To launch or not to launch...that is the question

The Rebel's are not a regime. Jordan has no such weapons. Nor does Lebanon. We know that Iraq doesn't. Iran probably does, but they support Assad. So who, or what group would supply the rebels with Chemical weapons? Occams Razor. The simplest answer will be the right one. Queens knight to bishop three. Your move.

 

Poison gas was extensively made and stockpiled by all possible combatants in WWII. (My grandfather supported 4 girls through teacher's college in the 30's by making gas masks at APG in MD.) When Hitler surrendered he was found to have huge reserves of the then very new Sarin, which could have substantially lengthened the war if used. Use of poison gas was a planned major feature of Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan obviated by the Atom Bomb.

Gas wasn't used in WWII for the same reason it's not being used now. It's unreliable, a shift in the wind can turn your attack on yourself completely. Besides, you can't follow up on it. Either it's still there and will kill your own troops, or the enemy was protected and the gas will help them against you. Pockets can remain for weeks and the general poisoning of the area will not dissipate for months or even years.

The only way it's use makes sense is in a doomsday scenario. When you are absolutely defeated, sure to die, and mean to take your enemy with you.

It's silly as hell to think that Assad who was, and still is, winning very handily, would use a weapon of absolute last resort on the very day that inspectors arrived to make sure he wasn't and broadcast a warning of total villainly to the entire world if they found he was.

 

That information is already in. What part don't you know?

True. But it will be "limited". So what effect will that have, and is Assad willing to take that risk? My guess is that he will. I seriously doubt that a limited attack is going to stop him from what he's doing and I would imagine he would have Hezbollah and Iran and even Russia wade in with an expansion of his efforts.

Oh there's nothing simple about this. There is no right or wrong that I can see. It's bad and worse. Sucks doesn't it? I agree that there are potentials for a variety of tactics, but I do think that in this case the chemical weapons are coming from the guy that has them. How this plays out in other ways we'll see. Look at how strange it's taking place in our own congress that never agrees on anything. We have bi-partisan support and opposition. Dems and Pubs agreeing on anything is pretty bizarre.

 

Analysis of Syria gas attack could take weeks
Group overseeing probe into alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus says it could take three weeks to complete.

Doubt it as none of those players including Iran have any interest in getting their hands dirty in this poo.

Stratfor Analysis

Not really as, until the report comes in from the UN team I linked to above, they are dealing only with hypothetical and posturing. If the poo hits the fan they can run and hide behind semantics so nothing is cast in stone.

 

But all that is, is speculation. We have no reason to accept that as real. We could toss out all kinds of theories but that doesn't make any of them true. We could speculate that the Russians secretly want to dump Assad and equip the rebels with WMD and get it launched from government sites to make Assad look bad and undermine him while appearing to support him. But that's getting into the Alex Jones mindset and I have no reason to think that's the case.

I think it is. Actually, I'm constantly trying to critique my own reasoning to find the flaw. My only approach to these things is to find the fewest flaws in the reasoning process, and that always includes my own. I actually think that Jimmy Carter has made the correct opinion. He called for a Summit, and I have to assume he means the US and Russia, since we're the ones talking about taking action, and Russia pulls the Syrian strings. Somehow Obama and Putin need to get on the same page and that means a strong joint condemnation of Syria. That could have an effect on Assad if he knew that he was losing Russian support.

Yeah...that's really how I see it. There's something insidious about Sarin, or mustard gas or nerve gas, or any kind of gas for that matter that registers a different response than a bullet or a bomb. It is the indiscriminate effect that is so bothersome. A bomb is certainly indiscriminate and yet it's aimed at destruction of buildings and structures. People are called collateral damage. WMD's, especially gas target people.

 

I think it's that it targets people instead of buildings or structures or military installations. People end up as collateral damage. Unintended consequences. Gas goes after innocent people. It's the insidious nature of it that creeps everyone out.

 

The war in Iraq did nothing to build the Empire, neither is the war in Afghanistan or the drone strikes in Tunisia or Yemen or Pakistan.


Speaking of which:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/10130102/Barack-Obama-has-given-the-Taliban-the-upper-hand-in-Afghanistan.html

I can only imagine what Leftist responses would've been if this was Bush. Who knows, maybe even Nancy Pelosi puts impeachment "back on the table".

For that alone, Pelosi should've never been re-elected. Impeachment isn't something you "put on the table", it's a national duty that must be carried out by congress in light of treasonous actions.

Impeachment was a power given to congress to prevent the spills of civil war from occurring here.

 

SO lets wait until the UN team gets back with their findings.

Ain't the Russian but the Iranians that need the stroking and, as I posted here, they have a huge role to play.

I look at it this way as well, if the enemy is occupying a city and you fire bomb it, the enemy is dead and you move in and occupy. If you nuke it, all you have done is kill people and the radiation then spreads to land outside the tactical area to kill women and children as well as crops that the remnants of the army who are defeated will need to survive. Likewise in poisoning wells in desert warfare, what if the enemy is retreating rather than attacking? You are killing people whom you don't need nor want to kill and that is wrong. .

 

So the potential unintended consequence is enough to override the calculated consequences. I'm not disagreeing with you here. Understand, I'm playing Devils Advocate for every situation including my own reasoning. I'm really looking to find the most logical way of dealing with this. Every time we get into these things, it turns out bad for us. There are other consequences to consider as well. Even if your scenario didn't take place, what happens after the missiles. What's Assad do after that? He's not the kind of guy that's going to simply say, "OK...I'll play nice". If he's overthrown the rebels will kill him for sure, so he's fighting for his life in a literal sense.

 

Knowing a bit of how regimes work with party loyalty and such I doubt Assad can surrender even if he wanted to as his supporters in the inner circle would certainly not be permitted to escape prosecution for their aprt in the crimes that have been committed thus, even if he were, in any fantasy, permitted to simply 'leave' for Europe and live his life in peace, they would be left behind to face the gallows long with vendettas against their extended families and all thus, unless there is guaranteed safe haven for thousands of these people who are, according to human rights groups, among some of the worst criminals of the 21st century, they won't allow him to leave and leave them to see the show collapse around them.

 

I'm not so sure about that. Assad must know his days are numbered. All he has to do is look at the other states and their dictators around the region. They're all dead and gone. Mubarak is still around in a depleted sort of way. Egypt is a mess. I think Assad must know that the rebels will never stop until he's dead, and I don't think he'd hesitate to use anything to destroy his enemies. That's all that's left to him. The alternative is certain death for him and those aligned with him. As for him appearing as a total villain, I don't think he see's it that way, and has convinced himself of that he's doing the right thing. I can't get into Assads head but I doubt that he considers villainy in the same way that we do. If he did, he wouldn't be such an (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

He could last for another 20 years if he wanted to face a controllable losing situation or maintain neutrality so I'm sure losing has not been a serious thought to him.

You would be correct. When I lived there his pa's likeness was plastered on billboards and five story high buildings in benevolent poses holding hammers, wheat, a rifle etc all showing he is the father of everything that Syrians want and need. I doubt that a pr campaign of him holding a red hot poker or in a rape room standing over a prostate weeping woman with his pants around his ankles got off the drawing board.

 

That's right. Because it failed. The Iraq war was a Neo-Con adventure and that had everything to do with Pax Americana and the concept of Benign Hegemony. I don't want to re-litigate Iraq. History will tell the tale.

The leftists are opposing Obama. What makes you think that it would be any different with Bush? Are you under the impression that the Left is in favor of this? If you are you've been watching the wrong TV.

There is no justification or grounds for any impeachment. You should really check your Obama hate at the door. I don't think the Republicans really wan to make idiots out of themselves any more than they already have, with their birther crap and obstructionism.

 

Sure they do, but I wouldn't hold my breath on any discussions with the Iranians. Although the idea would probably be good, Obama would be skewered by the Republicans for even talking with them about anything.

It's a kind of scorched earth approach to grind the enemy and any and all things that might be related into the dirt for the sake of complete annihilation. Women, children, crops, livestock, cities, everything. There was a horrific scene of the highway out of Kuwait during the Gulf War. The Iraqi's were fleeing back to Iraq, and our fighter jets just ripped them up. Totally destroyed everything that moved. Nothing remained except burnt out trucks and scorched bodies.

 

There is an old saying 'if in doubt do nought' That is to Western Nations wanting to go in in a partisan way. International Law is available and Putin has said that if it is proved that Assad delivered those chemical weapons then he would consider military action against Syria.

This is as you said a matter for the International community concerning International Law. The only place to resolve this is at the UN through international Law not through partisan aggression.

Good Lord, the US was even saying yesterday that the Saudi's had said if the US did not strike it would be giving extremists even more weapons. Is the US being blackmailed by the Saudi's?

The situation must be sorted out in the best interests of the Syrian people. When the UN has finished it's research that is the place to debate what has happened and the way to best find peace there.

The US could not give a rats arse about the use of chemical weapons. You are possibly quite young but we have seen them used in Iraq on the Kurdish women, children, babies and old men and the US simply gave Saddam more weapons. She is using this for partisan reasons. However it is a good opportunity to bring it to the UN and for the International Community to act on International Law.

IMO whatever is best to stop the violence is more important than killing more. Assad can face the ICC if necessary.

 

Yeah, I get that. We've got these facts; "The Syrian Government has stockpiles of chemical weapons. They aren't the only country in the world that has them, but they certainly do have them and that's what's relevant here . I doubt that France or England supplied them. Gas was used. We know that. We've seen the evidence. Are you suggesting that the opposition which does not have access to the storage of these weapons somehow got hold of them and are using them? I'm playing Devils Advocate here. Talk me out of this please. What facts are missing?

You don't think so? At some point I think we have to draw a logical conclusion and that conclusion should definitely be based on deductive reasoning and not the Inductive reasoning used by Bush. I think that was the worst example of convoluted logic I've ever seen used by this country. It worked because of the emotional state of the country after 9/11 and the desire for "payback". The problem that we found with Bush that drove me totally apoplectic was the inductive reasoning that takes us from the specific to the general. What they did was take a random set of facts, toss them in a bowl that turned into a (*)(*)(*)(*) salad. This - proves That. Because Saddam at one time did this, it somehow proved that he did that. One should NEVER attempt to prove a theory by grabbing a set of random facts and assume that they prove the theory that you want to prove, ESPECIALLY when it comes to launching a war. The problem with any ideology is that it gives you the answer before you’ve looked at any of the evidence. You’ve got to mold the evidence to give you the answer that you’ve already decided you have to have. That was Iraq. What I want is to see the use of deductive reasoning that takes the general and brings us to a specific. In other words, I want to see them attempting to disprove their theory. Show me that Assad did NOT gas his people. All it takes is one thing to disprove a theory, and if we would apply deductive reasoning in our foreign policy I think we could avoid these catastrophic wars that leave us worse off and have our politicians attempting to convince us of how much safer we are.

You're a rational mind Drew and I applaud that. Caution must be used in this. The effects of this could be really serious. I'm trying to weigh the effects of doing nothing v doing something. I haven't reached any conclusion here that gives me a good outcome.

I also weigh the personalities of the players involved. What do I know about Obama, Assad, Putin?? I know that Obama is no war monger. He's no Neo-Con looking to expand the Empire. The very reason that he's president today is because among all the contenders of that time, he was the only one that opposed Iraq. If Hillary had opposed the war, I seriously doubt that Obama would have run. She would have owned that position and she was far better known. He couldn't have used that position against her, and in the end it came down to her and Obama. She lost the nomination because of her stance on Iraq. So he's not some guy that loves the idea of war, and he's not looking at some kind of leg up on oil deposits. I think he's deeply committed to the International Law regarding Chemical weapons. This is what bothers me the most. If, after WWI, the world decided that these weapons were off limits and the use of them would be considered a war crime, then how can the world sit silent when they are used. How is it that only the US stands up to this? To let this pass is tacit approval of their use. If nobody is going to object, then there is no war crime here, and they will be used in other conflicts among other countries and the precedent is set. They can be used against our own troops. I have a son in the Army. He's in SF and the last thing I want to see, is him taken down via a gas attack.

 

Can 1000 American human shields get there before the bombs do?

 

Good point. If he tried to jump ship, his own people would kill him.

 

Hi Abu Sina, Do you really think the war crazies that control the USA care about some human shields?
Listen to the United States Secretary of State saying that our deliberate starving to death of over 500,000 kids was worth the price, or remember the USA war crazies burning to death thousands of people packed onto a highway 60 miles long, or the US's deliberate bombing of civilians all around the world.
Here is the USA's official policy on civilian casualties that has been in force from at least the Lincoln regime:
"We are not fighting against enemy armies, but against an enemy people, both young and old, rich and poor, and they must feel the iron hand of war in the same way as organized armies."

And they are perfectly willing to treat Americans this way. They did it in Waco, Texas.

 

If that's true, then we should prove the case and hold Putin to his words.

The problem is that the Security Council will veto taking action. Russia and China will block that. It seems to me that Jimmy Carter offered the best solution which was a Summit with the interested parties. It seems that Obama and Putin must put their differences aside and get something done and head off a bombing attack which nobody wants.

I don't see that as any form of blackmail. I think it's the same question that many of us right here are asking. It's the logical response to doing nothing. Somebody must hold the worlds feet to the fire with regard to using a weapon that has been condemned by the world. Otherwise the talk and the treaties amount to total BS. If a country knows they can use this crap, then they will. That changes the game.

I'm probably older than you. We do give a rats ass about the use of CW. We signed on to the agreement to ban the use of these weapons and as anyone can plainly see, we are just about the only country that does give a rats ass. The incident that you are referring to was not lost on me at all. The town was Halabja in the Kurdish region, and it took place in the 80's. At the time St. Ronny was our president and this was the response.
[video=youtube_share;r42oejmpkgw]http://youtu.be/r42oejmpkgw[/video]

It was just before Christmas 1983 that Donald Rumsfeld, then US presidential envoy to Iraq, slipped quietly into Baghdad to come face to face with the man who would become one of America's greatest enemies within two decades. You can clearly see then Senator Dan Quayle who tagged along. Quayle was always a moron. The trip (by the current US defense secretary), to pledge US support for Saddam Hussein, marked one of the lowest points of the entire Reagan presidency, and symbolically represents the real legacy of the "Great Communicator". For Reagan was a president who allowed the US to secretly arm the Iraqi dictator with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), supported Iraq's military expansion, turned a blind eye to Saddam using chemical weapons against Iran and thereby set in train the events that would lead to George W Bush's disastrous decision to invade the country in 2002.

The reason for the trip was that the US issued a generic statement saying that we "condemned the use of CW's by all nations". Saddam was outraged and pissed at us, so we sent Rummy to assure Saddam that the statement was for public consumption, and would in no way interfere with our business dealings with him and Iraq. This should not be taken to assume the US position is no position. What it does illustrate is that Ronald Reagan, the hero of the Conservative Movement, couldn't give a rats ass about any of this. We do have other leaders that think that the US word actually is supposed to mean something.

I'm more of the thinking that a Summit must be held to come to a unified agreement on Syria and the future of Assad. He's not going to step down voluntarily. For him and his crew this is a life or death issue. If he loses, he and his gang will be executed. He has no choice for the sake of his own survival. The problem is that the Rebels are pretty much a bunch of thugs as well, willing to cut out the heart of a man and eat it on video to make their point.