussion here. Just a word of caution (because it makes me all poo poo face on a personal level)-

The President's proper term of address is Mr. President. Since this isn't necessarily the White House Press Room, I will meet everyone halfway and go with President Obama, Mr. Obama, or some variant of a respectful term of address. 

You cant say you respect the office of the President of the United States of America and at the same time use some other form of address. "Barry", "NoBama", "Probama", "Barackster" are examples.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 2, 2013)

reed11b said:


> You highly over-rate the abilities of airpower.
> Reed


Yea, I agree with this here. While air-centric interdiction is the "go to" answer for not getting our hands dirty, it's also an incomplete solution for something we deem important enough. 

The United States Army/Marines- when you care enough to send the very best.


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 2, 2013)

amlove21 said:


> Lots of good discussion here. Just a word of caution (because it makes me all poo poo face on a personal level)-
> 
> The President's proper term of address is Mr. President. Since this isn't necessarily the White House Press Room, I will meet everyone halfway and go with President Obama, Mr. Obama, or some variant of a respectful term of address.
> 
> You cant say you respect the office of the President of the United States of America and at the same time use some other form of address. "Barry", "NoBama", "Probama", "Barackster" are examples.



I second that statement. Let maintain a level of professional conduct here ladies and gents.


----------



## Totentanz (Sep 2, 2013)

reed11b said:


> You highly over-rate the abilities of airpower.
> Reed



Agreed.  If it were as simple as bombing the locations of the chemical munitionsthen by all means, have at it.  But I don't think it will be that simple by any stretch, and I can easily see it turning into a "well, as long as we're here" shopping list of objectives with us pursuing an evolving endstate.

Additionally, if we do want to remove chemical munitions, I would argue that it would be more effective to do so when you can fight a single weakened enemy (albeit one who will then be fighting a single-front conflict) than to inject ourselves in the middle of the chaos.  Monitor the situation and when the dust settles, go after the winner.  It runs the risk of the weapons being used during the conflict (more than already has occurred), but IMO it does much more to protect US interests than putting boots on the ground now.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 2, 2013)

This is just a cluster fuck anyway you look at it.


----------



## pardus (Sep 2, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Why do you keep telling me about this civil war?  Do you not think I understand that point?  In my first post that you quoted I said nothing about getting involved in the civil war I said you use it as an EXCUSE to take out there chemical weapons stock piles.  In the second post I said nothing about getting involved in the civil war and said basically when the House votes to stop any involvement in Syria it alleviates any future "why doesn't the President do something here" talk and it becomes "why doesn't congress do something" which makes it a brilliant move for Obama.  Regardless if we get involved or not this issue isn't going away anytime soon.
> 
> If you had read my post earlier in this thread I argued against getting involved in these middle east civil wars because you can't win but that still doesn't mean that civil war is the only issue on the table.  There are other considerations and we should look at them as well and see if there is something that we can do to make a positive outcome.  Destroying Syria's chemical weapon stockpiles is one of those issues we can deal with and then walk away.  It doesn't take boots on the ground, it's relatively inexpensive and causalities will be very limited.  It's a good ROI to prevent a case were the rebels win down the road and take control of those stock piles.



You can't have it both ways, if the USA does anything militarily in Syria it has joined the civil war, regardless of the backroom intent.
Assad will rightfully see it as an attack on him and the rebels will rightfully see it as an attack supporting them. Then ad into the mix the reaction from the Russians, Chinese, British, French etc...

Who cares if Assad has chem weapons? Are we bombing North Korea because they have nukes? I guarantee you Assad's stockpiles are not where we think they are now anyway.

Also one little point most people seem to be missing is that this doesn't involve us, therefore under the UN laws etc... It is illegal to attack a foreign country, and because I know some people turn their nose up at the UN and say fuck their rules. The USA is the biggest part of the UN and as long as you are a signatory/member/contributor you ARE the UN, like it or not.

If we as a nation choose to attack foreign countries because we "want to" then we cannot expect to do that without consequences.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 2, 2013)

Scotth said:


> You can't blame Obama for the Syrian's who have died in the conflict and not support intervention.  Your kind of batting from both sides of the plate on the issue.


If Obama keeps threatening to do this or that and never follows up and this gives the  Syrians pleanty of time put their own people out as human shields and those people all die from US bombs(when Obama eventually decides to act) how did that save the Syrian people?


----------



## goon175 (Sep 2, 2013)

> There should be a war tax that directly affects every American citizen for any war. *That would be amazing/brilliant.*
> The draft should be instituted for any war that lasts longer than 90 days (which has been most of them). *Hell no. *


----------



## pardus (Sep 2, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I blame Hitler for a lot of this and yes I'm serious.



Because of his encouragement/support of the Islamists?


----------



## AWP (Sep 2, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> If Obama keeps threatening to do this or that...


 

Therein lies the problem with this entire debate.

This reminds me of a co-worker where we have this problem and the source of the problem is external, but unknown. So, co-worker goes out and looks for the source of the problem. The conversation is usually something like:

"What are doing?"
"I'm going to find the source."
"Then what?"
"Well, I'm finding the source."
"Right, but what's next? What's your end state?"
"Well, I'm going to find the source."
"What do you do after you find the source of the problem?"
"Well, I...I'm going to find the source."

When a leader, regardless of the level, can't define the problem, the solution, or the desired end state then action is futile. If a leader, regardless of the level, speaks without backing his/ her words then action is futile. When a leader, regardless of the level, does nothing BUT talk and rely on his/ her words (see the previous point) then action is futile.

Politicians live on words the way we live off of air and bacon and beer. Saying something and doing whatever is how they arrived at that point in life. Now the president's words and threats are catching up to him. Worse, they threaten to drag us into a war. Like the old Robin Williams skit about unarmed English police:

Stop! Or I'll say "Stop!" again.

This is an issue because it is Syria (location, location, location) and because we've talked ourselves into doing something even when we don't know what actions can or will take. But....we'll do something.

With a line, line here.
And a line, line there.
Here a line,
there a line,
everywhere a line, line.


----------



## CQB (Sep 2, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I have NO idea if this story is accurate, and I'm not vouching for the news source.  But:
> 
> http://www.examiner.com/article/bre...attack-result-of-mishandling-chemical-weapons
> 
> ...



I really don't  think this has been given any adequate thought in the wider sphere. I was going to put it up but Mara beat me to it.


----------



## AWP (Sep 2, 2013)

pardus said:


> Because of his encouragement/support of the Islamists?


 
That's part of it.

For those of you who don't know who we're talking about, look up Haj Amin al-Husseini. Historians generally agree that he had a role in the rise of radical Islam today, though how much of a role is debated.

But that's only part of my point.

I think the scope of the horrors visited upon us during WWII have defined our actions since the end of the war. The Holocaust (sorry, Holocaust, but thisn't just about you), the rape of Nanking (for those who know of it), firebombings (Dresden, Tokyo, etc.), buzz bombs, atomic bombs, 20 million dead in the Soviet Union alone...These have all played role in our psyche about war. Honestly, if WWII doesn't happen I don't think the gas debte would matter. When Saddam gassed Iran who batted an eye? The uprising after the Gulf War? Gas was used and the world did what exactly?

But now Syria's a problem? 

Anyway, I think the horrors of WWII have caused to be a little weepy-eyed now when bad things happen in other countries. We wring our hands because of the children or whatever, but we're also hypocrites because we pick and choose our fights with no logic or order. We let world opinion and emotion drive our actions.

We're also afriad of the next Hitler. Who is it, who could it be? News flash. You, and you, and you, and me, and you....

We're going to pay for that little art school reject's actions for generations to come. That's Hitler's legacy, he's made us afraid of war but also goads us into action whenever bad things happen to someone.

"For the children!" :wall:


----------



## AWP (Sep 2, 2013)

CQB said:


> I really don't  think this has been given any adequate thought in the wider sphere. I was going to put it up but Mara beat me to it.


 
Per the site rules, please post an Introduction before posting again.


----------



## pardus (Sep 2, 2013)

CQB said:


> I really don't  think this has been given any adequate thought in the wider sphere. I was going to put it up but Mara beat me to it.



You need to post an intro before posting again, as per the rule rules you signed. Thank you.


----------



## pardus (Sep 2, 2013)

LOL


----------



## CQB (Sep 2, 2013)

At 


pardus said:


> LOL


At least someone's up to speed!  & I shall fill you in a bit later. Awefully sorry about that chaps , but I thought this was an important point.


----------



## pardus (Sep 2, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> That's part of it.
> 
> For those of you who don't know who we're talking about, look up Haj Amin al-Husseini. Historians generally agree that he had a role in the rise of radical Islam today, though how much of a role is debated.
> 
> ...



Like you say, the really fucked up thing is that we pick and choose, what did we do about Cambodia? :-" Rwanda? :-"


----------



## Dame (Sep 2, 2013)

pardus said:


> Like you say, the really fucked up thing is that we pick and choose, what did we do about Cambodia? :-" Rwanda? :-"


Still to this day believe the devil himself was in Kigali.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 2, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> ...
> 
> We're going to pay for that little art school reject's actions for generations to come. That's Hitler's legacy, he's made us afraid of war but also goads us into action whenever bad things happen to someone.
> 
> "For the children!" :wall:




I don't think it has made us afraid of war bro, I think it has made us afraid of doing what it takes to win the wars our country gets into.  A lot of bad stuff went on in WWII but it was also the last time we won convincingly against any kind of major power.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 2, 2013)

Scotth said:


> You can't blame Obama for the Syrian's who have died in the conflict and not support intervention.  Your kind of batting from both sides of the plate on the issue.


If the Rebels are worse, then why help put them in power?


----------



## AWP (Sep 2, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I don't think it has made us afraid of war bro, I think it has made us afraid of doing what it takes to win the wars our country gets into.


 
I'll agree with that then...but that kind of makes it a lot worse than being afraid of war. Go to war to win. No more, no less.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 2, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> The whole gat damn thing


My friend, you've outdone yourself. I was wondering where you were going with it, and I simply couldnt agree more. Well done.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 2, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> That's part of it.
> 
> For those of you who don't know who we're talking about, look up Haj Amin al-Husseini. Historians generally agree that he had a role in the rise of radical Islam today, though how much of a role is debated.
> 
> ...


 
Actually, Free, the worst gas attacks were during WWI not WWII.


----------



## AWP (Sep 2, 2013)

x SF med said:


> Actually, Free, the worst gas attacks were during WWI not WWII.


 
I never said gas was used in WWII. Well, outside of concentration camps at least.


----------



## pardus (Sep 2, 2013)

x SF med said:


> Actually, Free, the worst gas attacks were during WWI not WWII.





Freefalling said:


> I never said gas was used in WWII. Well, outside of concentration camps at least.



Yeah, define "gas attack" 12 million in rooms vs (I don't even know how many but a lot less) in the trenches. 

I don't know of gas ever being used militarily during WWII.


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 2, 2013)

Scotth said:


> What will congress do then after saying no now?  The President gets to stand there and say I told you so even though he never really wanted to get involved in the first place.  I think any political win for congress is going to be very short lived and the Syrian situation is going to escalate substantially.



I really dont think the American people give two shits about Syria and so long as Congress keeps us out of it and gas prices down it is a win.  I dont care what side of the aisle that no vote is led by.

Furthermore, the idea that standing up to Syria will send a message to Iran/the rest of the world that we are serious is hillarious.  If we wanted to send Iran a message we would have done it by now - we had all the opportunity we wanted when NK started up their nuke program.  Intead we did fuck all about them chasing nuclear power and that was all the message the rest of the world needed to know. 

This administration is all whimper...it doesn't even have a bark to be proud of.


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 2, 2013)

Scotth said:


> The reason you get involved is it gives us a good excuse to take out Syria's chemical weapons stock piles...



Considering he got much of those stock piles from Iraq,  You know, where they never existed...  :-"


----------



## x SF med (Sep 2, 2013)

pardus said:


> Yeah, define "gas attack" 12 million in rooms vs (I don't even know how many but a lot less) in the trenches.
> 
> I don't know of gas ever being used militarily during WWII.


 
Italians in Africa, Japanese when invading China.


----------



## Scotth (Sep 2, 2013)

SOWT said:


> If the Rebels are worse, then why help put them in power?



Who is advocating putting the rebels in charge?



surgicalcric said:


> Considering he got much of those stock piles from Iraq,  You know, where they never existed...  :-"



Where they came from doesn't really matter but getting rid of them should be the goal.


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 2, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Who is advocating putting the rebels in charge?



Who do you think is going to take over once Assad is gone unless we attempt to put in "another" shadow government like we did in Astan?



> Where they came from doesn't really matter but getting rid of them should be the goal.



I concur that we should get rid of them but telling the enemy we are coming after them is probably not the best way to go about targeting such items.  Shit like destroying stockpiles should happen in the middle of the night and the populace should read about it afterwards.  However since we cant even make an example out of congressional aides or congressmen who leak sensitive info we are going to continue to miss the target while playing whack-a-mole with billions of dollars in armament.


----------



## pardus (Sep 2, 2013)

x SF med said:


> Italians in Africa, Japanese when invading China.



Pre WWII Herr Troll

ETA, in the link I just posted it mentioned the Japs continuing to use gas in China until 1942 (ish)


----------



## Scotth (Sep 2, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> Who do you think is going to take over once Assad is gone unless we attempt to put in "another" shadow government like we did in Astan?



That is the fear and that's why I want to go after the stock piles now.  Get rid of the stock piles and I won't care who wins or loses.  My concern is the rebels eventually win and those stock piles get exported to every bad guy in the world.

Your second point is right on.  I don't think Obama ever wanted to be involved  in Syria but was painted into a corner.  With him asking congress to give the OK he gets his out and we won't end up doing anything at least at this point.


----------



## pardus (Sep 2, 2013)

Technically both these cases were pre WWII (by a few days) also but...

"Am 20. September habe ich in Jaslo 10 deutsche Soldaten untersucht, und
bei 9 von ihnen mit Sicherheit die Folgen von Gelbkreuz-Vergiftung
festgestellt, während beim zehnten die Rescheinungen nicht mehr so
ausgesprochen waren, daß man hätte die Diagnose mit Sicherheit stellen
können. Beim den 9 Erkrankenten mit sicheren Symptomen waren
Veränderungen der Haut von so typischem Aussehen und solche
Lokalisation, daß es sich unzweifelhaft um eine Vergiftung mit einem
Gift aus der Gelbkreuz-Grupe handeln muß, die vor etwas mehr als einer
Woche stattgefunden muß. (...) Das vorherrschen der Hautsymptome führt
zu der Annahme, daß das Gift der sogenannte Lost-Kampfstoff
(Dichlordiaethylsulfid - Yperit) sein muß."

It was signed: Berlin, den 21 (!). September 1939".

"On September 20th 1939 I examined 10 german soldiers in Jaslo and with 9 of them I diagnosed implications of toxication with mustard gas for sure. With the 10th soldier however the symptoms were not that downright to tell safely. With the 9 patients to show certain symptoms, changes of the skin with that typical appearance and site were that obvious that the toxication undoubtedly had to be the kind of such with a poison from the mustard gas group. The exposure to the gas should have occured a little more than a week ago. (...) The endemism of the main symptoms leads to the assumption that the poison had to be the so-called Lost warfare agent (Dichlordiaethylsulfid - Yperit)."

http://www.cbwinfo.com/Chemical/Blister/HD.shtml

In 1939, Polish troops used chemical training mines containing diluted mustard agent to mine a bridge near Jaslo, injuring 14 German soldiers. It is unclear whether this was a mistake or an attempt at retaliation for the reported use of chemical bombs by the Germans in Warsaw (on September 3, 1939, a number of sulfur mustard-containing bombs were dropped on a Warsaw suburb - the Germans aknowledged this in 1942, indicating it was accidental). The Germans may also have used mustard gas-containing munitions on a few occasions in the Crimea and elsewhere in Poland, but these appear to have either been genuine mistakes or instances of low-level commanders acting without authority.


----------



## pardus (Sep 2, 2013)

Scotth said:


> That is the fear and that's why I want to go after the stock piles now.  Get rid of the stock piles and I won't care who wins or loses.  My concern is the rebels eventually win and those stock piles get exported to every bad guy in the world.
> 
> Your second point is right on.*  I don't think Obama ever wanted to be involved  in Syria but was painted into a corner*.  With him asking congress to give the OK he gets his out and we won't end up doing anything at least at this point.



His own big mouth painted him in there. He did the same thing he always does, mouths off before he knows the facts of the situation.


----------



## CQB (Sep 2, 2013)

My input, if the US stays out the govt gets criticised, if it goes in same again, if the US shows restraint same deal. IMHO this administration is doing things correctly by staying out. It's like the 30 Years War in Europe some time ago now, nobody won. Let the Arabs sort it out themselves. 
Also, the Gavlak report sounds credible, she's been in The ME for 20 years. So the US would be wise to reconsider.


----------



## CQB (Sep 2, 2013)

ETA A certain OBL also underestimated the US, to his detriment.


----------



## Soldado (Sep 2, 2013)

If only all the airstrikes support were like this.-


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 2, 2013)

CQB said:


> ...Also, the Gavlak report sounds credible, she's been in The ME for 20 years. So the US would be wise to reconsider.



I consider Gavlak as much an expert on the ME as I do Moses an expert on Land Nav.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 2, 2013)

Thats funny!!!!!.....


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 2, 2013)

Scotth said:


> Why do you keep telling me about this civil war?  Do you not think I understand that point?  In my first post that you quoted I said nothing about getting involved in the civil war I said you use it as an EXCUSE to take out there chemical weapons stock piles.  In the second post I said nothing about getting involved in the civil war and said basically when the House votes to stop any involvement in Syria it alleviates any future "why doesn't the President do something here" talk and it becomes "why doesn't congress do something" which makes it a brilliant move for Obama.  Regardless if we get involved or not this issue isn't going away anytime soon.
> 
> If you had read my post earlier in this thread I argued against getting involved in these middle east civil wars because you can't win but that still doesn't mean that civil war is the only issue on the table.  There are other considerations and we should look at them as well and see if there is something that we can do to make a positive outcome.  Destroying Syria's chemical weapon stockpiles is one of those issues we can deal with and then walk away.  It doesn't take boots on the ground, it's relatively inexpensive and causalities will be very limited.  It's a good ROI to prevent a case were the rebels win down the road and take control of those stock piles.


Fair enough.  I continued to mention it because I had the impression that the fact this doesn't involve us or anyone else was indeed lost on you.  Perhaps I was wrong in that respect. 

The  complexities of an attack were already addressed by others.   Among a host of issues, not the least of which are the limitations of airpower, there is no effective mechanism to verify destruction with the guys amlove1 mentioned on the ground.   Regardless, that's not a reason the President is citing as a possible reason to attack.

As for positive outcome?  There are no sides to cheer for.  Both sides are bad guys...which leads back to my impressions above.   Your argument seems to be based on the conclusion that we must do something, so, let's go down the stockpile route.  That doesn't wash.  There is absolutely no compelling reason for us to be involved.  We truly don't need to do anything there right now.


----------



## CQB (Sep 2, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> I consider Gavlak as much an expert on the ME as I do Moses an expert on Land Nav.


Point taken...and I'm still laughing. ( not at you, though)


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 3, 2013)

After hearing what The President had to say this morning and what several members of Congress had to say what are everyone's thoughts now?


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 3, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> After hearing what The President had to say this morning and what several members of Congress had to say what are everyone's thoughts now?


Unwavered.   A compelling argument as to why this requires any U.S. involvement has yet to be made.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 3, 2013)

I've been in class and the library, so I'll have to catch up and weigh in later this evening.


----------



## AWP (Sep 3, 2013)

CNN's reporting Boenher and Cantor are going to vote for intervention.


----------



## pardus (Sep 3, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> CNN's reporting Boenher and Cantor are going to vote for intervention.



Proof that Republicans are just as fucking stupid as Democrats.


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 3, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> CNN's reporting Boenher and Cantor are going to vote for intervention.



Dumb and Dumber...


----------



## Centermass (Sep 3, 2013)

Hagel + Kerry = Scary.

The only thing dumber than killing Syrians (Islamic extremists) killing Syrians is going in and killing more Syrians. 

No, wait......Breaking news: "_The United States has outlined their exact plan and time table for assaulting Syria. Here are all the units involved, their exact locations and the operations order for the order of battle."_


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 3, 2013)

I find it (truly less than) funny that the congress is contemplating a "limited strike" or "strike across the bow" that will send him a signal that we are serious.

Someone remind me how many times we tried that with Saddam during the Clinton admin?

Next I want to know how we control the Chem Weapons without putting boots on the ground, in the event that Assad is deposed.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 3, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> I find it (truly less than) funny that the congress is contemplating a "limited strike" or "strike across the bow" that will send him a signal that we are serious.
> 
> Someone remind me how many times we tried that with Saddam during the Clinton admin?
> 
> Next I want to know how we control the Chem Weapons without putting boots on the ground, in the event that Assad is deposed.


 

as to the first question...  way too many.

blow up the entire country?


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 3, 2013)

x SF med said:


> ...blow up the entire country?



I would stay out of it unless we are dedicated RIGHT NOW to doing whatever needs to be done to finish it off - we have proven over the last 11 years in Astan that we are neutered where it comes to killing the enemy.

Furthermore, Gen Dempsey is a real cock sucker.  The last time he saw a target of opportunity it was a gloryhole at the Blue Oyster.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 3, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> I would stay out of it unless we are dedicated RIGHT NOW to doing whatever needs to be done to finish it off - we have proven over the last 11 years in Astan that we are neutered where it comes to killing the enemy.
> 
> Furthermore, Gen Dempsey is a real cock sucker.  The last time he saw a target of opportunity it was a gloryhole at the Blue Oyster.


 

I didn't say it would happen, but that it would be the best solution - chem weapons are too easily hidden to find without the search by hand ...


----------



## AWP (Sep 3, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> I would stay out of it unless we are dedicated RIGHT NOW to doing whatever needs to be done to finish it off - we have proven over the last 11 years in Astan that we are neutered where it comes to killing the enemy.


 
But they could be farmers...


----------



## pardus (Sep 3, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> But they could be farmers...



Every Afghan in prison was just an innocent farmer who was plowing his fields, at night.


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 3, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> But they could be farmers...



I had a couple 120mm rounds waiting on approval.  Two days later they had 3 107mm rounds waiting on me.  :wall:

Brings me back to the neutered comment I made.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 3, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> I find it (truly less than) funny that the congress is contemplating a "limited strike" or "strike across the bow" that will send him a signal that we are serious.
> 
> Someone remind me how many times we tried that with Saddam during the Clinton admin?
> 
> Next I want to know how we control the Chem Weapons without putting boots on the ground, in the event that Assad is deposed.


You are not going back far enough.

Johnson/McNamara  and the gradual escalation theory.:wall::blkeye::dead:


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 3, 2013)

Did anyone else catch Kerry trying to tell Rand Paul how the President doesnt need to get Congress' approval?  Paul's asking why it was that the President started caring about the Constitution now was quite amusing.  Kerry received another schooling on Madison and the Federalist Papers with respect to the Executive Branch going to war.  Kerry was visibly irritated Congress (republicans) had the audacity to question him.  What an arrogant asshole. 

Sen Ron Johnson (R) Wisconsin - gave Kerry the Dempsey a thrashing as well.  In fact Gen Dempsey wasnt capable of answering a single question the senator asked of him.  

Then ya had the grandstanding by Boxer. 

The liberals never wanted to go after Saddam even though he gassed thousands of Kurds for years and now they are all of a sudden concerned over a few hundred being gased in Syria.

OMG really...


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 3, 2013)

Apparently John McCain missed that exchange...
Im so glad he finds it so amusing. 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ne-poker-game-during-senate-hearing-on-syria/



> The Republican senator, who met with the White House Monday to discuss the conflict, admitted he was playing the poker game during the hearing after the Washington Post posted a photo of him doing so.
> 
> “Scandal!” McCain tweeted from his personal account. “Caught playing iPhone game at 3+ hour Senate hearing - worst of all I lost!”


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 3, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Apparently John McCain missed that exchange...
> Im so glad he finds it so amusing.
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ne-poker-game-during-senate-hearing-on-syria/



And we continue to elect people like him and Graham to represent us.

I bet Lt McCain wouldn't have thought it funny if a Senator in 1965 was as flippant about the decision to send his old ass into Vietnam.   Sad oh so sad...


----------



## pardus (Sep 3, 2013)

My respect for McCain ends about the time he was released from NVN.


----------



## AWP (Sep 3, 2013)

Hey, if you want to go to Congress for their approval (which is...I don't know...LEGAL), then you might want to be prepared to answer hard questions.

Wow.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 3, 2013)

What was that deal about having Theresa Heinz Kerry there?  Kind of reminds me of how Captain Mark Kelly uses Gabby Giffords as a prop.  Creepy.


----------



## AWP (Sep 3, 2013)

I just want to be the first kid on my block to chant "No blood for oil."


----------



## AWP (Sep 3, 2013)

Think about it...for the last umpteen years Americans are split along party lines, particularly on major events like this. Here's something that few Americans support and this is still a debate?

For once our country is more or less united and our politicians are, to borrow from A Perfect Circle, counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums.

Madness.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 3, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Think about it...for the last umpteen years Americans are split along party lines, particularly on major events like this. Here's something that few Americans support and this is still a debate?
> 
> For once our country is more or less united and our politicians are, to borrow from A Perfect Circle, counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums.
> 
> Madness.



I like the reference, but as far as I have seen many people are just ignoring it... Doesn't rate the top of the Facebook feed so it isn't important.


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 3, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> I like the reference, but as far as I have seen many people are just ignoring it... Doesn't rate the top of the Facebook feed so it isn't important.



I am not convinced people are ignoring the talk but I am convinced they are aloof about the world around them and as such dont care unless it affects their lives or has an effect on their wallets. 

I can foresee wallets being effected by way of the gas pump if the President follows though with his BS strike.

"Mellow drama is not a substitute for strategy." Ralph Peters in talking about Kerry's speech.


----------



## CQB (Sep 4, 2013)

RUMINT : Sept 26-27 no leave for army until November 4?


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 4, 2013)

CQB said:


> RUMINT : Sept 26-27 no leave for army until November 4?



Ahhh  The Joe Information Network at it still


----------



## CQB (Sep 4, 2013)

Just thought I'd put it out there.


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 4, 2013)

CQB said:


> Just thought I'd put it out there.



I didnt take issue with your post at all.  

I was just making note that no matter the situation somewhere some "Joe" thinks they have a handle on what has yet to be specified.  I guess its how they deal with the lack of actual information from higher.  That or they just like seeing how far their story will spread and how varied it will become.  I tend to think its the latter.


----------



## CQB (Sep 4, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> I didnt take issue with your post at all.
> 
> I was just making note that no matter the situation somewhere some "Joe" thinks they have a handle on what has yet to be specified.  I guess its how they deal with the lack of actual information from higher.  That or they just like seeing how far their story will spread and how varied it will become.  I tend to think its the latter.


I got a call from an old digger with the news. Thought it was curious & thought I'd put it out there. All good.


----------



## Etype (Sep 4, 2013)

They keep missing the point when they talk about Al Qaeda possibly being the culprit for the chemical weapons. 

They just state that, "it could have been the other side..."  without giving the historical precedent that Al Qaeda repeatedly bombed Sunni neighborhoods (it's own people) to incite Shia-Sunni violence.  This fact is what led to the Awakening and the Sons of Iraq.  AQ is not above a couple hundred self-inflicted friendly casualties for the cause.  There are also the reports that that terrorists were arrested in Turkey with chemical weapons.  Granted the sources are second rate at best, but I wouldn't dismiss them just yet...

http://www.bing.com/search?q=arrest in turkey with chemical weapons&pc=conduit&ptag=A8AA8A0A18EE04845BFF&form=CONOMX&conlogo=CT3210127&ShowAppsUI=1


----------



## Centermass (Sep 4, 2013)

Etype said:


> They keep missing the point when they talk about Al Qaeda possibly being the culprit for the chemical weapons.
> 
> They just state that, "it could have been the other side..."  without giving the historical precedent that Al Qaeda repeatedly bombed Sunni neighborhoods (it's own people) to incite Shia-Sunni violence.  This fact is what led to the Awakening and the Sons of Iraq.  AQ is not above a couple hundred self-inflicted friendly casualties for the cause.  There are also the reports that that terrorists were arrested in Turkey with chemical weapons.  Granted the sources are second rate at best, but I wouldn't dismiss them just yet...



Yep. My take on all this is we know Sarin was used, but I have yet to see whose hand has the smoking gun in it.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 4, 2013)

This is what was used:
Sarin

This is the kind of stuff they could have used:
Nerve agents  (this is the CDC list and is very incomplete)
Blister agents
Chemical agents in general

Hell, just search the CDC site - and get put on another watchlist....  I quit counting watch lists long ago...


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 4, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Think about it...for the last umpteen years Americans are split along party lines, particularly on major events like this. Here's something that few Americans support and this is still a debate?
> 
> For once our country is more or less united and our politicians are, to borrow from A Perfect Circle, counting bodies like sheep to the rhythm of the war drums.
> 
> Madness.



PET is an awesome song!


----------



## judomedic (Sep 4, 2013)

Gentlemen, 

It has been my pleasure to lurk at this forum, occasionally posting if I believed my opinion were pertinent. I was a civilian paramedic and had the misfortune of treating O-Phosphate poisoning of several Hispanics at a tree nursery. Interesting stuff, followed SLUDGE to the letter I still gag at the smell of my dogs shit because the odor is so similar, the O-phosphate was quite similar to the Sarin used in Syria. We only lost one from that incident, several days later to kidney failure. With this in mind, I have pondered my opinion carefully.

I have come to my own opinion. This was not the Assad Regime. The open-source intelligence is contrary with everything that makes strategic and tactical sense, in my  opinion. It is absurd and uncharacteristic. And furthermore, unnecessary given that Assad had the rebel forces in retreat at the time of the attack. 

You gentlemen have our prayers, but I don't think this going to end well for anyone. God Bless The United States of America and the American People. We will need it as this chaos evolves.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 4, 2013)

I would like nothing more than for this to turn out to have been some kind of false flag event by ANYONE other than the Assad regime.  But while I've read some pretty good conspiracy theories, I haven't seen anything that I'd considered credible that would indicate otherwise.  One of the things that does it for me is the casualty toll.  If there really were 1000+ dead, then this isn't a one-off terrorist attack or some mishap with the rebels mishandling seized stockpiles.  This takes the kind of concentration and precision that, IMO, indicates military action.  Now, maybe it was a disaffected military unit.  Maybe it was the rebels' military members.  But in the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, I tend to default to the simplest, most plausible answer, which in this case is the Assad regime gassed its own people.

To those who say "it doesn't make sense" that the Syrian government would do that, I reply that your view is not adequately adjusted to the Syrian regime's cost-benefit analysis.  I think someone in the Syrian military did carry out those attacks.  I can't say with certainty that the orders came from the top, but I suspect they did.

But even if Assad pushed the button himself, it doesn't change my opinion that the US should NOT go to war with Syria.  "Oh, we're not going to war with Syria, we're just going to drop some bombs on them."  Seriously?  Well, we not be at war with Syria after that, but Syria is going to be at war with us.  And maybe Iran too, or at least their proxies.  In any case, I do not feel that our national interests are at stake in a way which necessitates our involvement in ANOTHER war we're not going to be allowed to win, that is only going to end up costing us blood and money, to no appreciable gain.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 4, 2013)

A war, or even surgical bombing of select well reconned targets would kick off more than the American public can handle at the moment and also open another front on the already stretched GWOT.   What would that gain us?   If we exit that AO and focus on strategic rather than tactical targets while bringing the 'boots on the ground' in Iraq and Afghanistan home - until the next flare up - we can reset at least part of the war weariness here and allow ourselves to watch the developments in the Syrian Civil War for a year or two.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 4, 2013)

http://www.military.com/daily-news/...to-syrian-coast.html?comp=700001075741&rank=1



> Russia planned to send its only aircraft carrier on a port visit to Syria later this year in a sign of Moscow's long-term commitment to the regime of President Bashar al-Assad despite threatened missile strikes by the U.S.
> 
> More immediately, Russian defense officials were quoted Wednesday as saying that the Russian guided-missile cruiser Moskva had arrived at the Straits of Gibraltar enroute to the eastern Mediterranean.





> The 611-foot Moskva, carrying "Sandbox" anti-ship missiles and "Favorit" surface-to-air missiles, "will take over as the flagship of the (Russian) naval task force" in the region that also includes a destroyer and a frigate, a Russian Defense Ministry official said, according to the Russian Interfax news agency.
> 
> On Sunday, Russian officials said that the intelligence and reconnaissance ship Priazovye was being sent from the Black Sea to the eastern Mediterranean and would operate separately from the naval task force.
> 
> The buildup of Russian naval forces in the region, where four U.S. guided-missile destroyers are on station for possible strikes against Syria, posed little threat to the U.S. Navy, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Wednesday.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 4, 2013)

wow...  the Baltic Sea Containment of the 70's and 80's has moved to the Med....  only this time we actually have more ships in the area.... unless there are subs we don't know about.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 4, 2013)

This Syria thing is a huge distraction from big issues that really do affect vital US national interests.


----------



## AWP (Sep 4, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> This Syria thing is a huge distraction from big issues that really do affect vital US national interests.


 
It isn't taking away anything from our impending failure here, so there's one bright spot.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 4, 2013)

I do wonder if the chems are such an issue, Israel haven't fired off some missiles. They're not normally reluctant to act.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 4, 2013)

Op-ed in the NYT from two Yale Law proffs:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/opinion/on-syria-a-un-vote-isnt-optional.html?smid=fb-share&_r=0



> It is no surprise that both liberal interventionists and neoconservative realists are advocating American military intervention, even if it is illegal.





> The desire to respond to the atrocities in Syria with force is natural. The slaughter of civilians is impossible to watch without feeling morally impelled to act. The dysfunctional Security Council’s refusal to act leaves us feeling helpless in the face of evil.
> 
> But the choice between military force or nothing is a false one. Most of international law relies not on force for its enforcement, but on the collective power of nations to deprive states of the benefits of membership in a system of states. Mr. Obama can cut off any remaining government contracts with foreign companies that do business with Mr. Assad’s regime. He can work with Congress to do much more for Syrian rebels and refugees — includingproviding antidotes to nerve agents, which are in short supply. He can use his rhetorical power to shame and pressure Russia and China.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 4, 2013)

"He can use his rhetorical power to shame and pressure Russia and China"

To quote my wife

Bwahahahaha snort, hahahahaha.


----------



## pardus (Sep 4, 2013)

I'm not surprised the Bolsheviks targeted intellectuals when they got the chance, they were probably sick of their 'head in the clouds' bullshit too.


----------



## Dame (Sep 4, 2013)

SOWT said:


> "He can use his rhetorical power to shame and pressure Russia and China"
> To quote my wife
> Bwahahahaha snort, hahahahaha.



Kerry has no clue what shame is.



> Washington and Russia remained publicly at odds over Syria on Wednedsay with President Vladimir Putin accusing U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry of lying by playing down the role of al-Qaida with rebel forces.
> 
> "He is lying and knows he is lying. It's sad."
> 
> Kerry played down concerns that any U.S. military strike over chemical weapons might provoke a clash with Russia.


http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/p...utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1


----------



## Scotth (Sep 4, 2013)

For me, having Moscow threatening to send their fleet as a detriment  to launching an attack on Syria is in itself enough of a justification to launch an attack.  Having them tuck tail an running is a big enough win to make the whole endeavor a success in my book.

Am I confident that Assad launched the attack, no I'm not.  The administration has claimed that they have signit that in government forces launched the attack.  Do I know those accounts are accurate?  No I don't but I have heard nothing from the Republican's that are "in the know" that contradicts those accounts and that speaks volumes to me.  If Republicans could catch Obama in a lie, cooking the books on Syria, you don't think they would be exploiting that?  At the end of the day, someone hadough accesshose sites that they turned them against innocent civilians and it demonstrates that those stock piles need to go.

None of that makes me think we can make Syria a successful nation nor do I give a shit who is in control.  I do care about chemical weapons stockpiles though and I don't want any of the players in Syria controlling those stockpiles.  While no plan is going to be successful it doesn't mean being 80% successful isn't a worthy goal.

I just don't want the rebels to gain control of those stockpiles and 3-5 years later we have 8-10 chemical warheads being detonated in the New York subway system killing 1000's of New Yorkers because we didn't take this opportunity to deny all the bad guys in Syria having access to these weapons.


----------



## reed11b (Sep 4, 2013)

Again, you overestimate the AMAZING targeting power of airpower alone, with out boots on the ground guidance or target damage assessment. So you want to bomb known sites and forces, degrading both the physical site security and degrade the abilities of the forces guarding the sites, increasing the freedom of movement of terrorist aligned forces in that country. This makes us safer again how @Scotth?


----------



## pardus (Sep 5, 2013)

Scotth said:


> For me, having Moscow threatening to send their fleet as a detriment  to launching an attack on Syria is in itself enough of a justification to launch an attack.  Having them tuck tail an running is a big enough win to make the whole endeavor a success in my book.
> 
> Am I confident that Assad launched the attack, no I'm not.  The administration has claimed that they have signit that in government forces launched the attack.  Do I know those accounts are accurate?  No I don't but I have heard nothing from the Republican's that are "in the know" that contradicts those accounts and that speaks volumes to me.  If Republicans could catch Obama in a lie, cooking the books on Syria, you don't think they would be exploiting that?  At the end of the day, someone hadough accesshose sites that they turned them against innocent civilians and it demonstrates that those stock piles need to go.
> 
> ...



Why does hurting Russia help us?

The Russians have been far stauncher opponents of Islamic terrorism than we have.
What do republicans gain from kicking a lame duck president? They are assholes anyway.

Your logic is really flawed IMO.
You want to weaken the person, who is under attack from the people, that want his weapons, who are the people, that you dont want the weapons to fall to???????? 

Assad is winning. Assad will not attack us. Assad is a known factor, leave the cunt alone, at least for now.

@Scotth you are advocating supporting the very enemy WE have been fighting! Al Qaeda! Why don't you get that!?


Add to that, there is NO way we can destroy Assad's chem weapons.


----------



## Etype (Sep 5, 2013)

pardus said:


> The Russians have been far stauncher opponents of Islamic terrorism than we have.
> What do republicans gain from kicking a lame duck president? They are assholes anyway.


Good point.  Islamic terrorism is a daily problem in Russia like South/Central American narco-terrorism is here.  The big difference is the islamists aren't trying to make a buck, they are trying to destroy your way of life.

As for republicans, the majority of them have turned out to be quite them embarrassment, I'd put McCain and Boehner at the top of the list.


pardus said:


> @Scotth you are advocating supporting the very enemy WE have been fighting! Al Qaeda! Why don't you get that!?


When Assad's boys hacked the Marine recruiting website, they got it right.  The message you were redirected to basically said, "We know you've been fighting Al Qaeda for a long time, we are too.  Don't get into this thing on the side of your sworn enemy."
Good point Assad, good point indeed.


----------



## CQB (Sep 5, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> This Syria thing is a huge distraction from big issues that really do affect vital US national interests.


G20 begins soon & Syria is a minor item.


----------



## RetPara (Sep 5, 2013)

SpitfireV said:


> I do wonder if the chems are such an issue, Israel haven't fired off some missiles. They're not normally reluctant to act.



Cousin Bashir is not stupid enough to threaten the Israeli's with NBC.  The result would probably be mushrooms sprouting.  The Israelis did not hesitate to level the Syrian nuke program a few years back.  (Odd...  I don't recall Syria having a nuke program up through the 90's.  I wonder where they got it from....)


----------



## pardus (Sep 5, 2013)

“Dear Colleague,

“the Assad regime was responsible for chemical weapons attacks against innocent Syrians, resulting in the deaths of more than 1,400 people, including hundreds of children."

best regards,
NANCY PELOSI
Democratic Leader”






Good job Nancy you demented fuck.


----------



## RetPara (Sep 5, 2013)

pardus said:


> “Dear Colleague,
> 
> “the Assad regime was responsible for chemical weapons attacks against innocent Syrians, resulting in the deaths of more than 1,400 people, including hundreds of children."
> 
> ...




They were probably Christians.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 5, 2013)

RetPara said:


> Cousin Bashir is not stupid enough to threaten the Israeli's with NBC.  The result would probably be mushrooms sprouting.  The Israelis did not hesitate to level the Syrian nuke program a few years back.  (Odd...  I don't recall Syria having a nuke program up through the 90's.  I wonder where they got it from....)



I was thinking about who- if anyone- that might come into power after him, either through defeat to abdication.


----------



## Rapid (Sep 5, 2013)

Syria's President Assad referred to President Obama as weak. Obama is so angry he plans to ask Congress for permission to come up with a good comeback.


----------



## Scotth (Sep 5, 2013)

pardus said:


> Why does hurting Russia help us?
> 
> The Russians have been far stauncher opponents of Islamic terrorism than we have.
> What do republicans gain from kicking a lame duck president? They are assholes anyway.
> ...



What do you think Putin was trying to do when he said he was going to send ships to the region?  Do think he wanted to help us or try to show us down?  Russia will continue to go after Islamic Terrorist regardless of what happens in Syria.  Better to make the Russian look weak then it is for the US to look weak in any potential confrontations between Russia and the US.

The only thing I have advocated is getting rid of chemical weapons.  Yes Assad is an enemy we know and better than the rebels to be in control.  I also agree he is winning at this point.  Things could change though and even if they don't a chemical weaponless Assad is still a good thing.

Nothing is ever a 100% but just because you can't make something a 100% doesn't mean you shouldn't try.  Going after the chemical weapons stock piles isn't going to change the dynamics of the combat between Assad and the rebels.



reed11b said:


> Again, you overestimate the AMAZING targeting power of airpower alone, with out boots on the ground guidance or target damage assessment. So you want to bomb known sites and forces, degrading both the physical site security and degrade the abilities of the forces guarding the sites, increasing the freedom of movement of terrorist aligned forces in that country. This makes us safer again how @Scotth?



You don't need to put boots on the ground to laze targets.  Cruise missiles don't require it and as far as BDA we have a lot of other options for doing that and it doesn't require putting the military on the ground in that country.  What is your solution if the circumstance on the ground changes and the rebels start to win and gain control of those sites?  What if we do nothing and it was the Assad fighters who used the chemical weapons and because nobody intervened they decide they have the green light to start using chemical weapons even more because the international community won't intervene?


----------



## RetPara (Sep 5, 2013)

SpitfireV said:


> I was thinking about who- if anyone- that might come into power after him, either through defeat to abdication.



I don't know.  Bashir only got the job by default.  Abdication or defeat would pretty much mean exile for any/the few surviving Assads...  Whoever it would be though would NOT be a US ally most likely.


----------



## galafinaster (Sep 5, 2013)

Woke up to this video in my messages this morning and just thought it would be a good one to share. Makes sense to me.


----------



## pardus (Sep 5, 2013)

Scotth said:


> What do you think Putin was trying to do when he said he was going to send ships to the region?  Do think he wanted to help us or try to show us down?  Russia will continue to go after Islamic Terrorist regardless of what happens in Syria.  Better to make the Russian look weak then it is for the US to look weak in any potential confrontations between Russia and the US.
> 
> The only thing I have advocated is getting rid of chemical weapons.  Yes Assad is an enemy we know and better than the rebels to be in control.  I also agree he is winning at this point.  Things could change though and even if they don't a chemical weaponless Assad is still a good thing.
> 
> ...



First of all, Russia has defense treaties with Syrian (IIRC), what do you expect them to do? Hell If I was Putin I'd put Russian boots on the ground at every target the US designates. Have a prepared mini documentary on every Soldier there, so he can show the world the nice loving family man the USA murdered.
I don't understand why you think we have the capability to destroy Assad's stockpiles of chemical weapons.
We announced how long ago that we were going to blow them up so unless every single person in the Syrian govt is a moron, I'm pretty sure they moved them.
So what will we achieve?

We will launch an illegal attack, that will piss off the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, the UN etc...
We won't destroy what we were trying to destroy.
We'll encourage our new besties Al Qaeda.
We'll open ourselves up to years of ridicule/hate.
This will be just like when Clinton used cruise missiles to destroy a dangerous goat in the Sudan and a pile of prime grade camel shit floored tenting in Afghanistan.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 5, 2013)

Statement: 





Scotth said:


> *You don't need to put boots on the ground to laze targets*.



Question: Where does the laser originate from then?

Ans: someone on the ground, or in a plane nearly overhead, which means they are vulnerable to SAM's/AAA.  



Scotth said:


> *Cruise missiles don't require it and as far as BDA we have a lot of other options for doing that and it doesn't require putting the military on the ground in that country.*



Overhead BDA can be pretty worthless, we will need someone (US or Foreign Agent) going inside the cave/structure to verify.  WMD BDA has to be verified by an American or trust worthy ally, do you really want Rebel fighters letting you know if you hit the target?



Scotth said:


> *What is your solution if the circumstance on the ground changes and the rebels start to win and gain control of those sites?*



If the Rebels are so nasty, then why assist them at all?



Scotth said:


> *What if we do nothing and it was the Assad fighters who used the chemical weapons and because nobody intervened they decide they have the green light to start using chemical weapons even more because the international community won't intervene?*



Let Israel clean house, let the International Community do something.  Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds, and I can't recall you advocating an invasion of Iraq, did I miss one of your posts?  Should we only invade when a Democrat occupies the White House?


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 5, 2013)

Scotth said:


> What if we do nothing and it was the Assad fighters who used the chemical weapons and because nobody intervened they decide they have the green light to start using chemical weapons even more because the international community won't intervene?



Why are we now concerned with chemical weapon use?  The Kurds were gassed for years and no one cared.  Honestly I don't give two shits now.  Let him gas his people - what difference does it make, outside of someone saying its bad, that Assad kills them with gas or bombs?  The "international" community can kiss my Jewish ass.  Where is the international community, the one that said its so wrong, when it comes to enforcing it? Why must it be us?

I am still not convinced our intel is any better than it was when the left claimed Iraq didn't have WMDs after the right said they did.  Where is the proof the rebels didn't do it?

Furthermore, I don't buy the reasoning that it sends a message to Iran.  We let NK have nuclear arms - that was a stronger message than us lobbing missiles into crowded neighborhoods will be.  Impotent is what the presidents response is going to be...shot over the bow my butt.  Want to send Iran a message, then send Iran a message.

This is about Obama trying poorly to save face.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 5, 2013)

CQB said:


> G20 begins soon & Syria is a minor item.



Minor to whom?  It's the #1 issue in the United States, to the point where it's the lead story on the front page of major periodicals such as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.  Even stories about the G20 talk about Syria "looming over" the conference.  There are a lot of people trying to flex their muscles over this, and there are some major, long-term implications for all of us, no matter what is decided.


----------



## CQB (Sep 5, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Minor to whom?  It's the #1 issue in the United States, to the point where it's the lead story on the front page of major periodicals such as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal.  Even stories about the G20 talk about Syria "looming over" the conference.  There are a lot of people trying to flex their muscles over this, and there are some major, long-term implications for all of us, no matter what is decided.


It's not so much an issue here, it's being reported & I get why it's the hot topic in the US. Overall the G20 is concerned with economics. Just changing tack slightly, there doesn't seem to be a legal justification. 

http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/05/obamas-plan-for-intervention-in-syria-is-illegal/


----------



## CDG (Sep 5, 2013)

Scotth said:


> You don't need to put boots on the ground to laze targets.  Cruise missiles don't require it and as far as BDA we have a lot of other options for doing that and it doesn't require putting the military on the ground in that country.



You don't need to, but pilots aren't going to be thrilled about having to sit there and laze a target when there is a legitimate SAM threat.  I don't really want to get into specific capabilities on the Net, but there are some pretty amazing things that can be done by a dude lazing on the ground and an aircraft a long ways away from the target area.  Cruise missiles are not the answer.  Roughly $1M apiece for a TLAM, and it may or may not shack the target.  What avenues for good BDA do we have beyond dudes on the ground?


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 5, 2013)

RetPara said:


> I don't know.  Bashir only got the job by default.  Abdication or defeat would pretty much mean exile for any/the few surviving Assads...  Whoever it would be though would NOT be a US ally most likely.


That's exactly what I'm saying. IMO it would be more likely that any stockpiles would be used on Israel rather than the US in a terrorist attack.


----------



## Scotth (Sep 5, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Saddam used chemical weapons against the Kurds, and I can't recall you advocating an invasion of Iraq, did I miss one of your posts?  Should we only invade when a Democrat occupies the White House?



I'm pissing people off and don't want to argue back and forth anymore.  

I will address the last part because your starting to go over the top now.  You didn't miss my post about the gassing of the Kurds because it happened in '88 and I didn't join the site until '07.  But since you raised the issue.  Maybe things would have ended differently for the Kurds had the Reagan administration not given Iraq the political cover and the intelligence to help them gas Iranian troops during that war.  Remember those picture from back in '83-'84 or so of Dumsfeld going to Iraq in support of Sadaam while he was gassing Iranians?  Maybe Sadaam wouldn't have felt the freedom to do whatever the hell he wanted had he not known that he had the US in the bag.  What was the response to the gassing of the Kurds?  Nothing and I wonder how much that response had in Sadaam's belief that he could invade a neighbor without reprisal?  Maybe if we would have reined in Sadaam a little more the first Persian Gulf war wouldn't have happened as well as the second one.  Who knows what could have been?  Maybe we avoid two wars and the lives that were lost.  Sadaam would still be an isolated leader and Iraq wouldn't be a proxy for Iran now.  We would have a couple trillion dollars less in national debt as well.

If you want to talk hypocrisy we can do that as well.  If we go back to my early adult live let me ask you.  How many conservatives complained about Grenada or Panama or Somalia when Bush sent the troops in?  When Clinton takes office we hear nothing but conservatives complaining about being the worlds police through much of the 90's.  Bush comes along and has the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive war and not a peep is heard out of the conservatives mouth in opposition,  No WMD in Iraq so we switch our mission to establishing democracy and nation building in the region and not a conservative complaint is heard.  Now Obama is in office and conservatives are complaining about a bombing campaign when  5 years ago they didn't have a problem with preemptive war strategy.


Nobody is suggesting invading Syria.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 5, 2013)

Hmmm.  


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...2-75-000-ground-troops-secure-facilities.html



> Securing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles and the facilities that produced them would likely require the U.S. to send more than 75,000 ground troops into the Middle Eastern country, MailOnline learned Wednesday.
> 
> That estimate comes from a secret memorandum the U.S. Department of Defense prepared for President Obama in early 2012.
> 
> ...





> The War Powers Resolution, which passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee late Wednesday on a bipartisan 10-7 vote, includes text noting that it 'does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.'
> 
> If President Obama were to deploy ground forces in Syria, the final words of that phrase – 'for the purpose of combat operations' – could become a loophole large enough to drive a Humvee through.
> 
> Speaking to the committee on Tuesday as he made the case for a congressional authorization to bomb critical Syrian military sites, Kerry seemed to leave open the possibility that 'boots on the ground' could be marshaled specifically to secure chemical weapons stockpiles 'in the event Syria imploded, for instance.'


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 5, 2013)

CQB said:


> It's not so much an issue here, it's being reported & I get why it's the hot topic in the US. Overall the G20 is concerned with economics. Just changing tack slightly, there doesn't seem to be a legal justification.
> 
> http://ideas.time.com/2013/09/05/obamas-plan-for-intervention-in-syria-is-illegal/



I don't know man, it seems to me like it's being covered pretty well by your media as well.  And that story I just linked to, about the G20 summit?  Yeah, all it talked about was Syria, not a single word about economics.

But hey, if Syria is NBD in Australia, maybe you guys could go ahead and head up the world's response to the chem weapons thing, and we'll just sit this one out.


----------



## CQB (Sep 6, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I don't know man, it seems to me like it's being covered pretty well by your media as well.  And that story I just linked to, about the G20 summit?  Yeah, all it talked about was Syria, not a single word about economics.
> 
> But hey, if Syria is NBD in Australia, maybe you guys could go ahead and head up the world's response to the chem weapons thing, and we'll just sit this one out.


I think everyone should sit it out.


----------



## pardus (Sep 6, 2013)

China getting involved now?

http://www.examiner.com/article/chinese-russian-warships-and-marines-heading-to-syrian-waters


----------



## Rapid (Sep 6, 2013)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...by-Assad-over-any-US-strikes-warns-Putin.html

* Russia would help Syria respond to any military intervention by the US over chemical weapons attacks, Vladimir Putin has warned. *



> The Russian president said his country would stand with the Assad regime in Syria if the US launches airstrikes.
> 
> The apparent threat came as the G20 summit ended with a public split, 11 of its members issuing a statement hinting at the need for US action against the Assad regime of its alleged use of chemical weapons.
> 
> ...


----------



## pardus (Sep 6, 2013)

Rapid said:


> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...by-Assad-over-any-US-strikes-warns-Putin.html
> 
> * Russia would help Syria respond to any military intervention by the US over chemical weapons attacks, Vladimir Putin has warned. *



I wonder what the WWIII campaign medal will look like?


----------



## DasBoot (Sep 6, 2013)

pardus said:


> I wonder what the WWIII campaign medal will look like?


I don't like the idea of looking weak in front of the Russians or Chinese, and I'm confident in our military's ability to handle each of those nations respective armed forces, I'm not that keen on starting a war over the likes of Syria. It's like getting into a bar fight over a fat girl on behalf of someone who isn't even your friend. I really hope we don't get into this for the sake of a CIVIL WAR that has had no effect on our nation.


----------



## RetPara (Sep 6, 2013)

DasBoot said:


> It's like getting into a bar fight over a fat girl on behalf of someone who isn't even your friend.



Sounds like a bad memory coming to mind....


----------



## pardus (Sep 6, 2013)

DasBoot said:


> I don't like the idea of looking weak in front of the Russians or Chinese, and I'm confident in our military's ability to handle each of those nations respective armed forces,



You are fooling yourself.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 6, 2013)

DasBoot said:


> I don't like the idea of looking weak in front of the Russians or Chinese, and I'm confident in our military's ability to handle each of those nations respective armed forces, .



Are you in the  military? Pretty ballsy to say sure we can handle it when you wouldn't be the one fighting it out with a first world military. CAS falling both ways sure would change our superiority really quick.


pardus said:


> You are fooling yourself.



Agreed


----------



## x SF med (Sep 6, 2013)

Let Russia and China duke it out, we can sit back and watch closely.

Any choice we make will be viewed as wrong by 1/2 the world ...  let's save some money and some lives.


----------



## DasBoot (Sep 6, 2013)

pardus said:


> You are fooling yourself.





cback0220 said:


> Are you in the  military? Pretty ballsy to say sure we can handle it when you wouldn't be the one fighting it out with a first world military. CAS falling both ways sure would change our superiority really quick.
> 
> 
> Agreed



You don't believe our Navy and Air Force are better equipped and prepared than the Chinese and Russians? And yore right I'm not in the service now and I wouldn't be in harms way. Which is why I don't want anyone else going to fight over that part of the world. My statement was out of respect for everyone on here.


----------



## pardus (Sep 6, 2013)

DasBoot said:


> You don't believe our Navy and Air Force are better equipped and prepared than the Chinese and Russians? And yore right I'm not in the service now and I wouldn't be in harms way. Which is why I don't want anyone else going to fight because of Syria.



I prefer facts over beliefs.


----------



## 0699 (Sep 6, 2013)

x SF med said:


> Let Russia and China duke it out, we can sit back and watch closely.
> 
> Any choice we make will be viewed as wrong by 1/2 the world ...  let's save some money and some lives.


 
Fucking A.


----------



## DasBoot (Sep 6, 2013)

pardus said:


> I prefer facts over beliefs.


Well what facts lead you to believe we wouldn't win against the Russians or Chinese? I realize it would be extremely costly and we would have huge numbers of casualties, I'm just surprised to hear this assessment coming from you(someone more in the know than I am).


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 6, 2013)

x SF med said:


> Let Russia and China duke it out, we can sit back and watch closely.


Huh?


----------



## dknob (Sep 6, 2013)

DasBoot said:


> You don't believe our Navy and Air Force are better equipped and prepared than the Chinese and Russians? And yore right I'm not in the service now and I wouldn't be in harms way. Which is why I don't want anyone else going to fight over that part of the world. My statement was out of respect for everyone on here.



-This country's defense for a ground invasion is negligible at best. Even in Ranger Batt we didn't have open access to ammunition nor could we get our weapons unless the arms room was open. This isn't in the movies where troops can rally within a few hours.
-We win wars because of air superiority against 3rd world sand monkeys. Even on the ground everybody uses CAS to kill the bad guys.
- Our pilots I'm pretty sure haven't been in an aerial dog fight against an enemy since Vietnam

You are so damn delusional to think we'd brush off a war with China and Russia like it's Grenada in 83. Holy shit. These are advanced militaries we'd be facing. When's the last time we did that? Germany in WWII?


----------



## goon175 (Sep 6, 2013)

If we got into it with either of those countries, it would be a no-shit game changer for our country. We would have casualties in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions when you factor in both military and civilian. And thats assuming that it doesn't go nuclear.


----------



## Scotth (Sep 6, 2013)

You have partisan political fighting in DC and the Chinese and Russians are trying to take advantage of that and trying to elevate their nations importance on the world stage.  I think people are putting a little too much importance on Syria if you think either one of those nations are going to go to war with the US over Syria.

Say for a second we attack Syria and then either the Chinese or Russian's attack us.  After we sink their ships they sent then what?  Do you think we are going to nuclear war with either of them over Syria?  Outside of nuclear attack, how are either of those nations going to take the fight to us after a quick naval battle in the Med?  If they did attack us in the Med that will quickly bring in the Brits and Nato to our side.

Not to mention that China and Russia have shared borders and are more worried about each other than they are with us.  Neither one would want to battle with us out of fear of what the other would do when they were otherwise engaged.  The Russian and Chinese are no where near allies.

This is nothing more than a show of strength exercise for either nation.  Yes those nations have a real military and with real air power but there is also 1000's of miles of oceans to cross to come and fight use and both of those nations still have 1000's of miles of borders at home that need to be protected.  They understand the difficulties and the cost associated if they want to do battle and do you think they are going to pay those costs over Syria?


----------



## DasBoot (Sep 6, 2013)

dknob said:


> -This country's defense for a ground invasion is negligible at best. Even in Ranger Batt we didn't have open access to ammunition nor could we get our weapons unless the arms room was open. This isn't in the movies where troops can rally within a few hours.
> -We win wars because of air superiority against 3rd world sand monkeys. Even on the ground everybody uses CAS to kill the bad guys.
> - Our pilots I'm pretty sure haven't been in an aerial dog fight against an enemy since Vietnam
> 
> You are so damn delusional to think we'd brush off a war with China and Russia like it's Grenada in 83. Holy shit. These are advanced militaries we'd be facing. When's the last time we did that? Germany in WWII?


-Does China or Russia even have the ability to even launch such an attack? Everything I have read puts China years away from being able to move troops like the USAF can. And how likely is such an "invasion" scenario? Would it not be nearly impossible to coordinate and execute a surprise attack where the DoD could not shift gears to homeland defense focus? 
- When was the last time a Russian or Chinese pilot engaged in air to air combat? Probably longer than the USAF and USN- the First Gulf War and the Balkans (as late as 1999) saw Dogfights, with the U.S. only losing one plane (during Desert Storm). I can't say U.S. pilots are any better off than their Russian or Chinese counterparts, but they certainly can't be at a disadvantage.
- Everyone seems to think my statement regarding a U.S. victory is some sort fantasy on my part, where in it is an easy victory with no losses (Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm)- I understand how advanced and well trained/equipped the Chinese and Russians are. I get that this would be a "step up" from what we've become accustomed to since Vietnam/Korea/WWII. Hence my stern opposition to intervention and escalation. This whole situation is not worth starting WWIII over.


----------



## goon175 (Sep 6, 2013)

Scotth said:


> You have partisan political fighting in DC and the Chinese and Russians are trying to take advantage of that and trying to elevate their nations importance on the world stage.  I think people are putting a little too much importance on Syria if you think either one of those nations are going to go to war with the US over Syria.
> 
> Say for a second we attack Syria and then either the Chinese or Russian's attack us. *If that happens, it won't be about Syria anymore.* After we sink their ships they sent then what? *Then put on your boots, were all going to war.*  Do you think we are going to nuclear war with either of them over Syria? *Hopefully it wouldn't turn into a nuclear war, but either way it wouldn't be about syria at that point.*  Outside of nuclear attack, how are either of those nations going to take the fight to us after a quick naval battle in the Med? *Alaska is a stones throw away from Russia, and China would probably start with Hawaii/California.*  If they did attack us in the Med that will quickly bring in the Brits and Nato to our side. *The Brits, yes. NATO? You have more confidence in them than I do.*
> 
> ...


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 6, 2013)

DasBoot said:


> Well what facts lead you to believe we wouldn't win against the Russians or Chinese? I realize it would be extremely costly and we would have huge numbers of casualties, I'm just surprised to hear this assessment coming from you(someone more in the know than I am).



How about Russia and China?



DasBoot said:


> -Does China or Russia even have the ability to even launch such an attack? Everything I have read puts China years away from being able to move troops like the USAF can. And how likely is such an "invasion" scenario? Would it not be nearly impossible to coordinate and execute a surprise attack where the DoD could not shift gears to homeland defense focus?.



They don't need to invade, they can assist the Syrians with Air Defense/Early Warning.  Cyber Attacks, and in case you forgot, China owns most of our debt and could collapse our banking system in a few short days.




DasBoot said:


> - When was the last time a Russian or Chinese pilot engaged in air to air combat? Probably longer than the USAF and USN- the First Gulf War and the Balkans (as late as 1999) saw Dogfights, with the U.S. only losing one plane (during Desert Storm). I can't say U.S. pilots are any better off than their Russian or Chinese counterparts, but they certainly can't be at a disadvantage.
> - Everyone seems to think my statement regarding a U.S. victory is some sort fantasy on my part, where in it is an easy victory with no losses (Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm)- I understand how advanced and well trained/equipped the Chinese and Russians are. I get that this would be a "step up" from what we've become accustomed to since Vietnam/Korea/WWII. Hence my stern opposition to intervention and escalation. This whole situation is not worth starting WWIII over.


When was the last time US forces fought their way into someone else's airspace? SE Asia?



Scotth said:


> You have partisan political fighting in DC and the Chinese and Russians are trying to take advantage of that and trying to elevate their nations importance on the world stage.  I think people are putting a little too much importance on Syria if you think either one of those nations are going to go to war with the US over Syria.



Mostly agree, except Putin drew his own redline and could be forced to do something or lose face.



Scotth said:


> Say for a second we attack Syria and then either the Chinese or Russian's attack us.  After we sink their ships they sent then what?  Do you think we are going to nuclear war with either of them over Syria?  Outside of nuclear attack, how are either of those nations going to take the fight to us after a quick naval battle in the Med?  If they did attack us in the Med that will quickly bring in the Brits and Nato to our side.



Again, Cyber; don't forget the Chinese are still pissed over that Embassy "Mistake" during Kosovo.  



Scotth said:


> Not to mention that China and Russia have shared borders and are more worried about each other than they are with us.  Neither one would want to battle with us out of fear of what the other would do when they were otherwise engaged.  The Russian and Chinese are no where near allies.
> 
> This is nothing more than a show of strength exercise for either nation.  Yes those nations have a real military and with real air power but there is also 1000's of miles of oceans to cross to come and fight use and both of those nations still have 1000's of miles of borders at home that need to be protected.  They understand the difficulties and the cost associated if they want to do battle and do you think they are going to pay those costs over Syria?



Essentially agree, they might inflict a couple of homeland attacks to save face, but again a decent cyber attack on infrastructure could do more damage then a major sea battle.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 6, 2013)

There is a lot of important signalling going on right now.  Russia and China are burnishing their international image at our expense by sending warships to the area.  This actually increases the chances of conflict, because now we run the risk of looking extremely weak if we buckle now.  We should never have been in this position to begin with.  But now here we are, if greed, diffidence, and glory/reputation are the three main things that drive men to war, then at least two of those are in play at this point.  That's BAD.

Personally, I don't want to fight Russia and China at the same time.  I don't want to fight Russia OR China.  Not over freakin' Syria.  If we were going to fight Russia over a country that wasn't directly tied to our vital national interests, we should have gone all-in when they invaded Georgia.  At Georgia was stable and pro-Western.  Syria is neither, and is unlikely to be anytime soon.

So I've been looking through the things that Secretary Kerry has been saying about Syria, and I'm even more concerned now than I was before.  In *this article*, Sec. Kerry states that "up to" 20% of the "oppositionists" are bad guys.  OK fine, that sounds like a lot to me, but let's look at the math.  100,000 rebels, 20% of 100,000 is... 20,000.  Twenty thousand bad guys, which means radical Islamist jihadists, the same people we're fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and any number of other countries around the world.  Given that the "bad guys" seem to be the best organized, best equipped, and most importantly, the most heavily externally-supported element out there, does it not intuitively follow that when/if the Assad regime falls that the entire country will be taken over by a radical fringe?  Is that good, or bad for America's long term interests?

And *in this article*, Sen. Kerry is trying to convince the world that us shooting missiles at and dropping bombs on Syria doesn't make it a war.  I think I said it before but it bears repeating:  we might not thing we're at war with Syria after we attack them, but they will certainly be at war with us.  Moreover, when he got backed into a corner with his ridiculous comments, he tried to put to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who wasn't having it.  Well played, GEN Dempsey.


"Later, a frustrated Kerry revealed the real logic behind his position: public opinion. He noted that no Americans wanted to go to war with Syria and insisted the White House was of the same mind. “We don’t want to go to war in Syria either!” he exclaimed.  “It’s not what we’re here to ask. The President is not asking you to go to war…He’s simply saying we need to take an action that can degrade the capacity of a man who has been willing to kill his own people by breaking a nearly hundred year-old prohibition [against chemical weapons].”

Then, turning to Dempsey, Kerry asked, “General, do you want to speak to that?”

*Dempsey responded, “No, not really, Secretary, thank you for offering.”* Why? Because General Dempsey knew that was nonsense. When one state attacks another with military force toward a political objective, it is war.  The President has ordered warships into the Eastern Mediterranean to employ military force to compel Assad into keeping his chemical arsenal under wraps."


----------



## Scotth (Sep 6, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Again, Cyber; don't forget the Chinese are still pissed over that Embassy "Mistake" during Kosovo.
> Essentially agree, they might inflict a couple of homeland attacks to save face, but again a decent cyber attack on infrastructure could do more damage then a major sea battle.



I have to agree.  While we are already in an active cyber war with China, I agree they could actually execute an attack on the infrastructure versus what they are doing today.


----------



## Scotth (Sep 6, 2013)

I read this piece today about two Senator floating a bill that:



> The United States would give Syria 45 days to sign an international chemical weapons ban or face the wrath of American military might, under a draft resolution being circulated by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.).
> 
> The alternative to a use-of-force resolution could forestall an immediate American strike and create an incentive for Assad not to use chemical weapons against his own people again. It may also provide a rallying point for lawmakers who are reluctant to either approve strikes or reject the use of force outright.



The remainder of the story: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/senate-bill-syria-weapons-ban-96353.html?hp=l16

It might allow everyone to save enough face so they can all walk away from the table and avoid the mess that is sure to follow this adventure.


----------



## goon175 (Sep 6, 2013)

So what the good Senators are proposing is..... drawing ANOTHER red line.

That makes sense.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 6, 2013)

I move that we just send Obama and the Senators.  Can I get a second?


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 6, 2013)

Scotth said:


> I read this piece today about two Senator floating a bill that:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Agree, and we can let the Russians "secure" the sites in-place.

Then John Kerry can run against Hillary in the 2016 Dem Primary.

Win-win!


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 6, 2013)

Scotth said:


> I read this piece today about two Senator floating a bill that:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for posting that, Scott.

When I first read it, I was relieved because this gives us, like you said, a face-saving way out of this mess. At the same time though, what if Assad DOES used chem weapons again, even after our new, "really, REALLY red line?"  That doesn't change the fundamental calculus, IMO, which remains:  no national interests at stake + no guaratee of a better outcome for the US if Assad goes, + large potential for major unintended negative consequences = no war for the US in Syria.  So I don't agree with going to war now, or later, against Syria unless something in the equation I posted above changes dramatically.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 6, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I move that we just send *President *Obama and the Senators.  Can I get a second?



Fixed it for you.


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 6, 2013)

Mod Note:

1. POTUS is to be addressed properly as we talked about several pages back.
2. If you have nothing constructive to add move on or move out.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 6, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Thanks for posting that, Scott.
> 
> *When I first read it, I was relieved because this gives us, like you said, a face-saving way out of this mess. At the same time though, what if Assad DOES used chem weapons again, even after our new, "really, REALLY red line?"*  That doesn't change the fundamental calculus, IMO, which remains:  no national interests at stake + no guaratee of a better outcome for the US if Assad goes, + large potential for major unintended negative consequences = no war for the US in Syria.  So I don't agree with going to war now, or later, against Syria unless something in the equation I posted above changes dramatically.


Win-win for us.

We blame the Russians for allowing it to happen.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 6, 2013)

Blizzard said:


> Huh?


 
No profile, no answers.


----------



## goon175 (Sep 7, 2013)

I think Dennis Miller has a great idea:

"We should become Syria's Investment Counselor, apply our principles, bankrupt them into the Stone Age and declare victory."


----------



## Kaboom (Sep 7, 2013)

Man this is getting out of hand.

Ironically everyone i know is cheering for Russia showing balls. Religious ties and hate for USA are still going strong here.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 7, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> Fixed it for you.


Your president , not mine.  I didnt vote for him.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 7, 2013)

Marine0311 said:


> Mod Note:
> 
> 1. POTUS is to be addressed properly as we talked about several pages back.
> 2. If you have nothing constructive to add move on or move out.


If you are referring to my post, let me clarify.  If the leaders of this country namely the Senators that seem to hot to be involved in Syria had children and/or in the military that may be directly involved in this action.  And I mean directly, not a desk job somewhere.  I wonder how anxious they would be to move forward in Syria under the circumstances?


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 7, 2013)

Scotth said:


> ...It might allow everyone to save enough face so they can all walk away from the table and avoid the mess that is sure to follow this adventure.



I disagree.  It will do nothing to help the US save face instead it will appear as just another line in the sand because the US isnt dedicated to doing anything useful. 

Fact is we sent the signal to the world that we didnt mean what we said, and we could be pushed around diplomatically when we stood by and allowed NK continue with their program.  Now they are watching this debacle go down in Syria.  In light of the recent lin in the sand I found this article interesting http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/0...orth-korea-syrias-silent-partner-on-chemical/ 

Why some will use the article as further reason to do something about Syria, I am not convinced it will do anything to curb NK.  Why would it?  NK is now a nuclear power and as such we wouldnt dare contemplate firing a few cruise missles at Pyong Yang with their ability to strike back at our allies with their newly developed nuclear arsennal not to mention their chemical weapons.

BTW, neither Syria or NK are signatories to the chemical weapons treaty.


----------



## surgicalcric (Sep 7, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Your president , not mine.  I didnt vote for him.



Chop,

I understand your point but your "personal" presidential choice or not he is The President of the United States and as such is, and should be, afforded the respect due The Office of the President.

Officers in various other specialties and branches arent "my" officers and I may disagree with their decisions but at the end of the day they are still Military Officers and as such I render to them the respect due the position they are in and the rank they hold.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 7, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Your president , not mine.  I didnt vote for him.



Are you an American? Last I checked he was the President of the United States of America. So in fact he is your president. Just because you don't vote for something or someone does not change the reality.


----------



## Brill (Sep 7, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> Just because you don't vote for something or someone does not change the reality.



Ok, ok, ok! we get it: you and The Troll are tied for first at 74.4%.


----------



## pardus (Sep 7, 2013)

surgicalcric said:


> BTW, neither Syria or NK and signatories to the chemical weapons treaty.



See that right there is a huge issue if we are talking about attacking a country for using them.


----------



## pardus (Sep 7, 2013)

Kaboom said:


> Man this is getting out of hand.
> 
> Ironically everyone i know is cheering for Russia showing balls. Religious ties and hate for USA are still going strong here.



I'm curious, where does the hate for the USA come from?


----------



## Poccington (Sep 7, 2013)

This promise of "no boots on the ground" etc. that they're using to try get the go ahead for action to begin, is just helping them dig a bigger hole for themselves. It's gonna end up being right up there with the "red line" talk in terms of stupidity. 

No boots on the ground? All well and good now, so what happens if(God forbid) a US jet was to be downed inside Syria?


----------



## AWP (Sep 7, 2013)

Poccington said:


> No boots on the ground? All well and good now, so what happens if(God forbid) a US jet was to be downed inside Syria?


 
The guys who would go pick up the pilot are Air Force and no one has vowed "No slippers on the ground"....


----------



## Kaboom (Sep 7, 2013)

pardus said:


> I'm curious, where does the hate for the USA come from?



Well i guess one thing is the big love, many have for Russia as they were a great power when Modern Greek was forming up, being located so near to us and having the same religion we have.

But the major problem every person i know (and i mean it) have with the USA is that there is a popular belief that in many occasions, 2 most notably, while we were in conflict with Turkey, the US picked their side. I'll keep it as short as possible. 

*1st* the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. We wanted to unite Cyprus to us but there was a (minor) Turkish population on the island. Turkey took advantage of this and invaded the island, many citizens were killed and to this day they hold the north part of the island. The UN is looking for some kind of solution to the problem, no one is satisfied, and the blame is on the UN for not forcing Turkey out of the island.

*2nd* the military conflict at Imia in 1996. Couple of uninhabited islands that both countries had on their maps marked as theirs. A turkish shipwreck near them is all you need. We had Greek Special forces sneeking in and raising our flag, followed by their Turskish counterparts doing the same. Both navies sent in warships and a Greek helicopter was downed in unknown circumstances. (I guess) US said enough is enough and ordered both countries to back off. That's it really. I have heard stories about how the US goverment changed their maps from Imia (the Greek name of the islands) to "owner undetermined" or something like that but i don't have a clue if this stands true.

There is also a popular belief  that the Greek military junta that ruler from 1967 to 1974 was backed by the USA.

I'm way off topic, but thought it would be better to give you a little background.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 7, 2013)

Kaboom said:


> Well i guess one thing is the big love, many have for Russia as they were a great power when Modern Greek was forming up, being located so near to us and having the same religion we have.
> 
> But the major problem every person i know (and i mean it) have with the USA is that there is a popular belief that in many occasions, 2 most notably, while we were in conflict with Turkey, the US picked their side. I'll keep it as short as possible.
> 
> ...



I didn't know we had beef.


----------



## pardus (Sep 7, 2013)

Kaboom said:


> Well i guess one thing is the big love, many have for Russia as they were a great power when Modern Greek was forming up, being located so near to us and having the same religion we have.
> 
> But the major problem every person i know (and i mean it) have with the USA is that there is a popular belief that in many occasions, 2 most notably, while we were in conflict with Turkey, the US picked their side. I'll keep it as short as possible.
> 
> ...



Thanks, I appreciate the insight.

On the 1st point, why is the USA blamed for the UN doing/not doing something? 
On the second point, I just had a look at the United States Geological Society online maps and the two islands are named Imia Limnia Dio and Imia Limnia Ena.

Another question, what do Greeks think of the British?


----------



## goon175 (Sep 7, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> If you are referring to my post, let me clarify.  If the leaders of this country namely the Senators that seem to hot to be involved in Syria had children and/or in the military that may be directly involved in this action.  And I mean directly, not a desk job somewhere.  I wonder how anxious they would be to move forward in Syria under the circumstances?



1) From what I have seen, no one in congress is too keen on getting into Syria. Don't mistake this for being a cheerleader for congress - I'm not, but I don't think many are in much favor for this.

2) I can think of two very influential congressman who have sons serving in the military - Tim Johnson and John McCain. I know there are more, I just don't know them off the top of my head. The majority of the congressman who have children in the military are not necessarily in direct combat positions, but some are. This isn't surprising though, as the overwhelming majority of jobs in the military are either combat support or combat service support. 

Again, I'm not a cheerleader for congress, but I do think credit should be given where credit is due. Also, just because you are not serving in a direct combat position does not mean you are necessarily safe - as we all know.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 7, 2013)

First of all, I respect the office of the President of the United States.  That being said, I have no respect for the current President.  That is my right as a US Citizen, Freedom of Speech and thought is it not?  Any President that refuses to listen to the will of his or her people should cause one pause, indeed.  To be arbitrarily compelled to refer to Obama as "PRESIDENT OBAMA" by site rule is a little silly in my opinion and I see may examples all over the site where no one else's comments are called on the carpet like mine was.  

Secondly, There are dozens of polls out there that clearly show that the American people are against any intervention in Syria.  Just two I grabbed off the net quickly. http://main.aol.com/2013/09/06/where-aol-users-stand-on-_n_3880340.html


> *Update, 8:25 p.m.: *As of 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, AOL.com's unofficial opinion poll had exceeded 167,000 respondents, with an overwhelming majority opposed to a military strike in Syria. Only 13 percent said a strike was necessary, while 76 percent of respondents said the US should not become entangled in the complicated Middle East nation. The poll closed at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time.


http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ia-a-closer-division-if-allies-are-involved/\



> Nearly six in 10 Americans in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll oppose unilateral U.S. missile strikes against Syria, and even more oppose arming the Syrian rebels – a complication for Barack Obama and proponents of military action in Congress alike.



http://www.langerresearch.com/uploads/1144a26Syria.pdf

It really gives me pause when our elected officials turn a deaf ear to the will of their constituency.  From what I have been reading and seeing on the news @goon175  it seems the Senate is backing the plan to bomb Syria. 
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/politics/us-syria/index.html



> By a 10-7 vote, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed the resolution that authorizes a limited military response, giving Obama an initial victory in his push to win congressional approval.


Granted with public opinion being so negative to the idea of starting a conflict in Syria which may well lead to escalating involvement by Russia and China, that attitude may change in the coming days.  Along with the realization that the midterm elections are next year.  However, I think many of our elected officials simply dont give a damn what their constituents think,  evidenced by this video of a town hall meeting yesterday in Arizona.





John Kerry himself has proclaimed that the president does not require congressional approval to strike Syria.  I think all of of this talk is theater on the part of our government and regardless of the will of the people the strike will occur.  Any voting by the House or Senate is simply theater at this point.  This president will do whatever he wants to do and I fail to see how any of us can respect that sort of behavior.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/john-kerry-congress-syria_n_3881200.html



> But even though Obama is now seeking Congress’ support, Kerry insisted that the president is not bound by law to stand down should his plan be rejected.
> 
> Hadn’t the president in essence ceded that leeway by coming to Congress? I asked the secretary of state.
> 
> The answer, he said, was no.


----------



## Totentanz (Sep 7, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> First of all, I respect the office of the President of the United States.  That being said, I have no respect for the current President.  That is my right as a US Citizen, Freedom of Speech and thought is it not?  Any President that refuses to listen to the will of his or her people should cause one pause, indeed.  To be arbitrarily compelled to refer to Obama as "PRESIDENT OBAMA" by site rule is a little silly in my opinion and I see may examples all over the site where no one else's comments are called on the carpet like mine was.



Chop, I agree with a lot of what you post, and with the vast majority of the posts you've had in this thread.  That said... I think you're off-base on this one.

Barack Obama is afforded the title of President of the United States by virtue of the election of 2012.  There is little dispute that he won the election handily, and none that reaches past the conspiracy theorists.  Your refusal to refer to him by his elected title appears childish and detracts from the rest of what you've posted here.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 7, 2013)

Totentanz said:


> Chop, I agree with a lot of what you post, and with the vast majority of the posts you've had in this thread.  That said... I think you're off-base on this one.
> 
> Barack Obama is afforded the title of President of the United States by virtue of the election of 2012.  There is little dispute that he won the election handily, and none that reaches past the conspiracy theorists.  Your refusal to refer to him by his elected title appears childish and detracts from the rest of what you've posted here.


Fair enough, but that is my opinion and I would be untruthful if I stated otherwise.


----------



## Kaboom (Sep 7, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> I didn't know we had beef.



Yep, as i see it, it's more of a biased opinion against you from our part (and i blame mostly the media) and in the end of the day i know that every country has to look for her own benefit.



pardus said:


> Thanks, I appreciate the insight.
> 
> On the 1st point, why is the USA blamed for the UN doing/not doing something?
> On the second point, I just had a look at the United States Geological Society online maps and the two islands are named Imia Limnia Dio and Imia Limnia Ena.
> ...



My pleasure. Well i agree with you but i guess evil Americans are behind everything :-/ As for the second point i looked it up also and read (in wiki) US later changed it back to its orginal name so go figure. And let's not forget the opinion i think is popular even beyond Greece how USA staged 9/11 in order just to get the oil and other benefits from these third world nations.

As for the British not much really is said, but they played a major role in Cyprus given the fact that before WWI the island was a protectorate of their empire and they were against the unification of them with Greece (of course there are much more details to it if you want to go in depth). So they are almost equally disliked just not mentioned that much. Of course many think how Europe in general has become US's bitches. If you need something more specific i'll gladly (search if needed and) answer.

Of course many of these beliefs and opinions are not adopted by everyone, but it's a good representation of your average Greek folk.

EDIT: Man how could i  forget one of the most important issues. Many people were against the strikes in Yuogoslavia. We have strong ties with Serbs. And the recognition of Republic of Macedonia angered many, as Macedonia is considered to be Greek.


----------



## pardus (Sep 7, 2013)

Kaboom said:


> Yep, as i see it, it's more of a biased opinion against you from our part (and i blame mostly the media) and in the end of the day i know that every country has to look for her own benefit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting. 
I'm not going to talk about 9/11 as I have no respect for people who think it was a conspiracy. 
You don't need to go to any trouble, I was just curious. 
So Greeks in general don't care about Britain etc... Fighting for them during WWII? I know my homeland (New Zealand) lost a few people there in 1941, mainly on Crete.


----------



## AWP (Sep 7, 2013)

Since thread drift is already in effect...

@Kaboom in the larger sense of Greek-Western (US/ UK) relations, how much influence do you attribute to our involvement in the Civil War, particularly since the Communists lost? Currently a good portion of your population is left of center, so do you think modern grievances are cited but the root goes back to the late 40's? People can nurture a grudge forever and I'd think our involvement in in your Civil War plays more of a role than people realize.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 7, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> The guys who would go pick up the pilot are Air Force and no one has vowed "No slippers on the ground"....


Touche, smartass. Touche.


----------



## Kaboom (Sep 7, 2013)

pardus said:


> Interesting.
> I'm not going to talk about 9/11 as I have no respect for people who think it was a conspiracy.
> You don't need to go to any trouble, I was just curious.
> So Greeks in general don't care about Britain etc... Fighting for them during WWII? I know my homeland (New Zealand) lost a few people there in 1941, mainly on Crete.



I forgot to mention the attack in Yugoslavia and added it in my previous posts.

No unfortunately. Many are not even aware of this. Everyone is too busy being proud (but i think rightfully so) of how we got to make the Italians retreat and making the Germans alter their plans in order to occupy us. From what i've read it was one of the major morale boosting victories of the allied forces. 

Speaking about me, i know about the fierce resistance New Zealand, the British and Australians showed along with our own troops to hold Germans off Crete and am forever grateful and have the utmost respect for them.


----------



## Kaboom (Sep 7, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Since thread drift is already in effect...
> 
> @Kaboom in the larger sense of Greek-Western (US/ UK) relations, how much influence do you attribute to our involvement in the Civil War, particularly since the Communists lost? Currently a good portion of your population is left of center, so do you think modern grievances are cited but the root goes back to the late 40's? People can nurture a grudge forever and I'd think our involvement in in your Civil War plays more of a role than people realize.



Well nowdays the amount of people voting for the communist party is relatively small (and there is actually a huge boost of the far right party) but you are absolutely right. People remember how Yugoslavia and other Balkan countries helped the Democratic Army of Greece and of course the middle classes in their majority until today will support everyday the people of our country over the goverment. I mentioned it before but people also hate you because of the US backing of the military junta later on.

But if there is one thing i can comment on this matter, is thank god the Western forces kept the Red Bear away from us. I know there were tough times here in my country, but i have friends who lived in those Soviet Union Nations and you can only imagine what they had to go through and eventually how this ended up for these poor countries. Again i'm sorry for all the mess i made in this thread and also for the late replies but 1st i have to fully understand what you say and then to find the right worlds to answer


----------



## AWP (Sep 7, 2013)

Kaboom said:


> Again i'm sorry for all the mess i made in this thread and also for the late replies but 1st i have to fully understand what you say and then to find the right worlds to answer


 
You're good. It is interesting to hear the views of a non-American/ non-Commonwealth citizen (the bulk of this board's membership).

When we look at that corner of the globe, we think of the Balkans and the troubles in the 90's. We forget (well, most Americans don't know) the upheavals that took place post-WWII and in the early days of the Cold War. We don't think about the influence Turkey has on a large swath of the globe and when the subject of Greece comes up people think of the country's financial issues and not the Greek role in a key portion of the globe.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 8, 2013)

I found this piece written by House Representative Alan Grayson(House Committee member on Foreign Affairs) to offer some insight as to what our elected officials are being given in the way of information from the administration.   It gives me some hope that perhaps some of our elected officials are going to use their own intellect during these hearings leading up to a vote and not snooze through them or play video poker during critical testimony.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/opinion/on-syria-vote-trust-but-verify.html?_r=1&



> John Kerry, has said repeatedly that this administration isn’t trying to manipulate the intelligence reports the way that the Bush administration did to rationalize its invasion of Iraq.
> But by refusing to disclose the underlying data even to members of Congress, the administration is making it impossible for anyone to judge, independently, whether that statement is correct. Perhaps the edict of an earlier administration applies: “Trust, but verify.”
> 
> The danger of the administration’s approach was illustrated by a widely read report last week in The Daily Caller, which claimed that the Obama administration had selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes in Syria, with one report “doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.”
> ...






> We have reached the point where the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances, from learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know. And this extends to matters of war and peace, money and blood. The “security state” is drowning in its own phlegm.
> 
> My position is simple: if the administration wants me to vote for war, on this occasion or on any other, then I need to know all the facts. And I’m not the only one who feels that way.


----------



## 0699 (Sep 8, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I found this piece written by House Representative Alan Grayson(House Committee member on Foreign Affairs) to offer *some insight as to what our elected officials are being given in the way of information from the administration*.   It gives me some hope that perhaps some of our elected officials are going to use their own intellect during these hearings leading up to a vote and not snooze through them or play video poker during critical testimony.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/opinion/on-syria-vote-trust-but-verify.html?_r=1&


 
Like the information provided by the executive branch about Benghazi?


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 8, 2013)

0699 said:


> Like the information provided by the executive branch about Benghazi?


Ha!  Good point.  Perhaps I should have said "what information is being altered, spun and skewed by the current administration prior to being given to our elected officials".
Dennis Kuchinich raises some valid questions that need to be answered.
This is just the first on his list.  You can click the link for all of the rest.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-j-kucinich/syria-war-questions_b_3870763.html




> *Claim #1. The administration claims a chemical weapon was used.*
> 
> The UN inspectors are still completing their independent evaluation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 8, 2013)




----------



## Chopstick (Sep 8, 2013)

This should be interesting.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/08/charlie-rose-interviews-bashar-assad/2782001/



> Syrian President Bashar Assad says he didn't have anything to do with a chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus last month,which has led President Obama to weigh a military strike against his regime, says CBS News' Charlie Rose.
> 
> Rose, who previewed his interview on the CBS Sunday interview show _Face the Nation_, said he interviewed Assad on Sunday morning in Damascus. Excerpts of the interview will air for the first time Monday on _CBS This Morning_. The interview will air in its entirety Monday night on _The Charlie Rose Show_ on PBS.


----------



## JHD (Sep 8, 2013)

This whole situation feels like POTUS has started a game of Chicken, and he is desperate for someone else to blink first, while trying to figure out a way that doesn't force him to blink and save face.  Regardless of the outcome, he has weakened the position of the US in the world.  Those consequences will undoubtedly come back to bite us in the ass at some point.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 8, 2013)

It just keeps getting better and better.  
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...87c1f6-18b8-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html



> Iran won Iraqi support for its efforts to oppose a U.S.-led military strike on Syria during a visit to Baghdad on Sunday by the new Iranian foreign minister, highlighting how close the two countries have grown since U.S. forces withdrew in 2011.





> “Those who are short-sighted and are beating the drums of war are starting a fire that will burn everyone,” Zarif said during a news conference.
> 
> Standing alongside him, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said all of Syria’s neighbors, including Iraq, would be harmed by American involvement in Syria’s two-year-old conflict.
> 
> “What I can say conclusively is that Iraq will not be a base for any attack, nor will it facilitate any such attack on Syria,” Zebari told reporters after holding talks with Zarif.


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 8, 2013)

POTUS was wrong to say what he said. The follow up statement ...."I didn't say....." was classic backpedaling and poor leadership throughout.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 8, 2013)

And apparently the US will have no military allies in a strike but we will have some "feel good" moral support.  Which Im sure will be a huge help.   :wall:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/de.../2013/09/08/id/524403?s=al&promo_code=14CD1-1




> The United States has no military allies in its plan to launch missile attacks against Syria as punishment for the country's use of chemical weapons, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said Sunday.
> 
> McDonough conceded the fact on CNN's "State of the Union" after persistent questioning from host Candy Crowley, who asked him whether President Barack Obama has secured international military support for the strike — as opposed to moral support.
> 
> "Not at this point," he said. "But it is specific support for holding him [Syrian President Bashar Assad] to account, and it is a recognition that it happened. We feel very good about the support we have, and we’ll continue to build more."


----------



## goon175 (Sep 8, 2013)

I can't believe Gen. Dempsey was fired!


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 8, 2013)

What is one more General biting the dust? :whatever:
You know shit is getting real when Hollyweird starts to weigh in:
Ed Asner explains the deafening Hollywood silence on Syria.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/syria-why-hollywoods-anti-war-623326?imw=Y



> A lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama," he said.



However, Cher throws down with her twitter post:
https://twitter.com/cher



> I Believe,If Pres.Obama,Bombs Syria,it might b His Downfall.He could go From Loved 2 Loathed.U Cant Go Against The Will Of 80%


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 8, 2013)

goon175 said:


> I can't believe Gen. Dempsey was fired!



Too bad, I kind of liked that guy.  Total BS that Secretary Kerry fired him.

IKIS


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 8, 2013)

goon175 said:


> I can't believe Gen. Dempsey was fired!



I love good satire. Well done sir.


----------



## goon175 (Sep 9, 2013)

China says to proceed with caution...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013...urce=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 9, 2013)

From your link @goon175 :


> French President Francois Hollande, increasingly under pressure at home and among European partners to seek a U.N. mandate before any military intervention in Syria, suggested on Saturday he could seek a resolution at the Security Council despite previous Russian and Chinese vetoes.
> 
> Kerry said the White House is "listening carefully" to Hollande's comments, but that Obama had not made a decision.


Let me see if I have this right...
So, if from what Ive been reading  and seeing on the news, to recap, we have no military allies but we do have "feel good support" from France and Saudi Arabia and "a bunch of other countries we cant name" but France may cave even with their "feel good support" due to public pressure ,  General Dempsey publicly deferring to the Secretary of State in a hearing on the subject, no definite "without a doubt" evidence that these chemical weapons were used by Assad vs the resistance (or evidence that can be revealed even to our Congress it is so top secret) and China and Russia warning retaliation, Iran and Iraq getting cozy, *POTUS* going on a full court press to get everyone in Congress to vote to let him bomb Syria, but he doesnt need their approval because he is *POTUS* and he alone will make the final decision, there will be "no boots on the ground" or Senator John McCain will impeach *POTUS* but there is language being bantered about "boots on the ground" for "direct combat purposes" leaving the door open to "boots on the ground" and dont forget, there is a sequester on and dont forget our borrowing limit runs out in mid-October.  Did I get all that?  So...is this really a good idea to bomb Syria?  Should our leader even be entertaining this idea?


----------



## RetPara (Sep 9, 2013)

Does 'boots on the ground' include CSAR?


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 9, 2013)

RetPara said:


> Does 'boots on the ground' include CSAR?


No, BOG generally applies to people who don't leave.  CSAR is get in, grab the survivor, get out; so BOG does not apply.

SF supporting the rebels would be considered BOG.


----------



## Scotth (Sep 9, 2013)

Russians might just come in to be the hero's in all this mess.


> MOSCOW (AP) — The Russian foreign minister says Moscow will push Syria to place its chemical weapons under international control.
> 
> Sergey Lavrov said Monday that if such a move would help avert a possible U.S. strike on Syria, Russia will start work “immediately” to persuade Syria to relinquish control over its chemical arsenals.
> 
> Lavrov told reporters that Russia would urge Syria to concentrate its chemical weapons in certain areas under international oversight and then dismantle them.


http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/r...apons-under-international-control.php?ref=fpb


----------



## pardus (Sep 9, 2013)

*Syria 'welcomes' proposal to hand over control of chemical weapons*


http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-kerry/index.html

Seems like the administration is determined to attack regardless of what happens, or at least giving themselves the option to do so.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 9, 2013)

pardus said:


> *Syria 'welcomes' proposal to hand over control of chemical weapons*
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-kerry/index.html
> 
> Seems like the administration is determined to attack regardless of what happens, or at least giving themselves the option to do so.


This is the best option, let the Russians control the stockpile.

Poor POTUS, losing his chance to emulate "Wild Bill" Clinton.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 9, 2013)

I dont know if our government can look any less credible or any more ridiculous after the gaffe Secretary Kerry threw out in London this morning.  Even ABC is referring to Secretary Kerry as the "Accidental Diplomat"  I dont suppose anyone thought that the Russians would pick up the ball and run with it.
 The video is must see TV.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/accidental-diplomat-john-kerrys-decent-proposal-20205421

And Senator Reid delays the test vote shortly after he set it for Wednesday.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/harry-reid-syria-vote_n_3896336.html



> The Senate is delaying a test vote on authorizing U.S. military strikes against Syria.
> 
> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says it wouldn't be beneficial to hold the vote while international discussions continue regarding Syria's use of chemical weapons.
> 
> ...


----------



## pardus (Sep 9, 2013)

Hillary just threatened Russia.  Seriously?  :wall:

I'm glad the Senate are waiting, smart move.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 9, 2013)

pardus said:


> Hillary just threatened Russia.  Seriously?  :wall:


Yeah, what the heck was THAT?


----------



## AWP (Sep 9, 2013)

pardus said:


> Hillary just threatened Russia.  Seriously?  :wall:


 


Chopstick said:


> Yeah, what the heck was THAT?


 
Posturing in response to her critics who say she hasn't been vocal enough during the crisis.

If Russia pulls this off, Putin is a pimp who became a serious contender for a Nobel.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 9, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Posturing in response to her critics who say she hasn't been vocal enough during the crisis.


But WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE!?


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 9, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I dont know if our government can look any less credible or any more ridiculous after the gaffe Secretary Kerry threw out in London this morning.  Even ABC is referring to Secretary Kerry as the "Accidental Diplomat"  I dont suppose anyone thought that the Russians would pick up the ball and run with it.
> The video is must see TV.
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/accidental-diplomat-john-kerrys-decent-proposal-20205421
> 
> ...



I don't know what you are saying here, are you complaining about a delayed vote for action? Are you saying the Russian plan is bad?


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 9, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> I don't know what you are saying here, are you complaining about a delayed vote for action? Are you saying the Russian plan is bad?


No not at all.  Im saying that Secretary Kerry's snarky remarks this morning sort of bit him in the backside.  I think the Russian plan is a good one.  Too bad a Nobel Peace Prize winner was not around to think of it first.  
And I am glad that the Senate vote has been put on hold.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 9, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> No not at all.  Im saying that Secretary Kerry's snarky remarks this morning sort of bit him in the backside.  I think the Russian plan is a good one.  Too bad a Nobel Peace Prize winner was not around to think of it first.
> And I am glad that the Senate vote has been put on hold.



Agreed.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 9, 2013)

I just think that our government had to scramble together a response.  Early on the State Department itself described The Secretary's comments as "“rhetorical and hypothetical".  I think the administration was caught off guard when the Russians pulled their "slam dunk" if you will.


----------



## pardus (Sep 9, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I just think that our government had to scramble together a response.  Early on the State Department itself described The Secretary's comments as "“rhetorical and hypothetical".  I think the administration was caught off guard when the Russians pulled their "slam dunk" if you will.



The Russians seized upon an opportunity and are going to make out like bandits with it.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 9, 2013)

pardus said:


> The Russians seized upon an opportunity and are going to make out like bandits with it.


 
They should have been first to step up to the plate when this mess started.


----------



## JHD (Sep 9, 2013)

I think in the Putin's mind, he threw POTUS a bone, knowing POTUS was in between a rock and a hard place.  This action makes the Russians look like the smart, good guys, and POTUS not too bright bad guy.  Win win for them.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Sep 9, 2013)

I'm amused as to how this has played out on the public stage and at the media's pleasure.  Anyone have the misfortune of watching CNN early yesterday morning?  Terrible pandering to the President...


----------



## JHD (Sep 9, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> Posturing in response to her critics who say she hasn't been vocal enough during the crisis.
> 
> If Russia pulls this off, Putin is a pimp who became a serious contender for a Nobel.



Absolutely agree a bazillion percent.


----------



## pardus (Sep 9, 2013)

JHD said:


> I think in the Putin's mind, he threw POTUS a bone, knowing POTUS was in between a rock and a hard place.  This action makes the Russians look like the smart, good guys, and POTUS not too bright bad guy.  Win win for them.



Putin is trying to make the US look bad while helping their buddy Syria. Maybe I could be convinced Russia did this to avert an escalation, but Putin throwing Obama a bone? No way.


----------



## JHD (Sep 9, 2013)

My thinking was not in an altruistic sense, but the fact that Putin knew that what he was  doing was going to bail Obama out of this sticky situation and make Russia look good.  But, yes, that is why I think Putin is appearing to be generous even though he really isn't.


----------



## talonlm (Sep 9, 2013)

I seriously doubt Obama's political problems mean anything to Putin.  Putin saw an opportunity and seized it.  If they can pull it off, it's a diplomatic coup for him.  And I hate to say it, but it's the best idea I've seen come up with regards to this whole mess.  Let the Russians handle it.


----------



## AWP (Sep 9, 2013)

Putin's a shark and he smelled blood. That it is US blood is so much sweeter for him.


----------



## Scotth (Sep 9, 2013)

Hopefully,  Russia delivers a real win for the world regardless of his motives and we have a positive outcome over this mess.

It doesn't change the fact that the Obama Administration's handling of the situation was horrible to say the least.  He got backed into a corner and flailed once he got there.

Kerry's first real test as SoS was a big ole 5 gallon bucket of fail.  He will spend the remainder of his time as SoS trying to redeem himself.

Let's all hope a positive outcome can be reached for the greater good.


----------



## talonlm (Sep 9, 2013)

I have to admit to being less than happy that it's Russia bailing us out, but it's far, far better than getting rolled into that mess in Syria.


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 10, 2013)

Scotth said:


> It doesn't change the fact that the Obama Administration's handling of the situation was horrible to say the least.  He got backed into a corner and flailed once he got there.


And here I thought there was all this discussion about how brilliant the President's move was politically?   He's really screwed the pooch on this in that he's now given Putin a second wind and provided him with the relevance he's been seeking.


----------



## Jay (Sep 10, 2013)

So let me get this straight..Syria has agreed to surrender the chemical weapons to Russia that they never had in the first place? 

Either way, better than us putting boots on ground. Time to focus on HOME.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 10, 2013)

Jay said:


> So let me get this straight..Syria has agreed to surrender the chemical weapons to Russia that they never had in the first place?
> 
> Either way, better than us putting boots on ground. Time to focus on HOME.


I don't recall anyone saying Syria did not have Chem Weapons, did I miss something?


----------



## Jay (Sep 10, 2013)

SOWT said:


> I don't recall anyone saying Syria did not have Chem Weapons, did I miss something?



Forgive me, that was incorrect. They're going to handover the chemical weapons they never launched.


----------



## dknob (Sep 10, 2013)

So Assad stays, no punishment, civil war on-going, Russia - probably the closest war-mongers next to us provide a peaceful solution, and we look like the trigger happy morons who were about to go in guns blazing.

Awesome outcome...

sigh.


----------



## Jay (Sep 10, 2013)

There is a live feed on FoxNews.com of hearings in the House to strike Syria...not over yet?


----------



## Scotth (Sep 10, 2013)

Jay said:


> There is a live feed on FoxNews.com of hearings in the House to strike Syria...not over yet?



You still have to keep up the threat to strike to make sure Syria complies.  If congress decides to vote no now you can be sure nothing will get done in Syria.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 10, 2013)

Scotth said:


> You still have to keep up the threat to strike to make sure Syria complies.  If congress decides to vote no now you can be sure nothing will get done in Syria.


Slightly disagree, Putin looks stupid if Syria reneges, that won't happen.  Plus this Russian/Chinese Diplomacy makes the west as a whole (UK and France get splattered also) look like war-mongers.

POTUS has succeeded in removing us from Superpower Status.

This should lock Hillary in for 2016.


----------



## pardus (Sep 10, 2013)

I actually think if the US does "strike" Syria, it will probably be so ineffective that it is just as likely to benefit Syria through increased support from Iran, Russia and possibly China.


----------



## RetPara (Sep 10, 2013)

pardus said:


> I actually think if the US does "strike" Syria, it will probably be so ineffective that it is just as likely to benefit Syria through increased support from Iran, Russia and possibly China.


Don't forget some of the other major power players like Columbia, Somalia, Vietnam, North Korea and the People Democratic Republic of Ann Arbor (PDRA2).


----------



## Totentanz (Sep 10, 2013)

pardus said:


> I actually think if the US does "strike" Syria, it will probably be so ineffective that it is just as likely to benefit Syria through increased support from Iran, Russia and possibly China.



Hmmm, what's the ROI for an "unbelievably small" strike?


----------



## pardus (Sep 10, 2013)

RetPara said:


> Don't forget some of the other major power players like Columbia, Somalia, Vietnam, North Korea and the People Democratic Republic of Ann Arbor (PDRA2).



You're talking about the unnamed countries supporting the US strikes?


----------



## Rapid (Sep 10, 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24039309

*Syria hostage Domenico Quirico 'treated like animal'*



> "Our captors were from a group that professed itself to be Islamist but that in reality is made up of mixed-up young men who have joined the revolution because the revolution now belongs to these groups that are midway between banditry and fanaticism," he said. "They follow whoever promises them a future, gives them weapons, gives them money to buy cell phones, computers, clothes."
> 
> Such groups, he said, were trusted by the West but were in truth profiting from the revolution to "take over territory, hold the population to ransom, kidnap people and fill their pockets". Mr Quirico said he and his fellow captive were kept "like animals, locked in small rooms with windows closed despite the great heat, thrown on straw mattresses, giving us the scraps from their meals to eat". He said his guards seemed to take no interest in anything other money and weapons - spending entire days lounging on mattresses, smoking and watching old black-and-white Egyptian movies or American wrestling shows on television. He said he felt these men took satisfaction from seeing what they would regard as two rich Westerners reduced to the status of beggars.
> 
> "*Even children and old people tried to hurt us.* Maybe I am putting this in overly ethical terms but *in Syria I really found a country of evil*," he said.



Big surprise, huh? Fuck the rebels. Fuck Syria. Let them all kill each other.


----------



## goon175 (Sep 10, 2013)

Somehow, Someone still found a way to make the President look good.... wow....

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politi...cs-091013?src=spr_FBPAGE&spr_id=1456_22758089


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 10, 2013)

Rapid said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24039309
> 
> *Syria hostage Domenico Quirico 'treated like animal'*
> 
> ...


Sounds like Bosnia at the height of the war.


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 10, 2013)

goon175 said:


> Somehow, Someone still found a way to make the President look good.... wow....
> 
> http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politi...cs-091013?src=spr_FBPAGE&spr_id=1456_22758089


YGTBFKM...


----------



## AWP (Sep 10, 2013)

goon175 said:


> Somehow, Someone still found a way to make the President look good.... wow....
> 
> http://www.esquire.....


 
Esquire, the same "news" site that ran stories on "The Shooter" from the UBL raid. The guy who was debunked and had his story hammered 20 ways from Sunday. I'd read port-a-john graffiti before I read Esquire. People will put stock in what they say because some people just have to believe in something no matter how ridiculous...


----------



## Centermass (Sep 10, 2013)

Watched an interview last night between Assad and Charlie Rose. Assad made some very valid points for his decisions. Meanwhile, Rose was stuck on this repetitive dialogue repeating the same thing over and over again....."You're pretty much just like your father"

Every point Assad made went in one ear and right out the other with no, real, constructive follow up other than the above.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 10, 2013)

Now we are going from the red line thing to the "pause button" thing.  And the administration is claiming that the "Russian" plan has been in planning for a year?  Really?  If that is so why did aides try to talk back SOS's remarks almost immediately after he made them and why didnt we hear about this brilliant plan..oh I dont know..maybe a year ago?  Maybe if so, there would be more living Syrians living in Syria today? 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...n-hill-to-back-off-syria-strike-ahead-speech/



> Administration officials also claimed the White House has been working on the chemical weapons hand-over idea with the Russians for up to year. According to the officials, Kerry did accidentally let the news out on Monday – when he appeared to make an off-handed comment that Assad could avert a strike by turning over his weapons. Kerry immediately walked back the remark.


----------



## pardus (Sep 10, 2013)

They are so transparent and pathetic it's a joke.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 11, 2013)

pardus said:


> They are so transparent and pathetic it's a joke.


1000% agree.  Listening to POTUS's speech last night.... well this pretty much the impression I was left with.  Sometimes less is more.  He is asking for his cake and to eat it too.  He wants Congress to vote at the time of his say so and for the outcome he mandates.  And the "pinprick" comment.  I just rolled my eyes.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 11, 2013)

pardus said:


> They are so transparent and pathetic it's a joke.


His followers should be along soon to tell us how awesome he is.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 11, 2013)

Pro-Syrian opposition ‘analyst’ fired for lying about credentials

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...lyst-fired-for-lying-on-resume/#ixzz2edfTZVGg

Hmmm...



> During discussions about military action in Syria last month, O'Bagy wrote an influential piece in The Wall Street Journal that was used to push for punishing the Assad regime for using chemical weapons.
> 
> The Aug. 30 piece disputed claims that the opposition is heavily populated by extremist factions. "Contrary to many media accounts, the war in Syria is not being waged entirely, or even predominantly, by dangerous Islamists and al Qaeda die-hards," she wrote, while calling for a "comprehensive strategy" to destroy Assad's military capability and boost the opposition.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rabid Badger (Sep 12, 2013)

Note to the MSM: When you announce that "covert" activities are going to take place, the activities are no longer covert.  

This is sounding a shitton like what I hear almost daily: "Attention on the FOB, we are going to shoot back now so you may hear some loud noises" (over the loud speaker that alerts the ENTIRE FUCKING VALLEY) that we're going to shoot back now. WTF.

"We're coming to bomb you so make sure you throw a few extra sandbags on that bunker". Next this stupit fukn administration will announce the flight path and the exact times that they'll make the bomb runs...... :wall:


----------



## goon175 (Sep 12, 2013)

By the same author from Esquire that I posted above....

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/The_Speech


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 12, 2013)

Putin's letter to the American people:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/o...from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 12, 2013)

Could this be why Assad appears to be so agreeable to the Russian plan?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-bashar-assad-approved-chemical-attac/?page=1



> If there was a rogue general that did it on his own accord, that would be a bigger problem for Assad, because that would imply that he does not have control of his own weapons,” said one senior congressional source familiar with U.S. intelligence assessments on Syria.





> Some foreign policy insiders, meanwhile, said the lack of specific intelligence about who ordered the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack is the main reason why top Obama administration officials — including the president himself — have in recent days carefully assigned blame to “Assad’s regime” rather than the Syrian leader personally.








Also I saw this piece in the Washington Post.  Interesting.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...662d02-1add-11e3-82ef-a059e54c49d0_story.html



> If Bush was so bad, then why did Obama lift so much of his speech making the case for military action in Syria from Bush’s speech making the case for military action in Iraq?





> While imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, it takes a special kind of chutzpah to plagiarize your predecessor while attacking him at the same time.
> 
> Of course, the imitation only went so far. After making the case for military action, Bush issued an ultimatum to the Iraqi regime. After making the case for military action, Obama announced he was deploying . . . Secretary of State John F. Kerry to meet with his Russian counterparts. Presumably Kerry will explain that if Assad fails to comply with Obama’s just demands, the Syrian dictator will face the consequences — a military strike that is “unbelievably small.”
> 
> Now that wasn’t lifted from George W. Bush.


----------



## dknob (Sep 12, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Putin's letter to the American people:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/o...from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



I'm going to get blasted... but I enjoyed reading it. I thought it was profound.
Although memory of the Georgia/South Ossetia conflict is still fresh in my mind.


----------



## Rabid Badger (Sep 12, 2013)

dknob said:


> I'm going to get blasted... but I enjoyed reading it. I thought it was profound.
> Although memory of the Georgia/South Ossetia conflict is still fresh in my mind.


that's because dimlibs have the reputation to believe everything a cold war KGB agent has to say....  "Come over to our side, we'll take care of you and you'll have a great life in Moscow, no, we're not lying, everything you heard in the past were rumors".....

Obama took the 1st number, you're late to the party.


----------



## AWP (Sep 12, 2013)

That was an excellent article by Putin with a few very good points. That doesn't mean I trust him, actions matter, but he's saying the right things.

Russia is winning the PR war and that article is a prime example. Our president fights to conduct operations unsupported by a majority of Americans while Putin memes wrestle bears and real Putin writes pieces such as the above. Putin appears to be measured and compassionate while Obama appears to be a war monger cut from the same cloth as Bush 43.

Most Americans can't identify a town or city in southern Georgia, US of A, much less anything about Georgia v. South Ossetia/ Russia in 2008. Without that bit of history behind them, those that read Putin's op-ed will think of him in a positive light. Besides, President Obama doesn't wrestle polar bears on the internet...

Putin's like a criminal in your neighborhood. If you never see him do anything wrong, if there's no crime in your 'hood, if he's quiet, polite and a good neighbor then over time is he really a criminal? Doubts form and you'll find yourself defending him "Well, I never saw him molest children/ steal/ murder."

I still believe that Putin smells blood and that it is American blood is a bonus. Putin ignores his or his country's role in Georgia, Afghanistan, and international arms trafficking and manages to make us look bad in the process. Winner, winner, potato soup dinner for the Russian.

Our children and grandchildren are goinig to pay for our foreign policy over the last decade.


----------



## x SF med (Sep 12, 2013)

Excellent points Free - total agreement here.


----------



## goon175 (Sep 12, 2013)

I don't trust Putin, or most Russians, any further than I can throw them. That being said,

That was a well written piece, and I agree with much (not all) of what he said.
It was a brilliant move on his part to "write a letter to the Americans". As far as political moves go, it makes the Presidents punt to congress look like amateur hour in scale.


----------



## reed11b (Sep 12, 2013)

RB said:


> Next this stupit fukn administration will announce the flight path and the exact times that they'll make the bomb runs...... :wall:


 Of course! We want to limit civilian casualties don't we? 
Reed


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 12, 2013)

reed11b said:


> Of course! We want to limit civilian casualties don't we?
> Reed


Worked for Clinton, right?


----------



## Brill (Sep 12, 2013)

You all just got PsyOp'd by the Soviet propaganda machine.

Pooty Poo is an ex-KGB officer turned mobster who rose to become the boss of bosses.  He may be in charge but he damn sure isn't a statesman: he's very good at covert operations including manipulating the press.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 12, 2013)

Nobody got psyop'd.  It's possible to appreciate the man's work, while not buying any of it.

I think what he did was a brilliant political move on his part.


----------



## Brill (Sep 12, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Nobody got psyop'd.  It's possible to appreciate* the man's work*, while not buying any of it.
> 
> I think what *he did* was a brilliant political move on his part.



If you accredit that article to Vlad, who I assure you had no part in it, I have a low-mileage bridge you may be interested in: one owner and she was a little old lady who hardly used it.  Heck, I'll throw in a free Car Fox!


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 12, 2013)

lindy said:


> If you accredit that article to Vlad, who I assure you had no part in it, I have a low-mileage bridge you may be interested in: one owner and she was a little old lady who hardly used it.  Heck, I'll throw in a free Car Fox!



Stop being coy.  If you have some tidbit of information that makes you smarter than all of the rest of us on this topic, then post it up.

I didn't accredit that article to Putin, the New York Times did.  "But heads of state don't write their own speeches!"  Yeah, got it.  Noted.  But they approve it.  This op-ed was released by HIM, as part of HIS grand strategy.  To assure me that Putin had "no part" in an article that his government, of which he is head, released in his name, without some very solid evidence to the contrary provided by you, smacks of both arrogance and naivety.  

Russia is owning us on this Syria issue right now, and maneuvers like this, by Putin, are a large reason why.


----------



## Brill (Sep 12, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> If you have some tidbit of information that makes you smarter than all of the rest of us on this topic, then post it up.



*Definitely not smarter* (assured confident, yes) but would say I'm viewing from a different perspective.  There is *a ton* of crap about this as well as Nagorno-Karabakh in the Russian press and how the US and the world are letting the Russians take the lead.  Hell, there's actually calls for him to win the Peace Prize for "solving the Syrian crisis".

Also keep in mind, the average Russian is devoid of healthy skepticism of the press.  Plus a news viewer seriously cannot go 5 minutes without hearing the words "President Putin": he is very much in control...because they said so...over and over and over.  Uncle Vova is everywhere.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 12, 2013)

lindy said:


> *Definitely not smarter* (assured confident, yes) but would say I'm viewing from a different perspective.  There is *a ton* of crap about this as well as Nagorno-Karabakh in the Russian press and how the US and the world are letting the Russians take the lead.  Hell, there's actually calls for him to win the Peace Prize for "solving the Syrian crisis".
> 
> Also keep in mind, the average Russian is devoid of healthy skepticism of the press.  Plus a news viewer seriously cannot go 5 minutes without hearing the words "President Putin": he is very much in control...because they said so...over and over and over.  Uncle Vova is everywhere.



I'm not following you on this one, brother.  First of all, what exactly are you assured and confident about here?  First you tell us we've all been psyop'd, then you imply Putin didn't issue the release attributed to him, then there's... this post.  What does an obscure region of Azerbaijan have to do with an op-ed/press release in the New York Times?  What does the Russian press have to do with it?  Putin is eating our lunch internationally, regardless of any skepticism or lack thereof he's receiving back home.

And if he pulls off this "don't bomb Syria thing," then yeah, he's probably a contender for the Peace Prize.  Especially since it puts him at odds with another Peace Prize holder, who is advocating war.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 12, 2013)

I would imagine (no I don't have links, this is my opinion) that Russia, at least the poorer parts, is limited to what it can view!
So, yes Psyops is easy...I could be wrong but I think it was as much intended for his people as it was for us...but I don't know much!

"Hey you out there, tired of freezing to death staring at each other with nothing to do, too poor to afford  TV......Uncle Putin has just what you need......free Sat TV with 2 Channels you always wanted."

Channel 1. Putin oiled up wrestling a polar bear, riding bare back on horses topless, pics with Tigers and lions and ninjas 12 hrs a day, the other 12 hours Putin has a cooking show with random Iron Chef guests
Channel 2. Putin is on 24 /7 talking about inventing the posted note, rotary engine and solving world hunger (thru his cooking show no doubt) and now....ding ding ding.....Putin wins the Nobel Peace Prize!!!!!  Tune in next week for Putin to give you the Top 10 reasons Russia is better then America.....yes David Letterman stole that idea from Putin at a fund raiser back in the 80's!


----------



## Brill (Sep 12, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm not following you on this one, brother.



The point I was poorly trying to make is that the Russians repeatedly and extensively manipulate their press with a pro-Russia and anti-US theme.  After reading the article in the NYT, the tone of the article is exactly the same as in the Russian government controlled news sites.  There has been a long history of OPED pieces where Russian scholars scold American politics but this has gone mainstream and bears the name of their President, which in my mind, was used to suggest legitimacy.

The US had taken the lead everywhere we could black Russia's eye (Georgia, ABMs in Europe, NK, etc) and now the tide is changing (or so it seems in the press).  Western press has reported snippets but now the Russians are emboldened enough to thumb their noses at us on our turf.

Bottom line, I don't think the article was good but rather a piece of Russian propaganda whose sole purpose was agitate Americans.

Articles like these are the norm in Russia:

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/12-09-2013/125647-syria_truth-0/
http://www.sptimes.ru/index_bp.php?action_id=146&section=3&i_number=


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 12, 2013)

lindy said:


> The point I was poorly trying to make is that the Russians repeatedly and extensively manipulate their press with a pro-Russia and anti-US theme.  After reading the article in the NYT, the tone of the article is exactly the same as in the Russian government controlled news sites.  There has been a long history of OPED pieces where Russian scholars scold American politics but this has gone mainstream and bears the name of their President, which in my mind, was used to suggest legitimacy.
> 
> The US had taken the lead everywhere we could black Russia's eye (Georgia, ABMs in Europe, NK, etc) and now the tide is changing (or so it seems in the press).  Western press has reported snippets but now the Russians are emboldened enough to thumb their noses at us on our turf.
> 
> ...




OK-- now THAT was a good post.  Good read, thanks.


----------



## talonlm (Sep 12, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> That was an excellent article by Putin with a few very good points. That doesn't mean I trust him, actions matter, but he's saying the right things.
> <<SNIPPAGE>>
> I still believe that Putin smells blood and that it is American blood is a bonus. Putin ignores his or his country's role in Georgia, Afghanistan, and international arms trafficking and manages to make us look bad in the process. Winner, winner, potato soup dinner for the Russian.
> 
> Our children and grandchildren are going to pay for our foreign policy over the last decade.


 
The best lie is one filled with truth, right?  Propaganda is a game the US has never been good at.  We make it easy to find fault with the line we're feeding other nations because we have an open society with a free press;  partial-truths used to create propaganda are easily revealed and exploited.  As for our children paying for our foreign policy, whose burden do you think we are carrying now?  We can and should do a better job, but we're not going to get everything perfect, no more than our parents or any generation in the past did.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 13, 2013)

Apparently CIA supplied weapons are making their way to the Syrian Rebels.  YAY!
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57602575/report-cia-delivering-arms-to-syria-rebels/



> The CIA has been delivering light machine guns and other small arms to Syrian rebels for several weeks, following President Barack Obama's decision to arm the rebels.
> 
> The agency has also arranged for the Syrian opposition to receive anti-tank weaponry like rocket-propelled grenades through a third party, presumably one of the Gulf countries that has been arming the rebels, a senior U.S. intelligence official and two former intelligence officials said Thursday. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the classified program publicly.



Im sure they will be putting them to good use 'cause the rebels are the good guys!

http://lightbox.time.com/2013/09/12...-scene-of-utter-cruelty/?iid=lb-gal-viewagn#1



> TIME obtained the images exclusively from a photographer who was recently in Syria. This decapitation was the last of four executions he documented that day. TIME has agreed not to publish the photographer’s name,  to protect him from repercussions when he returns to Syria. What follows is an edited account of his experience:


----------



## JHD (Sep 13, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Im sure they will be putting them to good use 'cause the rebels are the good guys!



Yeah, nothing the CIA has ever backed has gone awry...cough...Afghan rebels...cough.:wall:


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 14, 2013)

Well *THAT *was easy. It took only 3 days of talks apparently.   It remains to be seen if everyone follows through on this agreement, of course.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-talks.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&hp



> Under a “framework” agreement, international inspectors must be on the ground in Syria by November, Mr. Kerry said, speaking at a news conference with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey V. Lavrov.
> 
> An immediate test of the viability of the accord will come within a week when the Syrian government is to provide a “comprehensive listing” of its chemical stockpile.
> 
> “The real final responsibility here is Syrian,” a senior administration official said of the deal.





> If Mr. Assad fails to comply with the agreement, the issue will be referred to the United Nations Security Council.


Im sure the UN Security Council will immediately issue a sternly worded letter if that should happen.




> Security will be a major worry for the inspectors who are tasked with implementing the agreement; no precedent exists for inspection, removal and destruction of a large chemical weapons stockpile during a raging civil war. Mr. Lavrov said the agreement would require the cooperation of Syrian rebels and not just the government of President Bashar al-Assad. Much of the Syrian opposition is bitter about President Obama’s decision to shelve the threat of military action and to negotiate with Russia, which is a major arms supplier to the Assad government.
> 
> “This is very, very difficult, very, very difficult,” an American official said of the agreement. “But it is doable.”



While I am very glad that this discussion and agreement is taking place as opposed to military action I still can relate it all to Nate Beeler's work of yesterday:


----------



## Brill (Sep 14, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Putin's letter to the American people:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/o...from-russia-on-syria.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0



Interesting viewpoint:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ote-the-new-york-times-op-ed-himself/?hpid=z2


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 14, 2013)

Someone should ask Putin what UN resolution authorized combat ops in Georgia (2008?).


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 14, 2013)

SOWT said:


> Someone should ask Putin what UN resolution authorized combat ops in Georgia (2008?).



Probably the whole "invasion of de facto Russian territory" thing.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 15, 2013)

Putin STILL has us reacting to his first moves:

Sen. McCain's rebuttal to Putin's NYT op-ed may appear in Pravda:
http://news.msn.com/us/mccain-to-counter-putin-ny-times-op-ed-with-one-for-pravda


----------



## JHD (Sep 15, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Putin STILL has us reacting to his first moves:
> 
> Sen. McCain's rebuttal to Putin's NYT op-ed may appear in Pravda:
> http://news.msn.com/us/mccain-to-counter-putin-ny-times-op-ed-with-one-for-pravda



This is such a bad idea, I don't know where to begin.  Will try to be brief.  In summary:

1.  I don't think McCain's rebuttal will be truly reflective of how the US PEOPLE feel about this situation.
2.  Russia's leader provides an open letter (even if he didn't draft, it, he blessed it), and the US counters, not with a response from our President, but a senior Senator.  That tells the rest of the world what they need to know right there.
3.  Our leadership's best option, JMOO, is to just STFU and move forward with Russia's proposal.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 15, 2013)

I found this interesting.  This is the cover of Time Magazine September 16, 2013 that the United States will see:



This is the cover of Time Magazine September 16, 2013 the rest of the world will see:


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 15, 2013)

Secretary Kerry makes an offhanded remark about Syria turning over its chem weapons... Putin calls him on it.

Senator McCain makes an offhanded comment about writing an op-ed in Pravda... Pravda calls him on it.

Combined with President Obama calling chem weapons a "red line" and then Syria calling him on that, America is looking pretty silly right now.


----------



## JHD (Sep 15, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> I found this interesting.  This is the cover of Time Magazine September 16, 2013 that the United States will see:
> View attachment 9236
> 
> 
> ...



Scary.  1st amendment issue???



Marauder06 said:


> Secretary Kerry makes an offhanded remark about Syria turning over its chem weapons... Putin calls him on it.
> 
> Senator McCain makes an offhanded comment about writing an op-ed in Pravda... Pravda calls him on it.
> 
> Combined with President Obama calling chem weapons a "red line" and then Syria calling him on that, America is looking pretty silly right now.



Absolutely...Sad, but true.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 15, 2013)

JHD said:


> Scary.  1st amendment issue???



What are you talking about?


----------



## JHD (Sep 15, 2013)

Just the difference in the covers, and why Time might have elected to have different covers, or were they encouraged to do so due to political pressure?  It is probably not as sinister as it seems to me, but my level of trust in the political machine has continued to deteriorate.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 15, 2013)

JHD said:


> Just the difference in the covers, and why Time might have elected to have different covers, or were they encouraged to do so due to political pressure?  It is probably not as sinister as it seems to me, but my level of trust in the political machine has continued to deteriorate.



Or they showed their bias, I doubt it was sinister, they want to sell magazines, and Americans don't like Russians.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 15, 2013)

JHD said:


> Just the difference in the covers, and why Time might have elected to have different covers, or were they encouraged to do so due to political pressure?  It is probably not as sinister as it seems to me, but my level of trust in the political machine has continued to deteriorate.



I think it was more reflective of what people think is important.  IMO, Americans are far more concerned with what's going on with their sports teams than they are with world politics.  So athletics is going to sell more copies of Time in the US than will a picture of Putin... a man many Americans may not even be able to identify.  I don't see anything sinister at play, although I do think it's a sad reflection of what Americans might tend to value.


----------



## JHD (Sep 15, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> Or they showed their bias, I doubt it was sinister, they want to sell magazines, and Americans don't like Russians.



That could be as well, but Time hasn't hesitated to be controversial in the past concerning Person of the Year, etc.  and, yes, America loves its college football, but as a supposedly "hard hitting" publication, I question there cover choice.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 15, 2013)

JHD said:


> That could be as well, but Time hasn't hesitated to be controversial in the past concerning Person of the Year, etc.  and, yes, America loves its college football, but as a supposedly "hard hitting" publication, I question there cover choice.



Don't get me wrong I question it as well. Just out of taste not because of a 1st amendment violation.


----------



## JHD (Sep 15, 2013)

Agreed, and I only raised the 1st amendment issue IF Time was encouraged/persuaded to have a different cover due to the current brouhaha.  Again, IF Time did bow to pressure, that smacks of overreach of influence to me.


----------



## AWP (Sep 15, 2013)

College football's kicked off and print magazine sales have declined. A story about paying college athletes is low-hanging fruit AND serves to  hide any bias which may (quite probably IMO) exist on Time's staff.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 15, 2013)

Speaking of Time's "Person of the Year".  Show of hands.  Who thinks it will be Putin?  <raises hand>


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 15, 2013)

<Raised Hand>


----------



## JHD (Sep 15, 2013)

Raised hand.  Exactly what I was thinking to when we were discussing it.


----------



## Rapid (Sep 15, 2013)

In response to the 'what now' question in this thread title, it seems Obama is thinking, "IRAN!"



> US President Barack Obama says Iran should draw "a lesson" from the deal reached over Syria's chemical weapons. Iran's nuclear programme is a "far larger issue" for the US than chemical weapons, Mr Obama told the ABC network. Mr Obama said despite the fact that the US had not used force against Syria, a "credible threat of force" could lead to a deal.



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24102723

I'm sure they're quivering after this latest show of political force.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 15, 2013)

Thoughts on the accuracy of this report? 
http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Report-Syria-transported-chemical-weapons-to-Iraq-326141



> Syria has moved 20 trucks worth of equipment and material used for the manufacturing of chemical weapons into neighboring Iraq, the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal reported on Sunday.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 15, 2013)

Chopstick said:


> Thoughts on the accuracy of this report?
> http://www.jpost.com/Syria-Crisis/Report-Syria-transported-chemical-weapons-to-Iraq-326141



BACK TO IRAQ!!!!! 

Did they learn nothing in 2003


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 15, 2013)

cback0220 said:


> BACK TO IRAQ!!!!!
> 
> Did they learn nothing in 2003


Maybe they figure that is the last place anyone would look?


----------



## AWP (Sep 15, 2013)

If that report's true, and would anyone be surprised if it were, WMD in the ME is like the Saw or Friday the 13th series. I half expect to see Abdullah Clampett and Co. loading down their Model T camel and hitting the road.


----------



## pardus (Sep 15, 2013)

Rapid said:


> In response to the 'what now' question in this thread title, it seems Obama is thinking, "IRAN!"
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24102723
> 
> I'm sure they're quivering after this latest show of political force.



What Iran can draw from this lesson is that the USA is full of hollow rhetoric, it's politicians are blundering idiots and this is probably the best time of all to get assertive to the point of conflict. 

I can just see the facebook messages being exchanged between Iran, Russia, Syria right now, more LOLs than porn bloopers could ever hope to get.

When will Obama learn to shut his fucking pie hole? The man has no shame, he really has some balls to talk big about his (our :wall:) achievements over the Syria debacle.
McCain needs to STFU up too. Time to retire.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 16, 2013)

Marauder06 said:


> Secretary Kerry makes an offhanded remark about Syria turning over its chem weapons... Putin calls him on it.
> 
> Senator McCain makes an offhanded comment about writing an op-ed in Pravda... Pravda calls him on it.
> 
> Combined with President Obama calling chem weapons a "red line" and then Syria calling him on that, America is looking pretty silly right now.


McCain should remind people that Putin attacked georgia without a UN declaration, and it's hypocritical to demand what he didn't seek.  Then see if Pravda prints it.

But he won't, he's a Chicken Hawk.


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 17, 2013)

Elizabeth O'bagy now admits she lied about her Ph.D.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/17/pro-opposition-syria-analyst-admits-faking-phd-story/



> O'Bagy reportedly countered that she had defended her dissertation, and was simply waiting for the university to confer the degree.
> But in a statement to The Daily Beast, O'Bagy reportedly admitted she was never enrolled in that program. She apparently applied to a joint master's/Ph.D. program, but was not accepted. She was only in the master's program.
> "I would like to deeply apologize to every person with whom I have worked, who has read and depended upon my research, and to the general public," O'Bagy said in a statement. "While I have made many mistakes and showed extremely poor judgment, I most particularly regret my public misrepresentation of my educational status and not immediately disclosing that I had not been awarded a doctorate in May 2013."


 
ETA a little more on "Dr". O'bagy
http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/17/the-rise-and-fall-of-elizabeth-obagy/



> Born into one of the few non-Mormon families in Holiday, Utah, a suburb of Salt Lake City, O’Bagy’s interest in Islam was cemented when her classmates ostracized the one Arab boy in her high school after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. O’Bagy graduated from Georgetown with a bachelors degree in Arabic and went to live in Cairo for two years before returning to Washington to seek her masters and PhD from her alma mater in Arabic Studies. At the end of 2011 she began an internship with the Institute. She was hired a year later as a Syria analyst, making half a dozen trips into rebel-held parts of Syria. By May, weeks after completing her masters degree, she was acting as McCain’s Sherpa for his surprise trip into Syria to meet with rebel groups.


----------



## Marauder06 (Sep 21, 2013)

It's cool- college football *bought us some time*.



> INDIANAPOLIS, IN – Pentagon and NCAA sources have confirmed that military action against Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in Syria will be delayed until after the completion of the 2014 college football season.





> While military leaders publicly admit the possibility that another war could hurt an understaffed military amidst budget cuts, private emails show their true motivations: “I don’t want to watch football in another shitty KBR dining hall at 3am in Bumfuck, Middle East,” one read.





> “I already missed LSU’s national championship game because I was in Afghanistan in 2008,” said one disgruntled Marine, “if I miss them this year then I might have a blue on blue.” Others recommended starting the war during baseball or basketball season, since only three people care about those sports, and one of them is Kim Jong-un.


----------



## Etype (Sep 21, 2013)

SOWT said:


> McCain should remind people that Putin attacked georgia without a UN declaration, and it's hypocritical to demand what he didn't seek.  Then see if Pravda prints it.
> 
> But he won't, he's a Chicken Hawk.


McCain has all the makings of a great politician, he just never learned how to be conservative.


----------



## Crusader74 (Sep 22, 2013)

Very interesting report by Robert Fisk on the gas attack..

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/gas-missiles-were-not-sold-to-syria-8831792.html
While the Assad regime in Damascus has denied responsibility for the sarin gas missiles that killed around 1,400 Syrians in the suburb of Ghouta on 21 August, information is now circulating in the city that Russia's new "evidence" about the attack includes the dates of export of the specific rockets used and – more importantly – the countries to which they were originally sold. They were apparently manufactured in the Soviet Union in 1967 and sold by Moscow to three Arab countries, Yemen, Egypt and Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's Libya. These details cannot be verified in documents, and Vladimir Putin has not revealed the reasons why he told Barack Obama that he knows Assad's army did not fire the sarin missiles; but if the information is correct – and it is believed to have come from Moscow – Russia did not sell this particular batch of chemical munitions to Syria.

Since Gaddafi's fall in 2011, vast quantities of his abandoned Soviet-made arms have fallen into the hands of rebel groups and al-Qa'ida-affiliated insurgents. Many were later found in Mali, some in Algeria and a vast amount in Sinai. The Syrians have long claimed that a substantial amount of Soviet-made weaponry has made its way from Libya into the hands of rebels in the country's civil war with the help of Qatar – which supported the Libyan rebels against Gaddafi and now pays for arms shipments to Syrian insurgents.

There is no doubt that Syria has a substantial chemical weapons armoury. Nor that Syrian stockpiles contain large amounts of sarin gas 122mm missiles. But if the Russians have indeed been able to identify the specific missile markings on fragments found in Ghouta – and if these are from munitions never exported to Syria – the Assad regime will boast its innocence has been proven.

In a country – indeed a world – where propaganda is more influential than truth, discovering the origin of the chemicals that suffocated so many Syrians a month ago is an investigation fraught with journalistic perils. Reporters sending dispatches from rebel-held parts of Syria are accused by the Assad regime of consorting with terrorists. Journalists reporting from the government side of Syria's front lines are regularly accused of mouthing the regime's propaganda. And even if the Assad regime was not responsible for the 21 August attacks, its forces have committed war crimes aplenty over the past two years. Torture, massacre, the bombardment of civilian targets have long been proved.

Nevertheless, it also has to be said that grave doubts are being expressed by the UN and other international organisations in Damascus that the sarin gas missiles were fired by Assad's army. While these international employees cannot be identified, some of them were in Damascus on 21 August and asked a series of questions to which no one has yet supplied an answer. Why, for example, would Syria wait until the UN inspectors were ensconced in Damascus on 18 August before using sarin gas little more than two days later – and only four miles from the hotel in which the UN had just checked in? Having thus presented the UN with evidence of the use of sarin – which the inspectors quickly acquired at the scene – the Assad regime, if guilty, would surely have realised that a military attack would be staged by Western nations.

As it is, Syria is now due to lose its entire strategic long-term chemical defences against a nuclear-armed Israel – because, if Western leaders are to be believed, it wanted to fire just seven missiles almost a half century old at a rebel suburb in which only 300 of the 1,400 victims (if the rebels themselves are to be believed) were fighters. As one Western NGO put it yesterday: "if Assad really wanted to use sarin gas, why for God's sake, did he wait for two years and then when the UN was actually on the ground to investigate?"

The Russians, of course, have made similar denials of Assad's responsibility for sarin attacks before. When at least 26 Syrians died of sarin poisoning in Khan al-Assal on 19 March – one of the reasons why the UN inspectors were dispatched to Syria last month – Moscow again accused the rebels of responsibility. The Russians later presented the UN with a 100-page report containing its "evidence". Like Putin's evidence about the 21 August attacks, however, it has not been revealed.

A witness who was with Syrian troops of the army's 4th Division on 21 August – a former Special Forces officer considered a reliable source – said he saw no evidence of gas shells being fired, even though he was in one of the suburbs, Moadamiya, which was a target for sarin. He does recall the soldiers expressing concern when they saw the first YouTube images of suffocating civilians – not out of sympathy, but because they feared they would have to fight amid clouds of poison.

"It would perhaps be going beyond conspiracy theories to say the government was not involved," one Syrian journalist said last week, "but we are sure the rebels have got sarin. They would need foreigners to teach them how to fire it. Or is there a 'third force' which we don't know about? If the West needed an excuse to attack Syria, they got it right on time, in the right place, and in front of the UN inspectors."


----------



## Chopstick (Sep 27, 2013)

I dont have the words......



> Sen. John McCain has hired Elizabeth O'Bagy, the Syria analyst in Washington who was fired for padding her credentials, _The Cable_ has learned. She begins work Monday as a legislative assistant in McCain's office





> "Elizabeth is a talented researcher, and I have been very impressed by her knowledge and analysis in multiple briefings over the last year," McCain told _The Cable_ in a statement. "I look forward to her joining my office." McCain's office said there would be no further comment on the matter.





http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/p...s_controversial_syria_analyst_elizabeth_obagy


----------



## pardus (Sep 27, 2013)

More proof of what an idiot McCain is.


----------



## AWP (Sep 27, 2013)

If you lie about your credentials McCain's office will hire you?

Dear Senator McCain,
I too was a prisoner of the North Vietnamese...


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 27, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> If you lie about your credentials McCain's office will hire you?
> 
> Dear Senator McCain,
> I too was a prisoner of the North Vietnamese...



Snap....


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 8, 2013)

"What now?"  Maybe instead of intervening militarily in Syria, we should "Give War a Chance."

http://www.shadowspear.com/shadowspear-news/106380-in-syria-give-war-a-chance.html



> Writing long before the GWOT, OCO, or whatever it is we’re calling our existential struggle against violent Islamic extremism these days, an intriguing article by Edward Luttwak appeared in the highly-regarded journal Foreign Affairs.  Published in 1999, Luttwak’s article was called “Give War a Chance,” a title that reflected a complete rejection of the “give peace a chance” mantra of a previous generation.  “Give War a Chance” was controversial and thought-provoking because it exposed the fundamental paradox of military intervention:  that by intervening, the peacekeepers often unintentionally make the situation worse.


----------



## AWP (Oct 8, 2013)

I love how 2-3 weeks ago we HAD, ZOM-to-the-mutha'farking-G, HAD to intervene in Syria.

Now it is buried on almost every news site.

'Murica.


----------



## JBS (Oct 8, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I love how 2-3 weeks ago we HAD, ZOM-to-the-mutha'farking-G, HAD to intervene in Syria.
> 
> Now it is buried on almost every news site.
> 
> 'Murica.


The .gov shutdown conveniently emerged as the big story.


----------



## Marauder06 (Oct 8, 2013)

Freefalling said:


> I love how 2-3 weeks ago we HAD, ZOM-to-the-mutha'farking-G, HAD to intervene in Syria.
> 
> Now it is buried on almost every news site.
> 
> 'Murica.



Yep.  Now we're all besties up in here.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/07/us-russia-set-for-first-talks-since-syria-deal/



> U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry praised Syrian President Bashar al-Assad Monday, saying that news that international disarmament experts had begun dismantling and destroying Syria's chemical weapons arsenal and the equipment used to produce it represented "a good beginning," and Assad deserved credit for honoring the terms of a deal reached last month to secure and destroy the regime's weapons.


----------



## pardus (Oct 8, 2013)

Kumbaya mofos, kumbaya.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 8, 2013)

As shitty as it is to have Russia, of all people, be the peace negotiators, I think it's really the best outcome we could've hoped for.  We don't have to shoot/bomb anyone, we don't get embroiled in any more ME conflicts, and Assad (ostensibly) gives up his chemical weapons.  Besides the loss of face, it's a win all around.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 8, 2013)

As if we had much face left to lose...


----------

