Syria

[Soxbadger]

You're right I keep hammering on it because as soon as the excitement of the missiles is off the front page the disasters we've unleashed get ignored.

 

Libya, for example, the great triumph of this type of intervention, is a complete clusterf*** right now. The country is being torn apart, ruled by warlords, and arms from the Libyan army are going to supply an entire generation of wars and terrorist attacks throughout North Africa because they've gone completely out of control. There are civil wars brewing all over North Africa supplied by those weapons.

 

The last time we did this, the air war killed a ton of people, not just the combatants but a lot of other people, and the result has been thousands of small massacres replacing the one big massacre we tried to avoid. And the consequences on the ground, the piles of dead bodies from the air campaign, are literally ignored because there's no one there to cover them.

 

No because this is how freedom works. Its not a simple overnight process. The US didnt just wake up one day and was free, it had to fight for it. Many people died fighting the British. Many people died in the Civil War.

 

Just like Syria until chemical weapons. But after WWI we as a society realized that chemical weapons need to be a real line in the sand. And if we go back on that, then what has any consequences anymore?

 

So its not that I dont know about Libya. Its just simply if we want Africa to be truly free, they are going to have to figure it out themselves, and that likely means there are going to be body counts. Its unfortunate, but they need to find their own end.

 

I just am unwilling to accept a world where chemical weapons are allowed to be used. We have plenty of other ways to kill each other.

[Balta1701]

So its not that I dont know about Libya. Its just simply if we want Africa to be truly free, they are going to have to figure it out themselves, and that likely means there are going to be body counts. Its unfortunate, but they need to find their own end.

You cant just wave your hand and pretend that doesnt exist, so to turn a phrase.

[greg775]

You're right I keep hammering on it because as soon as the excitement of the missiles is off the front page the disasters we've unleashed get ignored.

 

Libya, for example, the great triumph of this type of intervention, is a complete clusterf*** right now. The country is being torn apart, ruled by warlords, and arms from the Libyan army are going to supply an entire generation of wars and terrorist attacks throughout North Africa because they've gone completely out of control. There are civil wars brewing all over North Africa supplied by those weapons.

 

The last time we did this, the air war killed a ton of people, not just the combatants but a lot of other people, and the result has been thousands of small massacres replacing the one big massacre we tried to avoid. And the consequences on the ground, the piles of dead bodies from the air campaign, are literally ignored because there's no one there to cover them.

 

What is the solution then, Balta? Please answer.

We can't keep ignoring this atrocity and that atrocity or all of a sudden chemical weapons may be used on our soil. The world indeed is f***ed. I would say it will DEFINITELY end w/in 100 years because of man bombing man and poisoning man. But doesn't Obama have to try to stave this off by bombing the s*** out of those who use chemical weapons? It is pretty damn horrible to see those little kids die. Gutwrenching.

We could continue to ignore this stuff, but it adds up.

Edited September 4, 2013 by greg775

[Soxbadger]

And you conveniently still havent addressed chemical weapons which have been banned since WWI.

 

But I guess well just all stick our heads in the sand and pretend its not happening.

 

Maybe if you read an article by a foreign guy youll understand why chemical weapons have no place in our society and why we have to make an example.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2...-red-line-world

[iamshack]

It strikes me as a bit strange that we have rules in war...watching you guys argue that it's ok to blow eachother's heads off with guns and grenades, but once you pull out the chemicals, that is downright cheating.

 

I see one common thread here...people are going to die there in unknown numbers regardless of what we do...seems to me the best decision in that situation is to stay the heck out of it then.

[Balta1701]

But I guess well just all stick our heads in the sand and pretend its not happening.

We were more than happy to do so in the 1980's when a state we were aiding in their war against Iran used them extensively. So yeah, barring a better option appearing, sticking head in the sand seems like the right path.

[Soxbadger]

Greg,

 

Balta has no answer for you. He just simply wants to paralyze us into in action by reminding us that there will be negative consequences for our actions.

 

The difference between him and I, is that I know there will be very bad consequences, I concede this fact and I still argue that something needs to be done because of reasons I can articulate.

 

On the other hand, Balta simply keeps saying people will die, and we should solve the solution by giving them aid. Who cares that chemical weapons are being used, who cares about the Geneva Convention or any other ant-chemical weapon treaty. Who cares about nukes or biological weapons being used.

 

They can have bread, and bread simply will solve all of these problems.

 

Sometimes you have to make hard decisions, sometimes there will be innocent blood spilled due to that decision...

 

But the hope is, that you make the decisions that will make sure that in the future the least amount of blood will be spilled. Because I cant go back and stop all of this, but I can try and prevent it from ever happening again.

 

And maybe its impossible, but I wont quit like Balta. People mean more to me than that.

[Balta1701]

What is the solution then, Balta? Please answer.

We can't keep ignoring this atrocity and that atrocity or all of a sudden chemical weapons may be used on our soil. The world indeed is f***ed. I would say it will DEFINITELY end w/in 100 years because of man bombing man and poisoning man. But doesn't Obama have to try to stave this off by bombing the s*** out of those who use chemical weapons? It is pretty damn horrible to see those little kids die. Gutwrenching.

We could continue to ignore this stuff, but it adds up.

What's the solution if we attack?

 

How on Earth will bombing a few places in Syria prevent someone from using chemical weapons on U.S. soil?

 

Based on the example of what happened in Libya, the more you fracture the Syrian regime the more likely it seems that control of those weapons will be lost. If the humanitarian bombs turn the tide of the war, as the Senate resolution calls for, it's entirely possible that Syrian chemical weapons will make their way into the hands of people who would use them against the United States.

 

The only way that bombing Syria would somehow prevent that is if we were to successfully bomb all of their chemical weapons...but if you hit the weapons with conventional bombs, you effectively start a chemical weapons attack because you send large quantities of Sarin into the air. Our bombs can literally cause little kids to die while gasping for air.

[Soxbadger]

It strikes me as a bit strange that we have rules in war...watching you guys argue that it's ok to blow eachother's heads off with guns and grenades, but once you pull out the chemicals, that is downright cheating.

 

I see one common thread here...people are going to die there in unknown numbers regardless of what we do...seems to me the best decision in that situation is to stay the heck out of it then.

 

Its not cheating. Its that after WWI everyone saw the devastation of chemical weapons and said "Hey we may hate each other, we may kill each other, but the effects of chemical weapons are so bad, that even enemies can agree on it."

 

And that is what is at stake. That even if we are enemies, we can still have rules, we can still have some sort of twisted honor about how we treat the enemy as we kill them.

 

Because without some sort of rules, we will all kill each other. That is an absolute certainty.

 

 

We were more than happy to do so in the 1980's when a state we were aiding in their war against Iran used them extensively. So yeah, barring a better option appearing, sticking head in the sand seems like the right path.

 

I dont care what other people let happen. In the 1930s the US let Hitler get away with things. That doesnt mean if Hitler Jr comes I have to go "Well s***, we didnt stop it in 1930, so i cant stop it now."

 

Just because they were wrong in 1980, doesnt mean I have to be wrong in 2013.

 

I dont let the past historical mistakes of others bind me to their bad course of action. Because historically speaking, letting Iraq use chemical weapons didnt really help anyone. So not sure why thats a good example of why we should let this continue.

[Balta1701]

Greg,

 

Balta has no answer for you. He just simply wants to paralyze us into in action by reminding us that there will be negative consequences for our actions.

 

The difference between him and I, is that I know there will be very bad consequences, I concede this fact and I still argue that something needs to be done because of reasons I can articulate.

 

On the other hand, Balta simply keeps saying people will die, and we should solve the solution by giving them aid. Who cares that chemical weapons are being used, who cares about the Geneva Convention or any other ant-chemical weapon treaty. Who cares about nukes or biological weapons being used.

 

They can have bread, and bread simply will solve all of these problems.

 

Sometimes you have to make hard decisions, sometimes there will be innocent blood spilled due to that decision...

 

But the hope is, that you make the decisions that will make sure that in the future the least amount of blood will be spilled. Because I cant go back and stop all of this, but I can try and prevent it from ever happening again.

 

And maybe its impossible, but I wont quit like Balta. People mean more to me than that.

But take a look at your own reasons. In one paragraph you complain about "who cares about chemical weapons being used, who cares about the geneva convention".

 

That literally follows a paragraph where you say "who cares if people die".

 

You haven't illustrated a single positive thing that can come from this action and then you accuse me of glossing over the very bad things that happened when you simultaneously gloss over the very bad things we're going to do.

 

Tell me an endgame where U.S. bombing makes this better. Tell me an endgame where the Syrian regime is actually somehow deterred from using those weapons again without the U.S. having to launch a Libyan-level bombing campaign that breaks the country apart and lets the surviving weapons into the hands of whoever grabs them. If the weapons worked and all it provokes is a light response from the U.S., why not use them again? If the weapons worked and it provokes the U.S. to breaking up the country but we're unwilling to put 200,000 men there to secure the place, hey, open season on chemical weapons stockpiles, Goodie.

[greg775]

What's the solution if we attack?

 

How on Earth will bombing a few places in Syria prevent someone from using chemical weapons on U.S. soil?

 

Based on the example of what happened in Libya, the more you fracture the Syrian regime the more likely it seems that control of those weapons will be lost. If the humanitarian bombs turn the tide of the war, as the Senate resolution calls for, it's entirely possible that Syrian chemical weapons will make their way into the hands of people who would use them against the United States.

 

The only way that bombing Syria would somehow prevent that is if we were to successfully bomb all of their chemical weapons...but if you hit the weapons with conventional bombs, you effectively start a chemical weapons attack because you send large quantities of Sarin into the air. Our bombs can literally cause little kids to die while gasping for air.

 

I do agree that Obama pretty much outlining what we are going to do kind of ruins the initiative. We're doing everything but telling them the exact moment we will bomb and the exact places we will bomb.

They've probably already spread the chemical weapons all over the map as we debate the issue. Do you at least agree with me the world IS GOING TO END within 100 years if this keeps up?? We have to make a stand. If we bomb chemical weapons plants and that causes the emission of chemical weapons into the community, obviously that's not a desired result of the attacks.

[Balta1701]

I do agree that Obama pretty much outlining what we are going to do kind of ruins the initiative. We're doing everything but telling them the exact moment we will bomb and the exact places we will bomb.

They've probably already spread the chemical weapons all over the map as we debate the issue. Do you at least agree with me the world IS GOING TO END within 100 years if this keeps up?? We have to make a stand. If we bomb chemical weapons plants and that causes the emission of chemical weapons into the community, obviously that's not a desired result of the attacks.

No, I think that idea is silly. The world is not going to end.

[greg775]

No, I think that idea is silly. The world is not going to end.

 

You've got leaks of radiation all over the place already. You've got dictators running AMOK still in the world. You have nutjobs in North Korea and China with concentration camps for godsakes. You have a world in which life is not valued at all.

We've already had 9-11 and Boston bombings. We haven't had anybody put chemicals in our water yet or anybody else's water.

I sense this all happening and of course nukes. Also we are all "warred out" in America so we are going to likely let a lot of this stuff escalate. Not to mention global warming and all those projections of doom.

We are in big big trouble as a global community. I do think we need to bomb the s*** out of Syria over this issue to at least put out the word chemical weapons are not to be tolerated.

Edited September 4, 2013 by greg775

[Soxbadger]

The end game is to do our best to stop chemical weapons from ever being used in war, civil or otherwise.

 

Otherwise why not just let Iran nuke Israel, because our involvement could cause things to be potentially be worse.

 

Why have any rules I guess?

[greg775]

The end game is to do our best to stop chemical weapons from ever being used in war, civil or otherwise.

 

Otherwise why not just let Iran nuke Israel, because our involvement could cause things to be potentially be worse.

 

Why have any rules I guess?

 

I do have to back Badger's stance on this one. However, the long delay regarding this issue kind of takes away the impact of the upcoming bombings. It's like, 'We're voting ... we're soon going to bomb you. Get ready.' Then the bombs will begin I guess. How can you have P.C. bombings? Should be interesting to see how this is all received worldwide.

[Balta1701]

The end game is to do our best to stop chemical weapons from ever being used in war, civil or otherwise.

 

Otherwise why not just let Iran nuke Israel, because our involvement could cause things to be potentially be worse.

 

Why have any rules I guess?

Slippery slope arguments are usually terrible arguments and this one is no better. If Iran used nuclear weapons on Israel, or Syria used Chemical weapons on Israel, they're actually launching a war against an ally of the United States. The United States should respond in kind. This is not complicated.

 

The big difference? In that case you've changed the game. You're no longer pretending that somehow this is a great humanitarian cause, you've made it an actual military cause. No one is going to give a crap about the number of people killed in a war that one of those countries starts, nor should they. It's war.

 

That's very different from launching a war to save lives. Launching a war to fight and win a war has a history of working and the U.S. is pretty good at it. Launching a war to save lives by selectively killing the right people does not have a good history of success.

[Soxbadger]

I do have to back Badger's stance on this one. However, the long delay regarding this issue kind of takes away the impact of the upcoming bombings. It's like, 'We're voting ... we're soon going to bomb you. Get ready.' Then the bombs will begin I guess. How can you have P.C. bombings? Should be interesting to see how this is all received worldwide.

 

The problem is that the rest of the world chickened out. The people who signed the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention are sitting on the sidelines and so the US has to once again do the heavy lifting. In order to do this without causing extreme political problems in the US, Obama has to play the game.

 

 

Slippery slope arguments are usually terrible arguments and this one is no better. If Iran used nuclear weapons on Israel, or Syria used Chemical weapons on Israel, they're actually launching a war against an ally of the United States. The United States should respond in kind. This is not complicated.

 

The big difference? In that case you've changed the game. You're no longer pretending that somehow this is a great humanitarian cause, you've made it an actual military cause. No one is going to give a crap about the number of people killed in a war that one of those countries starts, nor should they. It's war.

 

That's very different from launching a war to save lives. Launching a war to fight and win a war has a history of working and the U.S. is pretty good at it. Launching a war to save lives by selectively killing the right people does not have a good history of success.

 

No you are the one who is creating this imaginary distinction between a civil war, revolutionary war and a regular war. In all wars people die. In all wars there are sides. In the US civil war there were sides, the south was actually launching a war against the north. In Syria there are sides, the govt is launching a war against the rebels.

 

What you are saying is that you value certain countries and people differently. So if Israel (our friend) is attacked, you want to help them. But if Syrians (random people) are dying we should just sit on our hands because well, it might get messy.

 

Thats kind of funny considering the most "messy" wars in history are World War I and II, which in both cases arouse from "military causes."

 

And its not selectively killing the right people. Its sending a message to everyone that if you use chemical weapons, there will be consequences.

 

I dont care if its Assad or the rebels, if they use chemical weapons, they need to pay for it.

 

Basically your saying if the Syrian rebels were more our friends we should help, but since they arent, they can just go die in a shallow grave.

 

Very compassionate.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

No you are the one who is creating this imaginary distinction between a civil war, revolutionary war and a regular war. In all wars people die. In all wars there are sides. In the US civil war there were sides, the south was actually launching a war against the north. In Syria there are sides, the govt is launching a war against the rebels.

 

What you are saying is that you value certain countries and people differently. So if Israel (our friend) is attacked, you want to help them. But if Syrians (random people) are dying we should just sit on our hands because well, it might get messy.

 

Thats kind of funny considering the most "messy" wars in history are World War I and II, which in both cases arouse from "military causes."

If the Syrian rebels successfully establish a state government and sign a mutual defense agreement with the United States, which the United States finds it in its interests to pursue, then yes, I'd absolutely support defending them. This has not happened.

And its not selectively killing the right people. Its sending a message to everyone that if you use chemical weapons, there will be consequences.

Euphemism for killing here = "sending a message

I dont care if its Assad or the rebels, if they use chemical weapons, they need to pay for it.

 

Basically your saying if the Syrian rebels were more our friends we should help, but since they arent, they can just go die in a shallow grave.

 

Very compassionate.

Are you willing to commit 200,000 troops to overthrow the Assad Regime and occupy the country Iraq-style for a decade? Because if you're not willing to overthrow the Assad regime and replace it, then you're saying the same thing, the Syrian Rebels just have to put up with him or go die.

 

You're trying to "Send a message" by killing people. How compassionate.

[Soxbadger]

No Im saying the Syrians can fight Assad.

 

But neither of them can use chemical weapons.

 

It has nothing to do with sides, it has everything to do with enforcing treaties. Because if we dont, then what is the point of agreeing to anything?

 

You point out a "mutual defense agreement" as if it means something. Yet you dont think the Geneva Convention and subsequent treaty mean something?

 

Which is it, either we enforce our agreements or we dont?

 

And you keep saying "killing". I dont believe Ive ever suggested that. Ive merely argued that your solution "giving them aid" and doing nothing more, is not a response to the use of chemical weapons. You are the one who wants to do nothing.

 

My solutions could include: 1) ban of all weapons sales to Syria govt for next 10 years, 2) no fly zone, 3) etc etc.

 

Just because you are unwilling to discuss any option but the "bread" option, doesnt mean that I have to accept a world where chemical weapon attacks are allowed.

 

[Balta1701]

No Im saying the Syrians can fight Assad.

Basically your saying if the Syrian rebels were more our friends we should help, but since they arent, they can just go die in a shallow grave.

 

Very compassionate.

[Soxbadger]

lol

 

How many times can you avoid answering the question about chemical weapons?

 

Its as if you dont even want to address the issue.

 

Edited September 4, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

lol

 

How many times can you avoid answering the question about chemical weapons?

 

Its as if you dont even want to address the issue.

You're right. Chemical weapons were used in a civil war the United States is not involved in. The United States should consider actions to prevent their further use, but none of the military options presented make sense or offer the hope of actually doing anything.

 

If the U.S. launches limited "punitive" strikes too small to change the course of the war, then what does Assad care? He may as well use them again, the U.S. strikes weren't enough to change the course of the war, they just killed people.

 

IF the U.S. launches large enough strikes to destabilize the Assad regime, then the Syrian country falls into libyan style chaos and the chemical weapons are up for grabs.

 

If the U.S. is prepared to occupy the country, spend a few trillion dollars, and lose thousands of additional American lives, this would be the only realistic way to insure both security of the Syrian state and respond to the chemical weapons use. But you yourself have ruled that out.

 

Pick one. You've advocated for the first one most of the time, killing people. How does that punish anyone if the chemical strike was successful and the response isn't strong enough to change the course of the war?

[Jenksismyhero]

It strikes me as a bit strange that we have rules in war...watching you guys argue that it's ok to blow eachother's heads off with guns and grenades, but once you pull out the chemicals, that is downright cheating.

 

I see one common thread here...people are going to die there in unknown numbers regardless of what we do...seems to me the best decision in that situation is to stay the heck out of it then.

 

+1

[Soxbadger]

You're right. Chemical weapons were used in a civil war the United States is not involved in. The United States should consider actions to prevent their further use, but none of the military options presented make sense or offer the hope of actually doing anything.

 

If the U.S. launches limited "punitive" strikes too small to change the course of the war, then what does Assad care? He may as well use them again, the U.S. strikes weren't enough to change the course of the war, they just killed people.

 

IF the U.S. launches large enough strikes to destabilize the Assad regime, then the Syrian country falls into libyan style chaos and the chemical weapons are up for grabs.

 

If the U.S. is prepared to occupy the country, spend a few trillion dollars, and lose thousands of additional American lives, this would be the only realistic way to insure both security of the Syrian state and respond to the chemical weapons use. But you yourself have ruled that out.

 

Pick one. You've advocated for the first one most of the time, killing people. How does that punish anyone if the chemical strike was successful and the response isn't strong enough to change the course of the war?

 

What does Assad care about limited strikes?

 

You dont know what will be the tipping point. Maybe he can withstand 1 attack, but if the 1 attack comes with the promise of extremely increased attacks if he does it again... That would likely dissuade him.

 

And basically in your outcome you prove NK and Iran right. If you get bad enough weapons, you can paralyze the international community from doing anything. Theyll be so afraid that the weapons will end up in the "wrong" hands, that they are willing to let them remain in the current "wrong" hands and let those "wrong" hands use them to kill people.

[Balta1701]

What does Assad care about limited strikes?

 

You dont know what will be the tipping point. Maybe he can withstand 1 attack, but if the 1 attack comes with the promise of extremely increased attacks if he does it again... That would likely dissuade him.

 

And basically in your outcome you prove NK and Iran right. If you get bad enough weapons, you can paralyze the international community from doing anything. Theyll be so afraid that the weapons will end up in the "wrong" hands, that they are willing to let them remain in the current "wrong" hands and let those "wrong" hands use them to kill people.

North Korea's successful attainment of nuclear weapons and the U.S. deciding to invade Iraq in 2003 pretty much proved that beyond any shadow of a doubt.