Syria Gas Attack- What Now?

[Centermass]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

This Syria thing is a huge distraction from big issues that really do affect vital US national interests.

 

[AWP]

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]

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]

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]

"He can use his rhetorical power to shame and pressure Russia and China"

To quote my wife

Bwahahahaha snort, hahahahaha.

 

[pardus]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

@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]

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.