Syria, isolationism, and world police?

[Necronic]

What the fuck are you talking about? We couldn't have given a shit that tens of thousands of people have been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced by conventional weapons. Children blown apart by shelling neighborhoods with mortars. Whole villages taken out & slaughtered, the men decapitated and the women raped to death. And yet we did nothing. And not just in Syria. I'm talking Rwanda, North Korea, India, Kyrgyzstan, ... The list goes on and on. But suddenly someone uses gas - who is undetermined because they showed us physical evidence of the Iraqi danger as well - and we get all high & mighty and want to go in guns a-blazing? This is NOT the job of the US as an independent entity! This has GOT to be a UN mandate or it's nothing more than imperialistic posturing.

This is like the very core of the Geneva Convention. We do care about some things more than others. However, genocide is something we normally will intervene on, if its with conventional weapons or not.

And yeah, the fact that we did nothing in Rwanda and the other places is atrocious. I seem to understand that more than the rest of you, because I am saying we do something about it this time. You guys seem ok with nothing being done, yet again. We stayed out of Rwanda for the same reasons you are arguing here.

It was wrong then

It's wrong now.[DOUBLEPOST=1378318586,1378318377][/DOUBLEPOST]As for who comes next. That's. That's hard. It would be hard either way. If you want the easy solution then just back Assad. He's safe right? The truth is that there are no easy answers here. Sorry.

 

[Shakey]

As for who comes next. That's. That's hard. It would be hard either way. If you want the easy solution then just back Assad. He's safe right? The truth is that there are no easy answers here. Sorry.

No, the easy solution is to lob some bombs and say we did something so we can feel better about it. Then we can shrug and say "At least we tried!" when it gets even worse. Taking action just to make us feel better is a horrible excuse.[DOUBLEPOST=1378318999,1378318902][/DOUBLEPOST]Not worrying about who comes next, or what they'll do, is how we made the middle east what it is today. It's a horrible strategy, but no one cares because it feeds the war machine.

 

[sixpackshaker]

You can't back Assad because he has the blood of American Soldiers on his hands.

Throughout the Iraq War, Syria has reportedly served as a conduit for foreign fighters intending to enter Iraq to fight US, coalition, or Iraqi military and police forces.[7] US officials have complained that militants and their reinforcement and logistics networks have been able to operate openly in Syria, and that the Syrian government has not made sufficient effort to stop it. The US says that militants fly into Damascus and then, with the help of emplaced networks, travel across the Syrian border into Iraq, mainly through the city of Ramadi.[7] According to the US military, the foreign militants were responsible for 80% to 90% of the suicide attacks in Iraq, mainly targeting Iraqi civilians.[8]

 

[Necronic]

The do nothing option is worse. We knew that the day Assad started gassing civilians.

 

[AshburnerX]

There is also the fact that backing Assad would kind of be like backing the Iranian shah all over again... it would just stir up the Iranians even further, seeing America protect a tyrannical government that tortures and murders it's own people. It's an image we don't want to reenforce in the region.

 

[Necronic]

If you want to really understand why chemical weapons are so uniquely horrible, ask yourself this:

Why did the Nazi's gas the Jews instead of shooting them?

 

[Shakey]

The do nothing option is worse. We knew that the day Assad started gassing civilians.

How do you know that? How do you know what the next leader will do when we won't even be there to guide them? Or provide security and oversight. No good will come of any of this. But at least our conscience will be clear.

 

[strawman]

As for who comes next. That's. That's hard. It would be hard either way. If you want the easy solution then just back Assad. He's safe right? The truth is that there are no easy answers here. Sorry.

That's what I was just going to ask, actually. As far as I can tell there is a victim being murdered in the park while we watching. Two or more people are doing the murder, but it's just a play while they actually attack each other. Further, two of the bystanders are not watching the fight, they're watching us, arms crossed with an expression that says if we interfere they will react against us.

We don't care about the attackers. We don't care about the bystander/guards. We care about the person caught in the middle, dying in front of us.

That's where the analogy breaks down though. Solutions can be found in this situation. Kill everyone that's attacking, and preventing that safety of the victim.

We can't just take out Russia, China, Assad, and the rebels, though.

Even if we have incontrovertible proof that they're all in on it, we simply don't have the resources, power, or political will to do so.

Bombing them is the equivalent of throwing teargas on everyone at the park and hoping people come to their senses when they recover. They won't.

Putting boots on the ground, enforcing peace through the use of air and ground forces, making everyone sit down at a table and sign a treaty, then leaving peacekeeping forces in there for a decade is the only real solution, but if Russia and China continue to support one side or the other above peaceful negotiations, no one is going to sit down.

Our political leaders don't have the will of the American public on their side, which is going to undermine their credibility.

It's not just possession of WMDs - they are actively using WMDs. Not even on each other, but on citizens!

But.

What can we do? The cures everyone seem to be suggesting are worse than the illness. Yes, thousands of people died in the latest chemical weapon attack. A single bombing sortie on military targets within civilian shielded areas, though, could easily kill twice that.

And we don't even have the UK on our side. Congress may not even pass the bill.

If we had 3-4 people facing off with the bystander/guards, they may not like the action, but they wouldn't oppose it so strongly. The UK stepping back has actually strengthened Russia and China's resolve.

We need more people on our side. Until then any cure we attempt isn't likely to help, and may actually hurt the situation more.

 

[Shakey]

I'm not saying backing Assad is a better option either, or even that we should think about it.

 

[Necronic]

We can destroy chemical weapon manufacturing and storage facilities. That's all this is about. It would have been easier if Obama hadn't waited for approval and had just struck without warning. If you want to criticize something criticize that. It was a mistake to wait.

I don't know why you guys keep bringing up regime change. This isn't about helping the rebels or hurting Assad(edit: ok there will be some punitive damage). This is about destroying chemical weapons.

You guys can't see the trees for the forest.

 

[Covar]

If you want to really understand why chemical weapons are so uniquely horrible, ask yourself this:

Why did the Nazi's gas the Jews instead of shooting them?

Cheaper, and didn't waste resources that were far more valuable on the front.

 

[Shakey]

Putting boots on the ground, enforcing peace through the use of air and ground forces, making everyone sit down at a table and sign a treaty, then leaving peacekeeping forces in there for a decade is the only real solution, but if Russia and China continue to support one side or the other above peaceful negotiations, no one is going to sit down.

Pretty much this, but we saw how well it worked in Iraq. Honestly, unless we're willing to really commit to this, anything we do will most likely make it worse.

 

[Necronic]

Now, if you want to talk about the actual trees? I don't know if we have the ability to destroy these facilities without dispersing more sarin. I hope to god we can, and I hope we don't attempt this without knowing we can. But that involves high tech munitions that I don't think are public knowledge (if they exist or not.)

Good article on it http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

 

[strawman]

We can destroy chemical weapon manufacturing and storage facilities.

1) Easier said than done (we don't have enough good intelligence to do this well, nevermind completely)
2) Problematic as physical destruction of such facilities may result in huge plumes of toxins floating around for some time after the destruction.

 

[Necronic]

Ninja'd you steinman

Cheaper, and didn't waste resources that were far more valuable on the front.

Gas is more cost effective and more efficient than a bullet or a man with a club. It is more efficient than burning people alive. It is more efficient than starving them to death. It is literally the most efficient killing machine known to man.

It is fuckig evil.

 

[strawman]

Now, if you want to talk about the actual trees? I don't know if we have the ability to destroy these facilities without dispersing more sarin. I hope to god we can, and I hope we don't attempt this without knowing we can. But that involves high tech munitions that I don't think are public knowledge (if they exist or not.)

Good article on it http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23946071

That would be good, but this would be like a weapons test that, if it went wrong, could have terrible consequences.

What's worse than Assad dispersing sarin? The US dispersing Sarin and other chemicals which don't kill but instead cripple and give birth defects to everyone nearby.[DOUBLEPOST=1378320786,1378320665][/DOUBLEPOST]

It is literally the most efficient killing machine known to man.

Biological weapons are more efficient than chemical weapons, but I suppose they're all grouped together. Consider the Europeans giving gifts of illnesses to the Native Americans early on.

 

[Necronic]

The only difference with Bio is that it takes a huge infrastructure and advanced tech to pull off. Chemical weapons take early 20th centur tech to make. Anyone can make them. That's why they scare me more (for now at least.)


I'm a chemist, and I keep this article around to remind just how easy it is to accidentally gas yourself:

http://www.brewracingframes.com/id75.htm

 

[sixpackshaker]

For the storage facilities for the WMD, we will not bomb those. We will likely take out the air defense (since we will be bombing them for two months,) command and control (to slow their chances at rebuilding the air defenses,) the ministry of information (to really blind them,) the air force and whatever loose artillery there is outside the city centers.

It will be folly to knock out the the stores of WMD, because you can't. We would end up spreading it around further than if Syria used it on purpose.

 

[GasBandit]

@Necronic, your frothing, vengeful idealism is way off base. There are despotic regimes oppressing or killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians everywhere from Burma to Zimbabwe, and yet we're not charging in with drones a'blazin' because of one simple fact - we don't have the wealth to be the world's police any more. Our economy is in shambles, our military gutted and hogtied by bleeding heart rules of engagment, and our national will eaten away by a decade of frothing anti-war rhetoric of dubious veracity. Yes, Chemical weapons are bad. But the fact is if we involve ourselves in the Syrian civil war, we're definitely going to cause collateral damage and civilian casualties, and we're either supporting Al Qaeda on the one side, or supporting Assad on the other. Which do you want to help? Because those are the only two dogs in the fight.

Yes, it's unfortunate that our president decided to paint himself into a corner with tough guy rhetoric. Obama's foreign policy zigzags between schizophrenic and incompetent. But the ego of one man is not the credibility of the United States, and it is long, long past time we remind Washington to whom they are beholden.

 

[strawman]

http://www.brewracingframes.com/id75.htm

Ooof, that is frightening.

 

[Necronic]

All I care about is chemical weapons really. It would be good to step up to the plate on genocides where possible, bu chemical weapons are a real red line for me.

And it wasn't Obama that painted himself into a corner on this. It was damn near the entire world. We all agreed on this. Just because no one else means what they say doesn't mean shit to me. When America says no, we mean no.

This matters. Chemical weapons can not be used under any circumstances. Anyone using them is going to get a swift kick in the balls.

This isn't about who is right or wrong in that conflict. Intervention does not change who wins or loses, or it won't make a huge difference. This is about chemical weapons. Period. End of story.

Quit trying to escalate this into a world war. It won't. Russia is posturing and it's damned well time we show Putin just what we really think of his shirtless bear hunting foreign policy.

Quit trying to say that attacking chemical weapons delivery systems will help Al-Qaeda. This whole fucking Arab Spring is helping Al-Qaeda. You want to know what would hurt Al-Qaeda? Supporting secular dictators like Assad or Hussein.

And quit acting like following your word makes you an aggressive "frothing" vengeful monster. This is about as cold and calculating as it gets. There are rules and there are consequences.

Ed: And quit saying we cant fix everything so we shouldn't try to fix anything. We pick our fights. We fight the ones that matter the most. Just because the entire world is burnin doesn't mean we just stop, roll up into a ball and let the flames consume us. What do we look like? Europeans?

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

less than 1m ago
The resolution that just passed the Senate foreign relations committee included the McCain amendments. That means the full Senate will now consider legislation that makes it "the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria."
5m ago
Dan Roberts:

Senate committee votes in favour of authorising military action against Syria by 10 votes to 7 with 1 abstention. Full floor vote next.​

from: http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/sep/04/syria-crisis-putin-warns-west-live


Let's fuckin' do it, let's go to war and kill a bunch of people with raining death​

 

[Necronic]

Whelp. My whole argument is moot now. Fml. gg.

I'm not ok with the McCain amendment as it fulfills like 90% of the concerns y'all had.

 

[strawman]

That's just the committee. Still has to go to a full senate and house votes, if I'm not mistaken. Getting the bill out of the committee and to the floor isn't the hard part.

The bill can still change on the way through the rest of the process.

 

[GasBandit]

All I care about is chemical weapons really. It would be good to step up to the plate on genocides where possible, bu chemical weapons are a real red line for me.

Well, I'm glad we're apparently tailoring foreign policy to address your personal demons.

And it wasn't Obama that painted himself into a corner on this. It was damn near the entire world. We all agreed on this. Just because no one else means what they say doesn't mean shit to me. When America says no, we mean no.

I'm sorry, WHAT country have you been living in all your life? Politicians (yes, even ours) have been selectively enforcing laws and treaties for longer than you and I have been alive. We even have historical precedent of ignoring chemical weapons manufacture and use.

This isn't about who is right or wrong in that conflict. Intervention does not change who wins or loses, or it won't make a huge difference. This is about chemical weapons. Period. End of story.

No. You have to take into account all the consequences of your actions, or at the least, the ones you can predict. And it's simple to see that attacking Assad helps Al Qaeda. Furthermore, it is still questionable that Assad's forces were the ones who used them in the first place. All the press I've read for the last couple months had him on a new offensive that was really pushing the rebels against the ropes. He had nothing to gain by using chemical weapons that he wasn't already doing conventionally. Conversely, the jihadists, ever more desperate, definitely have something to gain by bringing in the US on their side.

Quit trying to escalate this into a world war. It won't.

I never said world war, I said proxy war.

Russia is posturing and it's damned well time we show Putin just what we really think of his shirtless bear hunting foreign policy.

If you don't think Russia will give material aid to places like Syria and Iran, you're fooling yourself.

Quit trying to say that attacking chemical weapons delivery systems will help Al-Qaeda.

You seem to be under the impression we have some kind of miracle magic wand we can wave to remove chemical weapons from the equation without dramatic loss of innocent life and risking regional contamination.

This whole fucking Arab Spring is helping Al-Qaeda. You want to know what would hurt Al-Qaeda? Supporting secular dictators like Assad or Hussein.

... which is why we're not leaping right into the fray. Seriously, where are you going with this line of reasoning?

And quit acting like following your word makes you an aggressive "frothing" vengeful monster. This is about as cold and calculating as it gets. There are rules and there are consequences.

I'm sorry, was YOUR personal word at stake here? Because the vengeful frothing I was referring to was yours, specifically. You are not cold and calculating, you are irrational and borderline obsessive. You don't care about anything but that chemical weapons were used, and you forcefully, aggressively, and sometimes profanely posture your responses to try and fallaciously shove your points through to primacy. You're trying to bludgeon this discussion to death with emotional appeals and overly forceful rhetoric.

 

[Necronic]

Yeah, I guess I am getting emotional. I don't know why. Something about chemical weapons just sets off a trigger for me. And...I dunno. I'm just not ok with isolationism. Something about it really really pisses me off. It's what Europe did. They got rich off the world and then walked away.

I'm not ok with that. I never want us to do that. I know we've made mistakes. We've made so many. But the biggest mistake is walking away. And it seems to be the new thing in America. I guess it's a natural reaction to any long period of war like what we've been in.

But yeah. I guess I was frothing a bit. Seeing the McCain ammendment really took the wind out of my sails.

 

[GasBandit]

There are worse triggers to have, I suppose.

And I'm really, really tired of McCain turning everything he touches to shit.

 

[Shakey]

I'm not ok with that. I never want us to do that. I know we've made mistakes. We've made so many. But the biggest mistake is walking away. And it seems to be the new thing in America. I guess it's a natural reaction to any long period of war like what we've been in.

That's what we would be doing though. We'd launch some missiles, call it good, and walk away. We would most likely weaken Assad enough that the rebels could turn the tide, and maybe even over take him. Now we've got a country with no firm leadership that has chemical weapons. Even if we tried to target their stock piles, There will most likely be stockpiles we don't know about. That, I think, is a much worse situation. Who knows where those weapons will end up.

 

[drawn_inward]

Yeah, I guess I am getting emotional. I don't know why. Something about chemical weapons just sets off a trigger for me.

I don't agree with you, but I understand having a "trigger" topic. I think we all agree with you on the matter of chemical weapons being horrible and monstrous.

 

[Eriol]

Necronic, you need to understand the difference between countries signing treaties because it would look bad if they don't, and signing things because they actually want to do what they said in them. There are SCORES of examples both ways. If you want something besides weapons in the first category, just look to the Kyoto treaty. (Hey, if other people can Godwin the thread, why can't I throw in that? )

 

[Necronic]

Well let's be fair here. It's not like one of 'those' kinds of triggers (not sure how else to say that).

I'm just really pissed about this. I stand by what I said, of not how I said it.

Also nicotine gum makes me fucking furious.

Ed: uhm. Kyoto may not be the best example.

 

[jwhouk]

Oh Gee, Proxy Wars. Didn't we do that already in 'Nam and Korea?

 

[Eriol]

Ed: uhm. Kyoto may not be the best example.

True. Most who signed it either A) Weren't bound by any targets to begin with, or B) Were below them already due to economic collapse (Eastern Europe). So not exactly what I meant, but you get the idea.[DOUBLEPOST=1378330044,1378329971][/DOUBLEPOST]

Oh Gee, Proxy Wars. Didn't we do that already in 'Nam and Korea?

The first Korean war the entire UN was there because Russia abstained from the security council vote (they have never missed one since) and China's seat was represented by an actual democracy (Taiwan) instead of the communists. So that war had full UN "approval" and had boots on the ground from many countries, yours and mine included.

 

[GasBandit]

Also nicotine gum makes me fucking furious.

Well, it SAYS right on the box, man.

 

[Gilgamesh]

All I can say on this whole thing is this:

Backing Assad = Wrong
Backing Rebels = Wrong
Doing Nothing = Wrong

However, saying that replacing Assad is the wrong answer BECAUSE whoever takes his place may do the same thing is a moot point. Assad already crossed the ultimate line (aside from Nuclear weapons) so there isn't any worse that can come. It can only be AS bad or better.