Syria

[Jim Rosenthal]

I think that the single best reason for NOT getting involved in the Syrian civil war by bombing Syria is that we aren't certain what happened and furthermore we can't mount an effective strike. I am inclined to agree with the string-pulling theory, which over here we call getting your chain jerked. As in your master is on the other end.

Much of foreign policy has to do with respect and how big your balls are perceived to be. I think our most recent presidents have suffered from the perception that they don't have big balls, and I think some of that perception is correct. As bright as Obama may be (and I think he's a smart guy) I think he's painted himself into a corner on this one.

I think there are other ways to intervene in the Syrian conflict, far less visible ways, that would be much more effective. I think cruise missiles are not the answer.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Due to previous saber rattling via red lines, and the Arab perception of weakness at not carrying out a threat, I think we are good and properly fucked no matter what we do, and the Iranians must be pissing themselves with glee. Even if we use a missile attack, everything will be hidden due to our telling what the targets are. That was a real smooth move.

 

[David Morton]

Could this be true?

The Plan Acccording to U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.) | YouTube
In an interview with Amy Goodman on March 2, 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, Iran.

 

[Larry L.]

The purpose of which being...?

 

[Pat]

No...

Clark was a very political guy that did not play well with others. He was forced out in 2000. In his memoirs he was critical of Bush National Security advisor Condoleezza Rice for "non-intervention". All the nonsense you were citing was part of his rhetoric dating back to his presidential run in 2004, which thankfully failed. Note he was not exactly embraced by either the Bush or Obama administrations.

Could this be true?

The Plan Acccording to U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.) | YouTube
In an interview with Amy Goodman on March 2, 2007, U.S. General Wesley Clark (Ret.), explains that the Bush Administration planned to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Lybia, Somalia, Sudan, Iran.

 

[David Morton]

Thanks Veek.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

I wonder what cross section of the population the members of this forum represent, as the present poll numbers don't come anywhere near the 42% yes and 50% no that ABC had in their poll.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

Our sample is pretty small- less than forty. Just saying.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Pondering, does anyone know who supplies the required chemicals to Syria? Following the money trail might be interesting.

 

[Keith]

Pondering, does anyone know who supplies the required chemicals to Syria? Following the money trail might be interesting.

The Big Four Suspects would be - A private Contractor from:

1. USA
2. United Kingdom
3. France
4. Former Soviet Bloc

For sure, the USA and UK still continue to develop such technology and in all probability, France and former Soviets too (in order to develop antidotes they say)

It would depend very much on when the stuff was delivered as I cannot see GB and USA supplying in the last 30 years or so, but France? They do have a bit of a history especially in this region and most certainly supplying lethal weapons during active conflicts. Can you spell Exocet?

Former Soviets because they have deployed allegedly non lethal weapons on their own citizens (cinema siege) in very recent memory.

MY money would be on France & Former Soviet Bloc if only because they have history in this region and would have definitely supplied military aid in the past.

Taking a step back, what exactly would be the objection to a non lethal nerve gas anyway? Western powers (and possibly the former Soviets) are continually developing Area Denial weapons that leave infrastructure intact. This has been the Nirvana of all military objectives since WWI, and these type of weapons include the very nasty Neutron bomb.

Even as recently as November 2012, our own Lord Gilbert, a former British Labour Defence Minister, made the startling suggestion that enhanced radiation reduced blast (ERRB) warheads could be detonated in the mountain region of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border to protect against infiltration.

So, what IS the fuss all about?

 

[Olivier S]

I voted yes! For once in my life, I'm in the 5%!

Why did I?

First, I'm not completly a fool (at least, I hope). If Russia, and Chine were not against everything in this area, there wouldn't even been a debat... The fact that Syria is providing plenty of oil to Russia is absolutely not a reason for their protectionin the UN...

2, NO i don't like to hear that any of the soldiers involved here and there has been killed in mission. I have a familly, and love them. Guess it's the same for every soldiers, even if they chossed their jobs

3, I absolutelly don't care to know if X or Y used chemical weapons (which, Keith is probably right, were sold by either my country, or another occidental country...) The fact that nobody here seem to remember, is that the "rebels" are fighting since 2 yrs now. looks like there were about 100 000 death in 2 yrs. Rebels are fighting with knives and forks against a regular, well stuffed army.

2 yrs of slaughter! And as far I know, the only help rebels received were some guns and ammo.

So, as i am not one of the thinkers that every muslim is bad and hostile cause he's muslim, and given that i have some consideration for human lives, I am in favor of an intervention in Syria.

Not a landing with soldiers on the ground, but air strikes and so on.

I can't believe that with all the ultra high tech stuff like satellites able to count the numbers of hairs on a fly butt, our inteligence services don't know where are the planes landed, the ammos stocked, the HQ guys housed... ....

Just in order to set the balance a little bit between the army and the "rebels"

Will it look like Lybia? There's a big chance!, but let give them the chance to handle their own destiny! If they mess, good on them!

I'm one of those jerks that can't stand seing babies and children broken into pieces in the news... I don't believe in any god, just into the right to live in the best conditions for everybody, under his own will and efforts...

Olivier

 

[Pat]

FYI, the U.S. banned production of chemical weapons in 1969 and Sarin (GB in NATO terms) hasn't been produced here since the 1950s.
In the U.S. (since 1991) you can't even transport the remaining stocks and they are being demilitarized in place (which will take years). While I'm more familiar with the U.S. program, I believe the UK production ended about the same time. So I would remove the U.S. and UK as sources from your list. Add the Chinese, North Koreans, Iran and the former regime in Iraq as potential sources.

And finally, as was demonstrated by the Aum Shinrikyo doomsday cult who released Sarin in a Tokyo subway in 1995, it is possible to produce it locally. The Japanese cultists had a factory devoted to making Sarin. Apparently they bought the production equipment needed over the counter. They also managed to produce VX, if that says anything about the difficulty in producing this horrible stuff.

The Big Four Suspects would be - A private Contractor from:

1. USA
2. United Kingdom
3. France
4. Former Soviet Bloc

For sure, the USA and UK still continue to develop such technology and in all probability, France and former Soviets too (in order to develop antidotes they say)

It would depend very much on when the stuff was delivered as I cannot see GB and USA supplying in the last 30 years or so, but France? They do have a bit of a history especially in this region and most certainly supplying lethal weapons during active conflicts. Can you spell Exocet?

Former Soviets because they have deployed allegedly non lethal weapons on their own citizens (cinema siege) in very recent memory.

MY money would be on France & Former Soviet Bloc if only because they have history in this region and would have definitely supplied military aid in the past.

Taking a step back, what exactly would be the objection to a non lethal nerve gas anyway? Western powers (and possibly the former Soviets) are continually developing Area Denial weapons that leave infrastructure intact. This has been the Nirvana of all military objectives since WWI, and these type of weapons include the very nasty Neutron bomb.

Even as recently as November 2012, our own Lord Gilbert, a former British Labour Defence Minister, made the startling suggestion that enhanced radiation reduced blast (ERRB) warheads could be detonated in the mountain region of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border to protect against infiltration.

So, what IS the fuss all about?

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Oliver, For the last two years, no one has had a serious concern as Assad killed over 100K of men, women, and children. they were shot, blown up, burned and vaporized. But now there is a tingle of conscious when 1400+ die by a means that's not in the prescribed "ways to kill" manual. I'm not saying that chemicals are right or not horrific, I'm saying that we (the world) should have taken note of this a long time ago. The Arab world should be appalled, but they are either supplying weapons to kill or sitting on their hands. If we (the world) had done something immediately without pointing out the targets (that are now most likely hidden or shielded by civilians) a lesson may have been made. If we attack now the civilian deaths will be paraded for the world to see and we will ascend to a new level of hate in the world. It's a no win proposition.

 

[Steve]

Even our lack of action is hurting us in the region. Those supporting the rebels are blaming us for doing nothing while many in the region are reveling in our President's big talk followed by backing down. Truly a no-win situation. That being said, pretty stupid for Obama to allow this situation to weaken the respect/fear in the region for the presidency.

Waiting for Jim to explain how this "smart big picture guy" will "do the right thing, the only thing possible." Never considered peeing down your leg to be either the right thing or the only thing possible. There are Depends undergarments after all......

 

[Keith]

If you believe the US military has stopped researching and producing limited quantities of chemical weapons and other Area Denial weapons you would be very much mistaken my friend.

Olivier - the problem is that now our eyes have been somewhat "opened" regarding "Arab Spring" - the "enemy" is no longer a simple matter of identification of epaulettes, and it is mainly this reason that there has been massive resistance to "Arming the Rebels"

Likewise, there is no irrefutable truth that we in the West can relate to as to exactly WHO used these weapons and why, although I can guess the why bit. The why bit is to promote an American armed intervention - in my view at least.

On the BBC lunchtime news today, the UN weapons inspectors who have just returned from Syria, will now examine their samples in their laboratories in Holland.

Questions:

Why was the US planning military intervention before the UN have actually reported their findings?

It has been reported on the same news that the UN findings "May Not Be Conclusive" as to the actual use of chemical weapons. Why not?

Do you still think there are "reasonable" grounds to attack Syria at this moment in time?
Why do we bother funding this waste of space that is the UN?

Sorry if this post sounds a bit Craikish - it's not meant to be - it's how it came out.

 

[Larry L.]

Why was the US planning military intervention before the UN have actually reported their findings?

...for the same reasons we have contingency plans for dealing with any potential adversary, Keith. (Seriously.) In this particular case, however, said plans should have at least been drawn up immediately after Obama drew is schoolyard 'red line in the sand'.



And I couldn't agree more about 'booting' the U.N. down the road, BTW. (Not to mention not knowing WHO the rebels actually are as per prior discussions.)

 

[Mark]

I voted yes! For once in my life, I'm in the 5%!

Why did I?

First, I'm not completly a fool (at least, I hope). If Russia, and Chine were not against everything in this area, there wouldn't even been a debat... The fact that Syria is providing plenty of oil to Russia is absolutely not a reason for their protectionin the UN...

2, NO i don't like to hear that any of the soldiers involved here and there has been killed in mission. I have a familly, and love them. Guess it's the same for every soldiers, even if they chossed their jobs

3, I absolutelly don't care to know if X or Y used chemical weapons (which, Keith is probably right, were sold by either my country, or another occidental country...) The fact that nobody here seem to remember, is that the "rebels" are fighting since 2 yrs now. looks like there were about 100 000 death in 2 yrs. Rebels are fighting with knives and forks against a regular, well stuffed army.

2 yrs of slaughter! And as far I know, the only help rebels received were some guns and ammo.

So, as i am not one of the thinkers that every muslim is bad and hostile cause he's muslim, and given that i have some consideration for human lives, I am in favor of an intervention in Syria.

Not a landing with soldiers on the ground, but air strikes and so on.

I can't believe that with all the ultra high tech stuff like satellites able to count the numbers of hairs on a fly butt, our inteligence services don't know where are the planes landed, the ammos stocked, the HQ guys housed... ....

Just in order to set the balance a little bit between the army and the "rebels"

Will it look like Lybia? There's a big chance!, but let give them the chance to handle their own destiny! If they mess, good on them!

I'm one of those jerks that can't stand seing babies and children broken into pieces in the news... I don't believe in any god, just into the right to live in the best conditions for everybody, under his own will and efforts...
Olivier

I fully understand your sentiments and decency in attitude Olivier. All very commendable.

However, I find the end of your post (made bold by me) to be a general contradiction to your stated position and the part of your post that I agree with the most.

It seems to me that any situation in that region has no 'right' side from the Western postion. No matter our choice, any and every choice will be wrong in the eyes of at least 50% of the region.

In general, I feel (as the situation developes) that my originally open-minded view (and vote of undecided) to all possibilities has now swung completely to the 'do not get involved' camp, but I cannot ammend my vote to NO.

The iages of women and children dead and suffering are a manipulation tactic by whomever, to prey on the consciences of decent people like you, in the hope to sway your opinion into support of action from West.

 

[Mark]

Why do we bother funding this waste of space that is the UN?

Because noone will ever support cutting jobs for the 'boys' Keith. That is all.

 

[Pat]

Keith,
You're wrong. I know for a fact the U.S. is not producing lethal chemical weapons. It's against the law and the only research underway is purely defensive (antidote development) and are not "weaponized" agents.
"Area Denial" weapons include everything from artillery, mines etc., to barb wire which the U.S. does still manufacture. Lethal chemical and biological weapons, they do not. The strongest things they make are tear gas and other related crowd control agents.

Anyone that purports otherwise is highly misinformed.

If you believe the US military has stopped researching and producing limited quantities of chemical weapons and other Area Denial weapons you would be very much mistaken my friend.

Sorry if this post sounds a bit Craikish - it's not meant to be - it's how it came out.

 

[Jim Craik]

Originally Posted by Keith1
If you believe the US military has stopped researching and producing limited quantities of chemical weapons and other Area Denial weapons you would be very much mistaken my friend.

Sorry if this post sounds a bit Craikish - it's not meant to be - it's how it came out.

When you take into consideration the untrue nature of attack on the US government, I really think this sounds much more of a Fechterish, Hardyish comment, does't it?