If Assad uses Sarin gas, what should the response be??

[center rising]

More intense sanctions, arm the rebels even more, or take Assad out??. If you kill him, then who does it, how is it done??

[NightWatcher]

1. I predict a Libya redo. Multinational aircraft bombing till the guerilla rebels can take over

[backscatter712]

3. I would shed no tears if Assad shared Gaddafi's fate...

Sic semper tyrannis.

[Cooley Hurd]

9. I can't see how any nation can stand and watch if he uses chem weapons...

At that point, it would have to be stopped. The Libya solution would be the most practical.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

13. It has happened before

[Cooley Hurd]

16. yes... the Kurds...

[geek tragedy]

31. His friends are not as powerful as Saddam's were. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

81. Look how long it took things in Libya and how hard it was to get things going

and Qaddafi had damn few friends at all.

[gateley]

101. And he doesn't have the oil Saddam had.

[whatchamacallit]

74. Seems DUers have forgotten where those chemical weapons came from

Some of the people responsible are still alive and well in the good old USA.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

78. What do you think is in the Syrian inventory

that is going to be used? Sarin is old tech and they were and are a Russian client.

[KWorth]

82. Only if they're Russian ex-pats living in the good old USA.

They've been Soviet/Russian allies for a long time, They're military armaments are almost exclusively Soviet/Russian.

[Pterodactyl]

183. Excellent point!

[hack89]

127. More like Russia, Iran, and North Korea

the US has never sold arms to Syria - they were a Soviet client state during the cold war.

[whatchamacallit]

136. My reply was to a post about the Kurds.

I posted in the wrong spot. The point is the US has no moral authority here.

[hack89]

138. Perhaps we can reclaim some of that moral authority

by stopping a massacre. Or are you saying that America can never be a force for good again?

[whatchamacallit]

145. I'd like to think so

Last edited Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:26 PM - Edit history (1)

but we've seen this fear used as a pretext to illegally attack a sovereign nation before.

[friendly_iconoclast]

179. Sarin was invented in Germany in 1938, and can be made fairly easily.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsumoto_incident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway

[Dokkie]

91. You do know why countries get those weapons right?

To ward off armed invasion. So if the armed invaders continue to press on then they shouldn't blame anyone for getting sprayed. Step the hell back if you don't want to be sprayed. It is that simple folks.

[KWorth]

94. True, but for the most part, the armed invaders are the Syrian people.

If Assad uses those WMD's against his own people, then all bets are off and he would become an international criminal of the highest order.

[Dokkie]

99. Rubbish

There is no doubt civilians will die if he used his WMD. The rebels just bombed a civilian school and they are targeting more and more civilians everyday. Maybe just a few more civilians (and am I not taking this lighting) will have to die if that is what it takes to stop this bloodshed.

In the meantime, why is Russia and China not doing more to assist their ally? The Syrian people cant hold off the terrorists any longer, they needs serious help now.

[Lochloosa]

2. Shock and Awe. I know this will not be popular but so what.

It can't stand. It can't be tolerated. Period.

Target every viable site we know of and take it out.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

14. There is a real problem with that...

If you destroy national infrastructure to topple a government, you have to rebuild it when the new government is ready. How much more of that can we afford?

[Lochloosa]

22. I said it would not be popular, but which can we afford the least?

Money or allowing a nation to use chemical weapons? In my mind there is no choice.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

48. It is a nasty calculus

with many facets...

[AZ Mike]

63. Count me in....

You have the right mindset, to my eyes.

If Assad crosses that line, light him up like a Christmas tree. After all, 'tis the season.

I'm liberal, but I'm not necessarily anti-war. I supported Afghanistan, though I grapple with the idea that I have been wrong (however, would Gore have let OBL slip through Tora Bora had 9/11 even happened on his watch?).

I NEVER - not for a fraction of a fraction of a second - supported Iraq.

However, I supported our so-called "leading from behind actions in Libya.

But, I would be willing to go even further with Syria. The citizens of Syria have been fighting and dying for a long time. Whereas revolutions must be organic and internal, if Assad crosses that line, all bets are off, imo....

[eridani]

120. Wonderful. It's really a lucky thing that Assad is the only person who lives in Syria

So it really won't matter to anyone if they get fried in a bombing raid to save them from being gassed.

[Volaris]

83. I think your question is valid, but there is a way to split the cost among civilized nations...

TED link on the most effective use of American Military Power in the new century...provided it's structured correctly...

http://www.ted.com/talks/thomas_barnett_draws_a_new_map_for_peace.html

I agree. Light him up.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

90. The precedent is Lybia and this is messier

How well did the international community do there?

Not against intervention, but this is stickier and high risk and not clear how many willing participants there will be.




The concepts Barnett espouses are neither original nor new. Variations of them have been around for quite some time. I remember hearing them 20 years ago.

[Comrade Grumpy]

149. What happens when you bomb chemical weapons facilities?

Seems like it could get messy.

[msanthrope]

4. The response should disable his ability to order such a thing ever again. nt

[Arcanetrance]

5. Use of chemical weapons on a civilian population can not and should not be tolerated

I think if he goes through with it he needs to be taken dead or alive if alive tried for crimes against humanity and if dead well than oh well one less evil bastard in the world.

[leveymg]

71. The targets won't be inside Syria. Most will be military bases and strategic installations in

Last edited Thu Dec 6, 2012, 02:56 AM - Edit history (1)

surrounding countries.

[PD Turk]

6. SEAL Team 6

Take him out

[bluestate10]

49. More than Seal teams will be needed. But I agree that Assad should be taken out and

if he manages to escape, hunted down. No one can be allowed to use chemical weapons against their people and allowed to remain free and/or alive.

[Comrade Grumpy]

151. Uh, he hasn't used chemical weapons against anyone.

[Mr.Turnip]

7. Im no big fan of intervention but in that case we have to take him out.

IF there is no action then the Chem weapons convention is meaningless and that could just open the floodgates for more murderous dictators to make similar actions in order to crush their populace.

[jberryhill]

8. If he does, two things

The capability to do so must be eliminated.

Additionally, as a pre-emotive measure, it needs to be clearly communicated that all individuals involved in the action will be held personally accountable.

[Ikonoklast]

10. Massive international military response.

Destroy his ability to use WMD's against anyone, ever again.

Then turn Assad into an ex-alive person, and let the Syrian people have their country back from the criminal family that's been running it like their own personal fiefdom.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. And then massive international aid to rebuild what was destroyed?

Syria is not that good a shape infrastructure wise as it is.

[Ikonoklast]

27. Targeting is everything.

1. Decapitate C&C, radio, telecommunications, and and any ground-to-air capability at the same time.

2. Shoot down anything that flies, and destroy the rest on the tarmac.


I don't think it would even get further than this.

Not much damage done compared to what Assad has already done to his own country.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

50. Impossible to make it that clean

There would be collateral damage including casualties

Where would the attacks be based out of, what airspace would they fly through? (Geography matters here)

[Ikonoklast]

65. You're kidding me, right? Please tell me that you are kidding.

Did the Seventh Fleet suddenly sink?






Here's a hint: the part colored blue to the left is the Mediterranean Sea, which is International Waters.


I'm going to go out on a limb here and hazard a guess that you are not a professor of geography.



And people are dying already, what would happen is that would then stop, instead of continuing or escalating.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

73. Tell me you are kidding me about an all American attack force

Of course the 7th fleet could blow them back into the middle ages...we could probably do that with B2s from the mid west if we chose to.

I had assumed a multinational force of some sort...and should have been more clear.

On edit:

The international dance, who should lead, what should be targeted, who should push what button will be worse, given the "lessons learned" from Libya.

Most of the targets are in the Damascus area. Does the hopefully international forces overfly Lebanon...we cannot reasonably expect us to approve given their relationship Hezbollah.

Turkey going to buy in? If not, airspace will get really thin

What other nations will support. More importantly, what about Arab nations, islamic nations, GCC and AL?


The reality is that the US could do it, but I cannot see us doing it solo. Not clear after Libya who will pony up. Who will fund the required rebuilding. Last I checked Qaddafi has been gone for a while and little seems to be happening in Libya.

[Ikonoklast]

86. British aircraft carriers, French aircraft carriers, German air support, amphibious landing craft

from various NATO member nations with that capability, logistical support from Italian ports, air sorties flown from Turkish and Italian air bases...


Turkey is a NATO member, they can throw rocks across a border and hit Syrian soil.

Hell, the Turks can walk an army to Damascus if they cared to.


Israel might be asked to lend logistical and intelligence support, but will be asked to refrain from any combat role for the obvious reasons.



If you want me to prepare an Order Of Battle it might take me a few days to see all who might be on board, but you get the picture.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

89. I updated my prior post while you posted...

Procedural foul on my part, I will repeatand expand them here...

The international dance, who should lead, what should be targeted, who should push what button will be worse, given the "lessons learned" from Libya.

Most of the targets are in the Damascus area. Does the hopefully international forces overfly Lebanon...we cannot reasonably expect us to approve given their relationship Hezbollah. What if ground forces are needed.

Turkey going to buy in? If not, airspace will get really thin

What other nations will support. More importantly, what about Arab nations, islamic nations, GCC and AL? This cannot be an all European show let alone an American only op.

Russia has already made its opinion clear.

Will Iran sit still?

Security Council going to pass anything?

The reality is that the US could do it, but I cannot see us doing it solo. Not clear after Libya who will be willing to do much of anything. Who will fund the required rebuilding? Last I checked Qaddafi has been gone for a while and little seems to be happening in Libya relative to what is needed

It is not an OB issue, its the geopolitical issues, which are much messier than Libya.

[Volaris]

97. What would you say to framing this in such as way as to make it an extension of the Arab Spring,

to see if you could get the popular Will of a lot of the rest of the MidEast on board in terms of international (and regional) support? You think the People of Egypt/Lybia would go for it?

[Ikonoklast]

102. Putting aside the current obvious problems in those two countries

as their revolutions haven't actually run their full course yet, I would think that asking them for their help on behalf of the Syrian people in their struggle to overthrow Assad, even if only a symbolic gesture is offered by their respective governments, is the correct course of action.

It would be a good diplomatic move on the part of those countries that want Libya and Egypt to be succesful states to include them in whatever way they can, and let them determine on their own exactly what level of involvement they want in helping the Syrian people.

Even if it's just speeches at the UN in support of letting the Syrian people decide what form of government they want, let the people that actually live in the region have their chance to help.

I would hope that they would go for it, people like to be asked for help; and no matter how modest the form of that help may take, people are also glad to have it offered to them.

It makes for good neighbors.

[2naSalit]

114. And who is going to

calm down Russia and China who oppose our intervention? Those are pretty big bee hives to go whacking, which is one of the big reasons that all we have been able to do is supply medical and communications assistance so far. Turkey is an ally and they're pretty pissed of at Assad for killing their citizens and the refugees inside Turkey... spill-over warfare.

If he chooses to attempt such an attack, I hope that those still taking orders from him turn on him and make sure that the only victims are Assad and his horrid wife. The spokesperson who assured the world chems wouldn't be used in this fight defected two days ago, so that is very telling. One can hope that Assad's few remaining loyals will stop being loyal before the release takes place. They have a lot of this stuff, ricin, mustard gas and another substance. Not a good scene, pretty dicey given the supporters of Assad. And for those who don't realize, much of the nerve gas came from the good ole US of A from back when Syria was our buddy, just like Saddam in Iran.

It will be interesting to see how this all ans out... Assad's desperate, maybe the rebels can get him before he gets them.

[Volaris]

93. Yes, because if there was ONE good thing that came from the invasion of Iraq...

it HAS to be "How to NOT fuck it up next time."

[leveymg]

110. There won't be much of a country left after a massive int'l military response.

This has already become a most unhumanitarian war, and will become genocidal if this escalates another notch.

[Ikonoklast]

112. The need for containment will outweigh all the other more desirable outcomes if Assad decides to

launch.

The regional players will demand that it happen, and if the major powers balk, will then take matters into their own hands.

With the inevitable less-than-desirable outcome as a result.


Things are already bad in Syria, and it seems that very soon they will become much, much worse, no matter what.

Maybe a general with a clue can cut himself a deal first, and help save his country from a despot with a death wish.

[leveymg]

113. It's not just about one family or one general. It's a religious war. All the generals are Alawite,

and all the armed opposition is Sunni. The extra factor of outside intervention has turned Syria into a genocidal cauldron.

The generals have been left no good choice but to fight to the end because they know what the Sunnis will do if the Syrian Army collapses. I think at the End Game they will simply launch their missiles and try to reap revenge against neighboring countries who have supported the uprising.

Damascus is signalling that we are approaching End Game.

[Ikonoklast]

116. Someone in gold braid is going to crack. Someone is going to get shorted his share of the money,

or can't get his family to a safe place, and will be looking to cut a deal.

Only a fool or a fanatic sacrifices his own life in a lost cause, most will look to save themselves.

I am fairly certain that feelers are being put out on both sides to see what type of deal can be arranged.



If not, and they decide to fight it out to the inevitable disastrous finish, Damascus will soon find out what the largest yield thermonuclear device is in Israel's arsenal if they decide to go Jonestown.

That I believe.

[leveymg]

122. That ending to this would be very Old Testament, wouldn't it?

Not a lot has changed.

[AngryOldDem]

123. +1

That is the only option if he brings chemical warfare into this.

IMO, the intervention should have happened a long time ago. There is more justification here than there ever was for going into Iraq and Iran.

[theKed]

125. Slightly more than zero

Is a piss-poor reason to stick American noses where they don't belong. What public good, for the American people, does being involved in this foreign war produce. Protecting tourist travel to Damascus? Keeping Isreal happy? Why the fuck do we care so much about pleasing Israel?

People might die. Yes. That's what happens in an armed insurrection. Is that a cold response? Sure. But if it wasn't gas, it'd be big fucking bombs blowing up civilians.

[Dash87]

11. No response.

Time to stop being the world police.

[Zorra]

12. Blame the rebels!

[Arctic Dave]

17. What if he uses it on al Qaida operatives only?

That is not his people but outside extremist. Is that ok?

[former-republican]

19. no

[Arctic Dave]

21. Why?

[Lochloosa]

25. It's not realistic for one. Sarin gas does not go "oops"...can't kill that one...it's a civilian.

[Arctic Dave]

34. Neither does a Hellfire or Tomahawk missile.

The US uses them quite often.

[former-republican]

29. international law

[Arctic Dave]

35. Lots of "international laws" the US ignores.

Are we special?

[geek tragedy]

30. Oh for fuck's sake, you cannot be serious.

Using chemical weapons is a crime against humanity, regardless of the purported target.

Fucking Assadpologists have the moral consciences of orcs.

[Arctic Dave]

33. High explosives is a chemical.

Obama uses them quite often on civilians and al quida.

[Ikonoklast]

41. High explosives are not considered WMD's, and you are being deliberately obtuse.

Do you even know what Sarin gas is?

Do you know what a persistent nerve agent is, and how it kills indiscriminately, cannot be targeted in any meaningful way, and is a perfect weapon for terrorists to get their hands on?

[Arctic Dave]

54. Obtuse? Hardly.

I am aware of what Sarin gas is and how it kills.

If you are afraid of terrorist getting it why would you be for the terrorist most likely to use when Assad is overthrown.

Think Libyan weapons.

[Kolesar]

44. You sound bored

Looking to take the conversation "just anywhere" for a laugh.

[Arctic Dave]

57. Just showing the lack of logic.

Sorry that doesn't light your fire.

[geek tragedy]

105. Dishonest word games is all you Assadpologists have, I guess. nt

[Comrade Grumpy]

152. Name calling? Really? Is this the playground or a discussion board?

[geek tragedy]

153. How would you recommend responding someone seeking to justify

a dictator using chemical weapons by dishonestly claiming that they are not any different from regular munitions?

[Arctic Dave]

175. So you got nothing. Again.

Look up the ingredients of RDX and get back to me.

[bluestate10]

46. The gas can't be targeted. It kills or seriously injures anyone that get exposed to it. nt

[Arctic Dave]

58. So does a high explosive.

The blast pressure wave doesn't bounce off innocent people

[geek tragedy]

108. Stop your dishonest trolling. Chemical weapons are banned under international law.

Even the freaking Nazis decided it was too nasty to use them in combat. But, they had a finer tuned moral sense than do Assad's cheerleaders around here.

[uponit7771]

165. what is dishonest about blast radius? ...don't care for Assad but that's no dishonest at all

[geek tragedy]

167. Dishonest is pretending there is no meaningful difference between

illegal chemical weapons/weapons of mass destruction and regular munitions.

[Arctic Dave]

176. LOL on the Godwin fail already

Does this mean the Nazis are morally superior to the US since we still have a small stockpile left?

[Comrade_McKenzie]

18. Turn Assad into a crater full of bone fragments. nt

[LuvLoogie]

23. ...and red mist.

First salvo; half a dozen bunker busters at the palace.

[Speck Tater]

20. Realistically: A harshly-worded memo from the U.N. nt

[bluestate10]

42. I doubt it. I see an immediate attack with punishing consequences. nt

[FarCenter]

24. Bomb the chemical weapons

Didn't we do that already in Iraq?

[Renew Deal]

28. If that is done, will the gasses be released?

[FarCenter]

32. Probably, but it renders the weapons unusable.

[bluestate10]

39. Special, high heat producing bombs have to be used. The gas can survive regular bombs. nt

[FarCenter]

59. But high heat bombs may not be completely effective if they miss; use nuclear bombs to be sure

[backscatter712]

70. Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure!

[Volaris]

100. Thank you for the Ripley refernece.

It's been a while since I heard one, that's most excellent of you.

And since were on the subject, if there is anymore of a "rat-fuck son of a Bitch" than Assad right now, I can't really think of one (except for maybe McConnell, but I think Harry has him handled for the moment lol).

[backscatter712]

72. Who would've thought: a humanitarian use for napalm! n/t

[backscatter712]

64. Aren't chemical weapons kept in two parts?

I suppose it depends on the specific chemical weapon, but there's a variety called binary weapons. In those, you have to mix part A with part B to get sarin or whatever nasty neurotoxin you want to shoot at enemy toddlers. Each ingredient by itself won't kill you, they only become deadly when mixed together.

I'm not sure how Assad's military does it, but my guess of truthiness says if you blow up the chem-weapon stockpiles, the result will be far less deadly than if the weapons were actually used. (except for the people unlucky enough to be in the chemical weapon bunkers when the bombs fall...)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

75. Depends on the substance and weapon

The reports are sketchy enough its not clear what is going on other than heightened readiness

[Fozzledick]

76. There have been reports that they've already begun mixing the chemicals together

for deployment in artillery shells or aircraft bombs.

Syria loads chemical weapons into bombs; military awaits Assad's order

The Syrian military is prepared to use chemical weapons against its own people and is awaiting final orders from President Bashar Assad, U.S. officials told NBC News on Wednesday.

The military has loaded the precursor chemicals for sarin, a deadly nerve gas, into aerial bombs that could be dropped onto the Syrian people from dozens of fighter-bombers, the officials said.

As recently as Tuesday, officials had said there was as yet no evidence that the process of mixing the "precursor" chemicals had begun. But Wednesday, they said their worst fears had been confirmed: The nerve agents were locked and loaded inside the bombs.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/05/15706380-syria-loads-chemical-weapons-into-bombs-military-awaits-assads-order?lite

[Fozzledick]

26. Our forces are already in place with plans to destroy the weapons.

If they're actually used the order will be given to execute those plans.

Britain, France, Turkey, Jordan and possibly Israel will join in, depending on the circumstances.

[former-republican]

40. If the weapons are deployed it will be too late by then

tens of thousands will die

[Fozzledick]

53. True, but the alternative is to go in before they're deployed.

And that's what we're trying to avoid.

At this point, the idea is to deter an attack by having the forces in place and ready to go.

Obama draws a line in the sand on Syria

America has stepped up its rhetoric on Syria precisely because it doesn't want to get involved in any intervention there, writes Adam Lockyer.

On Monday, US president Barack Obama gave the toughest indication yet that the United States will only tolerate a certain level of brutality in the Syrian civil war.

At the National Defense University, he said: "The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable." Switching to speak directly to Syrian president Bashir al-Assad, he continued: "If you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there will be consequences and you will be held accountable."

These comments echoed those of US secretary of state Hillary Clinton a day earlier: "I am not going to telegraph in any specifics what we would do in the event of credible evidence that the Assad regime has resorted to using chemical weapons against their own people. But suffice it to say, we are certainly planning to take action if that eventuality were to occur."

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4412172.html

[backscatter712]

80. Sounds like the plan could be commando attack by Seal Team 6...

Potentially high reward, but with a very high risk.

They could succeed in raiding the bases where Assad keeps his WMDs and destroy them there, or they could end up getting killed and captured and create a serious international clusterfuck...

[Fozzledick]

87. Oh, I think it would be much more than that.

Most likely coordinated jet fighter-bomber attacks on the weapons known to be deployed and possible ground assaults on the stockpiles.

[backscatter712]

88. Very likely. n/t

[bluestate10]

36. If Assad's forces use the gas against Turkey, that is a problem for Assad.

Turkey is a long standing member of NATO.

[99Forever]

37. How about we stay the fuck out of it...

.. for a change.

When we've solved the problems we are facing here, then we can worry about fixing other nations woes.

[former-republican]

43. we can't on this one

[99Forever]

47. Horsepucky.

Of course we can. There is ALWAYS the choice not to go to war, and anybody who tells you different is a fucking liar.

[former-republican]

52. I'm about as antiwar as you can get but if the U.S and the world can stop

50,000 men and women and children being killed in few minutes.
That's how fast it works , then we have to try.

This stuff is fucking bad and the pictures we would see on the MSM after it happens will make you cry.

[Hippo_Tron]

66. With our current military capabilities, it's a moral imperative to respond to this situation

If you don't want the United States to get involved in situations like this, you should advocate for the United States relinquishing its superpower capabilities. That would be the morally correct way to avoid foreign entanglements like this.

But you can't sit on top of the military arsenal we've built up and just say "sorry we didn't feel like doing anything", while Assad slaughters 50,000 people.

[99Forever]

143. Assume much?

I don't want the United States to get involved in situations like this, I do advocate for the United States to relinquish it's superpower capabilities.

I don't "sit on top of" any military arsenal, and yes I can say, it's not our place to interfere in the civil wars of other nations.

Moral enough for you now, bud?

[LanternWaste]

150. good people often do nothing in the face of tragedy

Of times, many good and kind people often do nothing in the face of tragedy to better assuage their own political dogma.

Edmund Burke wrote something to that effect, I think.

[qazplm]

163. not really no

moral isn't simply saying, we don't do anything bad, sometimes moral means we do a lesser evil to stop a greater one.

SOMEONE has to be able to step in in situations like this. And right now, we are one of the few with the power.

Not using it to stop an evil now simply because we've done our own evil in the past is pretty simplistic thinking.

[99Forever]

164. That's your opinion.

I don't agree. At all. With anything you said.

"Simplistic" as that.

[hack89]

128. So we sit and watch 10s of thousands of civilians die?

who else has the capability to protect them? Are you saying their deaths are the price to be paid to keep America from another war?

[99Forever]

129. I love the smell of selective outrage...

... in the morning.

You want to intervene? Fine, pack your stuff and go do it, on your own dime.

[hack89]

130. No - I trust my President to make the correct moral decision. nt

[99Forever]

134. Nice sidestep.

Use other people's lives and dollars to prop up your "morals."

Very brave of you.

[hack89]

137. You don't care about the Syrian civilians - I do.

I am not ashamed of that.

I did 20 years in the military and spent plenty of time in combat zones so can the "very brave of you." bullshit. It has nothing to do with bravery - I was scared more time than you can imagine. It is about a sense of duty. Nothing more.

[99Forever]

139. Make shit up much?

I "care about the Syrian civilians," so you can fucking "can" that. I just care more about the civilians in America than elsewhere in the world. We've got plenty of need right here that warmongers look right past while beating their war drums and spending obscene amounts of resources building their latest killing toys.

We have no "duty" to be the world's police. That is a lie, propagated to allow the MIC to continue to hijack our National treasure.

[hack89]

142. So we can't do both?

take care of Americans and Syrian innocents? OK

[99Forever]

144. Let me know when there is ...

.. substantial help to ALL struggling Americans happening, because it sure as fuck isn't now, not even close and we'll talk.

[qazplm]

168. so we only help others

if we've completely solved all of our internal issues?

If every nation followed that example...

[99Forever]

170. Not exactly.

But considering that we haven't done jack shit or even made a serious effort to help the struggling here at home yet, that isn't in any danger of happening anytime soon.

Want to try and twist my words some more?

[qazplm]

171. so what level of assistance would qualify

as serious effort here to help the struggling before we'd be allowed to also help folks from being killed elsewhere? Because your earlier posts suggests we shouldn't have a military much at all, certianly not one with even the capability of doing anything elsewhere, which would thus jibe pretty well with the idea that you think we shouldn't help protect others militarily.

I assume we should also stop all foreign economic aid as well correct until we have "made a serious effort to help the struggling here at home?"

And why don't you turn it fucking down a notch or two and talk to folks like you actually don't think them morally repugnant compared to you?

[99Forever]

172. Who are you?

The fucking word police? You got a scroll button or an ignore option on that contraption? Use it.

"Turn it down" my ass. I don't tell you how to write and I'm damn sure not going have you tell me. Is that clear?

Again with the putting words in my mouth nonsense too.

I do have an ignore option and I do know how to use it.

[qazplm]

174. clearly

you use it to ignore logic, basic respect for others, you clearly ignore a whole lot of things.

[FarCenter]

140. 10s of thousands are a small number compare with the Iran-Iraq Wars approximate million deaths

I find it hard to distinguish between civilians and youth conscripted, put in a uniform, and marched to the front to eliminate land mines by marching through them.

[hack89]

141. So because more were killed in the past

there is nothing to be done in the present?

[uponit7771]

166. BULL FUCKIN SHIT!! thx

[Ikonoklast]

51. Yeah, just let them get slaughtered by a madman while we sit idly by.

No use trying to stop him, it might cost the taxpayers a few pennies each.

And they are brown-skinned, too, not really worth it.

[99Forever]

60. There's lots of "brown-skinned" people dying ..

... right here everyday. Don't try to lay that fucking bullshit on me. Fucking warmongers can always figure out a "good reason" to go bomb and kill, even if they have to make it up. Got those really fucking cool toys they can hardly wait to use.

[Ikonoklast]

67. You picked it up and put it on yourself.

I stood by and watched you do it.


Good thing Assad can count on cowards to look the other way while he massacres his civilian population.

[99Forever]

126. Bullshit.

You play the race card and then don't even have the integrity to own it.

I could play the insult game with you, if you mattered enough. You don't.

[JVS]

98. Are you volunteering to go?

[Ikonoklast]

103. If they asked for my help, sure, why not?

If the Jewish citizens of Europe circa 1942 asked for your help, would you volunteer to go?

[JVS]

104. What makes you think the Syrian rebels don't want your help now?

Why do you wait?

[Ikonoklast]

109. What makes you think that I am not helping them in some way already?

What makes you think that no one on DU might know someone that has members of an extended family that currently reside in the Beqaa Valley who aren't helping Syrian rebels in some way right this minute?

Why do you ask?

[Dash87]

159. Weapons we gave to Rebels everywhere have been used against us

Combine this with an area that already hates the US (the rebels hate us as much as Syria did) and we're creating another enemy in the future.

[99Forever]

161. Absolutely.

It's like we can't ever learn that sticking our noses in other nations business always blows up in our face.

[Spider Jerusalem]

38. NATO or UN military action

which in practise means that the US, UK and maybe France send troops, ships and aircraft, there's targeted bombing, and ground operations aimed at consolidating control over rebel areas and arresting Syrian military and political leaders who remain loyal to Assad, and ultimately Assad himself, for trial at the Hague (if not summary execution). And then a handover of control to a transitional government formed from the opposition leadership.

[still_one]

55. agreed, but that is the way it would have to be. We should not do it alone

[AlexSatan]

154. and when the Russians veto UN action? (nt)

[still_one]

162. If it comes to that they might not

[hrmjustin]

56. I will tell you that President Obama would likely send him to his maker at that point.

[Pacafishmate]

61. Something that doesn't cost us money.

Sanctions is about as far ad I say we should go.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

62. Invade Iran, obviously.

To borrow from Willie Sutton, that's where the oil is.

[leveymg]

68. The Alawite launch at the end, when the invaders break through the gates. The targets will be the

powers who have brought this to pass. But, that won't be the end of it.

[Dokkie]

96. I agree

I think Assad might have to take this one for the team. Send it out as soon as the blood thirsty terrorist get close, he knows he is going to be killed anyway, so why not take em out with him and make it a bit harder to assemble those same mercs for the Iranian invasion.

Remember folks, this country dropped not 1 but 2 atomic bombs on Japan to stop them from fighting. This is not different from what we did.

[leveymg]

106. It's a near certainty that the missile force is already on a Deadman's Trigger

An attempt at a decapitating strike against Syrian leadership, command and control will result in the launch of the bulk of Syria's missile inventory. These missiles have binary nerve gas warheads, and likely aren't the object of this reported nerve gas "mixing" and loading, if indeed that is actually going on. That would be delivered by aircraft.

Not sure what practical mission the fighter-bombers might have, as they are much less likely to reach a target very far outside Syrian territory. It will be a one-way flight, but my guess is that their primary target is the operational headquarters for the command liaison with outside powers at Incirlick AB near Adana in southern Turkey. Another possibility is other command and staging areas in various countries surrounding Syria.

I think its interesting that the western media focus is on this very secondary capability, rather than on the missile corps, some of which is likely capable of hitting and doing damage to targets in a number of states in the region.

[craigmatic]

69. We shouldn't arm the rebels. That always causes blowback.

Maybe a bombing campaign.

[whatchamacallit]

77. Whatever we do, if history is any indication

we'll likely end up killing more Syrians than Assad. Freedom American Style!

[MannyGoldstein]

79. Sorry... did war crimes become illegal again?

I missed that change in policy.

[allrevvedup]

84. Just the ones with high Q scores.

Evidently Sarin is a standout.

[Fumesucker]

117. That is because you lack nuance, Manny

We wouldn't want to go politicizing policy differences now would we?

[MrSlayer]

85. Whose response?

Ours? Nothing.

An international coalition, which we would be a part of, may want to do something but I don't see that it's our individual responsibility to do anything at all.

[Prometheus Bound]

92. And what should be the response if the rebels get their hands on some Sarin gas and use it?

[JVS]

95. Nothing

[Firebrand Gary]

107. Whatever has to be done.

[moondust]

111. Fortunately,

because this conflict has gone on for more than a year now, NATO has had plenty of time to develop and prioritize targets--which should help to minimize civilian casualties.

[Fire Walk With Me]

115. It's as if death cults are using world governments to start another war

which could domino into something hideously larger. All of these idiots champing at the bit of destruction, and all of their bigger friends staring at each other, waiting. It is the "rulers", not the people at fault. The people do not want war.

[Victor_c3]

118. A lot of my thoughts have already been mentioned above

Even though I fought in Iraq, I never for a second believed in Iraq or that it was justified on any level.

As far as wars go, I liked the way Libya went. The majority of Libyan citizens were eager for NATO involvement (as was most of the Arab world). It's amazing how different things turn out when you have the cooperation and support of the people you are "helping" and the rest of the world. Obama was able to accomplish in Libya in a matter of a couple of months and $896 million what bush wasn't able accomplish in Iraq with nearly a decade of war and $1 trillion. Syria, if chemical weapons were used, would be justified in my mind.

Having been through a war myself, I've developed very strong anti-war inclinations. However, as much as I hate war and I think it is criminal in nature, I'm not going to pretend that there aren't situations in which it is justified to deploy our troops. Interventions to stop the scope of violence from escalating like Bosnia/Kosovo and (although it never happened) Rwanda would have been justified. Those are/would be the sorts of military missions that would make me proud for how our troops have been used by the government.

However, my biggest sticking point with war is that the media needs to stop sterilizing it. They need to show the dead women and children and report all of the atrocities that happen. The media needs to show the flag draped coffins and the gory images of the mangled dead that is produced. If we can stomach making the decision to send troops into harms way, then we need to stomach the gory details of what the decision fully entails. I know that at some point I need to get over myself, but the personal pain and images that I endure as a result of my war time service needs to be on the conscious of every American who supported the war. Every American who supported the war should have a picture of a mangled child's dead body front and center in their living room. They should have to face that image constantly during every moment of their life and it should haunt them just as much as it haunts the Soldier who killed that child and the family that lost that child. After all, if it wasn't for the support for the war at home there wouldn't have been a war.

War is messed up and it brings the worst out of people who otherwise seem to be the best people we have. When we hear stories of Soldiers posing with bodies of Taliban fighters like they were hunting trophies or videos of Soldiers pissing on the dead surface, we shouldn't be shocked. It's not natural to kill anyone. Having been through that experience myself, it makes you feel like shit regardless of the circumstance or how "justified" you are told it is. And, as much as I like to think that I'm a good person, the honest truth is it only got easier to do it the more the war went on. As soon as you can find yourself easily committing the ultimate transgression what stops you from committing any others? I'm probably doing a great job getting myself the "DU piece of shit" moniker, but the only reason I didn't piss on the body of or pose with the body of a person I killed was because I didn't think of it - and that is the honest truth.

People just need to be aware of the full scope of what their support for a war entails. Again, I'm not saying that there isn't such a thing as a justified war, but all wars are nasty. Our media does humanity a huge disservice by not accurately reporting it. It's just like the average American eating meat. Since most of us are removed from the process that brings us meat, it is easy for us to eat. However, if we all had to go into our backyards and butcher our own meat, I bet many people wouldn't be able to stomach it. The same holds true to war. It's easy to support a war when you are thousands of miles away and you see the clean shrink-wrapped version presented to you by the media but it isn't easy to support a war when you actually have the blood on your hands and you are involved in it.

[LongTomH]

156. Thank you for your post and for your service.

Whether to intervene militarily or not is an issue that should not be approached without considering the human cost of intervention.

[The Straight Story]

119. Be like Israel - kill everyone you can and get praise for defending yourself

If they don't like it then they women and kids should flee the country first, etc.

[redgreenandblue]

121. First of all: Find out whether it is actually true or not.

[Dorian Gray]

124. I think Assad should, ideally,

be arrested and tried in the World Court for crimes against humanity.

Obviously, that won't happen.

So.... military intervention on the part of the UN. A coalition of nations. NOT the US, though I'm sure the US would provide the highest number of soldiers.

I hate to ask our military to go into another warzone, but Assad does need to be stopped.

[Mangoman]

131. If He starts killing people with chemical weapons

Then we should assassinate him with a cruise missile strike if we have his whereabouts
At the very least

[longship]

132. Cobalt Thorium G

There's even a song about it:

Enjoy a post apocalyptic world, DUers.

on edit: better Newman performance.

[Myrina]

133. Um, unless he's releasing it in LA or NYC, it's not our business.

We've fucked up too many countries, killed too many soldiers and innocents and wasted waaaaay too damn much money sticking our noses into other countries' civil wars.

[Ikonoklast]

173. If Assad sees no way out, he'll launch on Israel, at the very least.

He'll try to take out as many of his enemies as he can down with him.

Think Riyadh, Tel Aviv...

This civil war will not neatly contain itself to within the Syrian borders.


Launching on Israel would reap an immediate and catastrophic response, with even worse repercussions.

[slackmaster]

135. Send France in to kick his ass

[Freddie Stubbs]

146. Whose response?

[hughee99]

147. You mean there's a largely disliked world leader who oppresses his own people,

his country is sitting on top of a sea of oil, and he might have chemical weapons? The proposal by some is to take him out or even use "Shock and Awe"?

I'd think it was 2003 except I recently had my house appraised.

[Fire Walk With Me]

148. Michael ‏@_cypherpunks_ Truth provided by @DBCOOPA: #Syria is a proxy war.

[quinnox]

155. Well, look what we did in Iraq, full scale invasion!

Saddam used chemical weapons too. So that is the blueprint for what we should do here, because Iraq turned out so well, and we liberated the people!

All the people backing this idea must have been Bush Iraq war supporters.

[LongTomH]

157. I'll bet the rapture-ready crowd is having orgasms right now!

That thought occurred to me about halfway down this thread. Every time there's any dust-up in the Middle East, they start talking Armageddon!

Please believe me, I'm not making light of these events; they could have tragic consequences; but, I think we really, really should be grateful that we have President Obama in the White House and not President Romney. Of course it could be worse; think: President Perry, or President Santorum.

[Ya Basta]

158. We always seem to have infinite money when it comes to war

I say how about we focus on the hungry, dying, suffering, abused and exploited in our own house first before we take it upon ourselves to act as the world's police.

n/t

[LongTomH]

160. Breaking news: Gen Wesley Clark says an attack is not the best way to stop Syria's chemical weapons

CNN commentator Wesley Clark advises against an attack and is saying that the best answer is to offer Assad a way out of the country and persuade him to take it:

"You could take out the airfields if (the weapons) are uploaded … but nothing is going to be 100% effective," Clark said. "The most effective preventive weapon is to use this as greater leverage against the Russians and Chinese to cut all support for Bashar Assad, get him out of the country, get him into some kind of asylum situation somewhere, and sort this out."

Read more here: http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/06/attack-not-best-way-to-stop-syrias-chemical-weapons-clark-says/

[qazplm]

169. well sure

but he's had that path for awhile now and clearly seems to have no interest in taking it anymore than Ghaddifi did.

[orpupilofnature57]

177. Like the last Three megalomaniacs we took out, send Soldiers...

to hunt them down and kill or capture them , Specifically Them and not the whole country and it's citizens .

[Chan790]

178. UN peacekeepers in a police action, a hot-seat in a war-crimes tribunal...

a life in a small room with unpleasant wardens and spartan room-temperature meals. No belts, no shoelaces, no sharps.

The UN sanction for genocide and other serious war-crimes is life-imprisonment.

The world is watching, Mr. Assad. The world will see you pay for your crimes.

[liberaltrucker]

180. If history is any indication, Mossad already has Assad in the crosshairs

Just begging for an excuse.

[woo me with science]

181. Wowie....

Anyone else getting a strong deja vu on this one?



Heeeeere we go again...