US weighing military options if Syria uses WMD

[Shofercia]

Fair warning? Really? Good to see that you're fine with the laws of war being broken and human beings being condemned to die in incredible pain because you can't bring yourself to support the West over some tinpot dictator whose own people are rising up against him.

Try again, rebel without a cause.

Maybe Pope Joan believes the rebels aren't really Syrians but are foreign fighters. I've heard that theory thrown around enough.

Some of the "rebels" are Saudi fighters. And I'm not too keen on Saudi Arabia promoting human rights anywhere.

[Saruhan]

Why the hell not? It would be a quick way of flexing NATO power, seeing as Iraq is over, the US is on;y using drones in Pakistan, and the US is pulling all troops out of Afghanistan. If they didn't do something they would look weak, something that the US can't afford right now

You are so wrong, it's laughable.

NATO acting on Syria would give them justification to use those chemical weapons on NATO soldiers.

The US has used drones in...lets see...Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen , just to name a few. So don't start with that 'US will look weak' crock. The US could wipe out the entire Syrian Army and Air Force with drones, should it decide to.

I could say the same thing to you

This won't be an Iraq, we wouldn't telegraph our attack. It would be small, precise strikes by Paratroopers and assorted Special forces to secure any chemical weapons before the Syrians knew what the hell was happening. Drones won't work for this, the Syrians aren't a bunch of starving terrorists living in a cave, they have (albeit outdated) aircraft and anti-aircraft weaponry

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

Why the hell not? It would be a quick way of flexing NATO power, seeing as Iraq is over, the US is on;y using drones in Pakistan, and the US is pulling all troops out of Afghanistan. If they didn't do something they would look weak, something that the US can't afford right now

You are so wrong, it's laughable.

NATO acting on Syria would give them justification to use those chemical weapons on NATO soldiers.

The US has used drones in...lets see...Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen , just to name a few. So don't start with that 'US will look weak' crock. The US could wipe out the entire Syrian Army and Air Force with drones, should it decide to.

You overestimate the capabilities of drones. Last I checked, it wasn't a drone that took out Osama or captured Hussein.

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

Just stay out of the fake engineered civil war. Shame on us for starting it in the first place. Yankee, Saudis, Al Qaeda, Tel Aviv, go home.

This is rich. You're should write Protocols of the Elders of the West with a conspiracy running this deep.

*taking off paranoid conspiracy-theorist goggles*

Don't forget that the Freemasons (and the Jews Zionists Israelis) are involved in the conspiracy.

Also western corporations, to get oil. Because the US has no oil-rich allies to speak of.

[Khodoristan]

You just don't get it, don't you? We. Wouldn't. Send. In. Tier. 1.

Airstrikes, maybe. Tier 1 or any other SOF? No way in hell.

Airstrikes. Would. Be. Useless. Uncontrolled exploding of chemical and/or biological weapons would just lead to contamination of the area. If those are located in a civilian population center, you've just fucked thousands of civilians. Even if they're out in the middle of nowhere, you're still carrying the risk of said agents making their way to civilians. Also, as I've pointed out before, no bombing is 100% perfect and any surviving material would be recovered and either moved elsewhere or used by the Syrians, or taken by someone else and used or sold by them. You have to have boots on the ground to secure and either safely dispose of or transport the weapons.

If the Syrians got wind of the US deploying spec ops, they would move them anyway. No matter how swift and violent a strike, there would always be more to recover if you used boots.

The Syrians are smart, or at least they think they were. Syria placed most of their biological and chemical weapons sites away from civilian centers, spreading them out as to avoid a concentrated attack from Israel or Turkey. So your 'contaminating civilians' theory is crap.
As for 'fucking thousands of civilians'...Syria is a fucking desert, my friend. People are few and far between, outside of Aleppo, Damascus, and Homs.

[Shofercia]

This is rich. You're should write Protocols of the Elders of the West with a conspiracy running this deep.

*taking off paranoid conspiracy-theorist goggles*

Don't forget that the Freemasons (and the Jews Zionists Israelis) are involved in the conspiracy.

Also western corporations, to get oil. Because the US has no oil-rich allies to speak of.

America's oil-rich allies just love Human Rights. Indeed, the Saudi Arabian motto is "we promote Human Rights by killing off homosexuals, stoning women, and treating minorities like shit". Ain't it wonderful to have such Human Rights Supporters on America's side?

[Conserative Morality]

Do tell. Which Russian actions speak towards Middle Eastern Imperialism? So far, they've vetoed a very one-sided approach to Syria, an approach that didn't bring any wonders to Libya.

Selling weapons to the Syrian army to massacre their own people, opposing all sanctions against Syria, opposing a condemnation of Assad for murdering his own people, etc.

And it's not about Middle Eastern Imperialism. It's about them trying to uphold their current prestige and influence by supporting their allies.

It just so happens that their primary ally at the moment is a piece of shit dictator.

Additionally, I said you might. It's certainly worth a shot, before risking WMDs being used.

Honestly, I'm for staying out of it unless WMDs are used. But it's foolish to think that there isn't a huge risk of it happening anyway.

[The Old South]

Maybe Pope Joan believes the rebels aren't really Syrians but are foreign fighters. I've heard that theory thrown around enough.

Some of the "rebels" are Saudi fighters. And I'm not too keen on Saudi Arabia promoting human rights anywhere.

Who is it here on NSG that referred to Saudi Arabia as the "moral anus of the universe"? I can't recall...

[Saruhan]

*taking off paranoid conspiracy-theorist goggles*

Don't forget that the Freemasons (and the Jews Zionists Israelis) are involved in the conspiracy.

Also western corporations, to get oil. Because the US has no oil-rich allies to speak of.

America's oil-rich allies just love Human Rights. Indeed, the Saudi Arabian motto is "we promote Human Rights by killing off homosexuals, stoning women, and treating minorities like shit". Ain't it wonderful to have such Human Rights Supporters on America's side?

I didn't realize that us Canadians (Proud controller of 13% of global reserves) have such a bad record

[Khodoristan]

You are so wrong, it's laughable.

NATO acting on Syria would give them justification to use those chemical weapons on NATO soldiers.

The US has used drones in...lets see...Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen , just to name a few. So don't start with that 'US will look weak' crock. The US could wipe out the entire Syrian Army and Air Force with drones, should it decide to.

You overestimate the capabilities of drones. Last I checked, it wasn't a drone that took out Osama or captured Hussein.

It was a drone that surveiled him for two years. It was a drone that killed al-Awlaki, Saad Bin Laden, and Sheikh Ahmed. It is a drone that can loiter for hours on end, constantly designating and destroying targets. Day in, day out. It can do everything a pilot can, without the need to eat, sleep, and hydrate.

[Quebec and Atlantic Canada]

*taking off paranoid conspiracy-theorist goggles*

Don't forget that the Freemasons (and the Jews Zionists Israelis) are involved in the conspiracy.

Also western corporations, to get oil. Because the US has no oil-rich allies to speak of.

America's oil-rich allies just love Human Rights. Indeed, the Saudi Arabian motto is "we promote Human Rights by killing off homosexuals, stoning women, and treating minorities like shit". Ain't it wonderful to have such Human Rights Supporters on America's side?

I didn't even talk about human rights in that post. Where on earth do you get this idea that I think Saudi Arabia, et al are bastions of human rights from?

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

Airstrikes. Would. Be. Useless. Uncontrolled exploding of chemical and/or biological weapons would just lead to contamination of the area. If those are located in a civilian population center, you've just fucked thousands of civilians. Even if they're out in the middle of nowhere, you're still carrying the risk of said agents making their way to civilians. Also, as I've pointed out before, no bombing is 100% perfect and any surviving material would be recovered and either moved elsewhere or used by the Syrians, or taken by someone else and used or sold by them. You have to have boots on the ground to secure and either safely dispose of or transport the weapons.

If the Syrians got wind of the US deploying spec ops, they would move them anyway. No matter how swift and violent a strike, there would always be more to recover if you used boots.

The Syrians are smart, or at least they think they were. Syria placed most of their biological and chemical weapons sites away from civilian centers, spreading them out as to avoid a concentrated attack from Israel or Turkey. So your 'contaminating civilians' theory is crap.
As for fucking thousands of civilians...Syria is a fucking desert, my friend. People are few and far between, outside of Aleppo, Damascus, and Homs.

That may be so, but you're still ignoring the problem of sending chemical and biological agents into the wild. Airbourne diseases could easily, carried by winds, end up in a village or even one of the cities. Waterbourne could seep into whatever water sources the Syrians have (including the fucking Mediterranean and several rivers) and cause damage that way. And that's not counting what will happen if any animals, including humans, suddenly become carriers for any of it. Also, Syria isn't all desert, they have agriculture. We also don't know where the stockpiles are, Assad could easily have them placed at the exact spot where prevailing winds and/or geography would send them into vital civilian or resource areas. We do know that some are stored on the Syrian/Jordanian border, are you willing to risk fucking over Jordan?

Finally, again, no airstrike could 100% destroy the weapons. Some will survive and be used elsewhere.

[Khodoristan]

You are so wrong, it's laughable.

NATO acting on Syria would give them justification to use those chemical weapons on NATO soldiers.

The US has used drones in...lets see...Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, and Yemen , just to name a few. So don't start with that 'US will look weak' crock. The US could wipe out the entire Syrian Army and Air Force with drones, should it decide to.

I could say the same thing to you

This won't be an Iraq, we wouldn't telegraph our attack. It would be small, precise strikes by Paratroopers and assorted Special forces to secure any chemical weapons before the Syrians knew what the hell was happening. Drones won't work for this, the Syrians aren't a bunch of starving terrorists living in a cave, they have (albeit outdated) aircraft and anti-aircraft weaponry

Hah, okay. We would find a cache and then what? We send in NEST teams to dispose of them...inside Syria. The Syrians would realize this, and uh oh...half of Homs is dead from VX.

The Syrians have hundreds of tons of chemical weapons stockpiled in bunkers. A drone strike would render them unusable, and bury them under the very weight of the structure.

[Khodoristan]

If the Syrians got wind of the US deploying spec ops, they would move them anyway. No matter how swift and violent a strike, there would always be more to recover if you used boots.

The Syrians are smart, or at least they think they were. Syria placed most of their biological and chemical weapons sites away from civilian centers, spreading them out as to avoid a concentrated attack from Israel or Turkey. So your 'contaminating civilians' theory is crap.
As for fucking thousands of civilians...Syria is a fucking desert, my friend. People are few and far between, outside of Aleppo, Damascus, and Homs.

That may be so, but you're still ignoring the problem of sending chemical and biological agents into the wild. Airbourne diseases could easily, carried by winds, end up in a village or even one of the cities. Waterbourne could seep into whatever water sources the Syrians have (including the fucking Mediterranean and several rivers) and cause damage that way. And that's not counting what will happen if any animals, including humans, suddenly become carriers for any of it. Also, Syria isn't all desert, they have agriculture. We also don't know where the stockpiles are, Assad could easily have them placed at the exact spot where prevailing winds and/or geography would send them into vital civilian or resource areas. We do know that some are stored on the Syrian/Jordanian border, are you willing to risk fucking over Jordan?

Finally, again, no airstrike could 100% destroy the weapons. Some will survive and be used elsewhere.

You just proved my point. They're in bunkers. Even if we hit them with a JDAM, they would not all of a sudden fly off into the atmosphere willy-nilly, or miraculously seep into the groundwater.

So if we don't know where these weapons are in the first place, then remind me: why send in troops in the first place to find a friggin needle in a haystack? Illogical. Stupid. Drones are not the only option, but they certainly are the best, and the safest.

As for Jordan, they are moot. We tell them to shut up and deal, and they will listen. Believe me, they like our investment too much to give a shit.

[Shofercia]

Do tell. Which Russian actions speak towards Middle Eastern Imperialism? So far, they've vetoed a very one-sided approach to Syria, an approach that didn't bring any wonders to Libya.

Selling weapons to the Syrian army to massacre their own people, opposing all sanctions against Syria, opposing a condemnation of Assad for murdering his own people, etc.

And it's not about Middle Eastern Imperialism. It's about them trying to uphold their current prestige and influence by supporting their allies.

It just so happens that their primary ally at the moment is a piece of shit dictator.

Syria isn't Russia's primarily ally, nor is it even in the top ten. Additionally, there's no such thing as "ally of the moment" for Russians. And again, I suggested offering that deal to Russians, seeing if they'll take it. Maybe they would. But when it's not even offered, you can't really tell if they'll take it or not, now, can you? And after Libya and Kosovo, I can see why Russia wouldn't be very trusting towards NATO.

Additionally, I said you might. It's certainly worth a shot, before risking WMDs being used.

Honestly, I'm for staying out of it unless WMDs are used. But it's foolish to think that there isn't a huge risk of it happening anyway.

Thus the deal should be offered, and we should see if they take it. If they do, cookie for me. If they don't cookie for me. Additionally, it seems, to Assad that the government's winning at the moment, so there's less chance of WMDs being using than you think: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mid ... story.html

Activists said clashes continued for a fourth day around Damascus’s international airport, but the government announced that the airport was open and that flights were operating on schedule. Egypt Air said it would resume flights Monday...“We got out before the traitorous Syrian army entered our village,” said a man who alighted from the tiny rowboat with his wife and seven children.

I.e. they've retaken the airport, and retaken that village.

[Conserative Morality]

You just proved my point.

So if we don't know where these weapons are in the first place, then remind me: why send in troops in the first place to find a friggin needle in a haystack? Illogical. Stupid. Drones are not the only option, but they certainly are the best, and the safest.

As for Jordan, they are moot. We tell them to shut up and deal, and they will listen. Believe me, they like our investment too much to give a shit.

You're mad. Do you realize the human cost of what you're suggesting?

[The Ben Boys]

This sounds a lot like getting pissed at a crazy dictator for killing thousands of his people and finally using biological weapons, but we didn't go after him for twenty years and then when we did we were called imperialist bastards.

What was that again?

[Khodoristan]

You just proved my point.

So if we don't know where these weapons are in the first place, then remind me: why send in troops in the first place to find a friggin needle in a haystack? Illogical. Stupid. Drones are not the only option, but they certainly are the best, and the safest.

As for Jordan, they are moot. We tell them to shut up and deal, and they will listen. Believe me, they like our investment too much to give a shit.

You're mad. Do you realize the human cost of what you're suggesting?

The 'human cost'? Aww, how cute.

Assad should have thought about that when he decided to shell mosques and churches.

The human cost if we bombed the fuck out of those chemical weapons sites would be...a lot of dead Syrian soldiers.

[Shofercia]

America's oil-rich allies just love Human Rights. Indeed, the Saudi Arabian motto is "we promote Human Rights by killing off homosexuals, stoning women, and treating minorities like shit". Ain't it wonderful to have such Human Rights Supporters on America's side?

I didn't even talk about human rights in that post. Where on earth do you get this idea that I think Saudi Arabia, et al are bastions of human rights from?

I was showing you your methodology from the other point of view, which worked rather well responding to that post, since you mentioned oil-rich allies. Not so much fun when someone is doing it to you, is it?

Indeed I am. Bashar and Hafez have always been noble fighters for the rights of Syrians against the imperialist aggressors, particularly Israel. Should Syria fall to Western imperialism, it will become another "banana republic"- a state where a Western-backed oligarchy prospers, while the people suffer and die. This is why Bashar's noble republic must be backed, at all costs.

You making strawmen on "behalf" of the other side to make them look ridiculous is getting rather annoying, as you've been told repeatedly. Please stop.

America's oil-rich allies just love Human Rights. Indeed, the Saudi Arabian motto is "we promote Human Rights by killing off homosexuals, stoning women, and treating minorities like shit". Ain't it wonderful to have such Human Rights Supporters on America's side?

I didn't realize that us Canadians (Proud controller of 13% of global reserves) have such a bad record

I was talking about US oil-rich allies in the Middle East. I like you guys. I'll still make fun of ya over hockey though

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

That may be so, but you're still ignoring the problem of sending chemical and biological agents into the wild. Airbourne diseases could easily, carried by winds, end up in a village or even one of the cities. Waterbourne could seep into whatever water sources the Syrians have (including the fucking Mediterranean and several rivers) and cause damage that way. And that's not counting what will happen if any animals, including humans, suddenly become carriers for any of it. Also, Syria isn't all desert, they have agriculture. We also don't know where the stockpiles are, Assad could easily have them placed at the exact spot where prevailing winds and/or geography would send them into vital civilian or resource areas. We do know that some are stored on the Syrian/Jordanian border, are you willing to risk fucking over Jordan?

Finally, again, no airstrike could 100% destroy the weapons. Some will survive and be used elsewhere.

You just proved my point.

So if we don't know where these weapons are in the first place, then remind me: why send in troops in the first place to find a friggin needle in a haystack? Illogical. Stupid. Drones are not the only option, but they certainly are the best, and the safest.

As for Jordan, they are moot. We tell them to shut up and deal, and they will listen. Believe me, they like our investment too much to give a shit.

You seem to have missed the part where I mentioned surveillance. You find the stockpiles first using satellites (and possibly spies, NOT drones because the Syrians aren't morons and have access to such things as fucking radar), then go in. Coordinate with teams from other nations, secure the stockpiles with as few casualties as possible (even on the Syrian side), and then you can either dispose of them safely there, use more controlled detonations to seal up the bunkers, or if you're able to transport them out of Syria completely.

As for Jordan, they are not moot. You remember what happened the other eighty dozen times the West has disregarded the safety and security of Middle Eastern civilians, or civilians in general, right?

[Conserative Morality]

Syria isn't Russia's primarily ally, nor is it even in the top ten. Additionally, there's no such thing as "ally of the moment" for Russians. And again, I suggested offering that deal to Russians, seeing if they'll take it. Maybe they would. But when it's not even offered, you can't really tell if they'll take it or not, now, can you? And after Libya and Kosovo, I can see why Russia wouldn't be very trusting towards NATO.

In the Middle East, it most certainly is. Russia is alone in this theater, save for Iran and Syria.

Thus the deal should be offered, and we should see if they take it. If they do, cookie for me. If they don't cookie for me.

Why do you get a cookie if they don't take it? Wouldn't that solidify my point about Russia not putting a high priority on humanitarian concerns?

Additionally, it seems, to Assad that the government's winning at the moment, so there's less chance of WMDs being using than you think: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mid ... story.html

Activists said clashes continued for a fourth day around Damascus’s international airport, but the government announced that the airport was open and that flights were operating on schedule. Egypt Air said it would resume flights Monday...“We got out before the traitorous Syrian army entered our village,” said a man who alighted from the tiny rowboat with his wife and seven children.

I.e. they've retaken the airport, and retaken that village.

You think months of advances are outweighed by a single victory? Perhaps sixty or seventy years ago, but in a modern war like this, a single stopped attack means jack-shit.

I'm not the kind of person who claimed victory for the rebels, or a likely one, once they hit started hitting Damascus. This is a matter of long term support.

[Shofercia]

Some of the "rebels" are Saudi fighters. And I'm not too keen on Saudi Arabia promoting human rights anywhere.

Who is it here on NSG that referred to Saudi Arabia as the "moral anus of the universe"? I can't recall...

I'm just saying that not all of the "rebels" are in it for Democracy and Human Rights.

[Conserative Morality]

The 'human cost'? Aww, how cute.

Assad should have thought about that when he decided to shell mosques and churches.

The human cost if we bombed the fuck out of those chemical weapons sites would be...a lot of dead Syrian soldiers.

And a lot of dead civilians. Syrian soldiers don't deserve to die by chemical weapons, they're goddamn human beings. Irony does not excuse inhumanity.

[Shofercia]

Syria isn't Russia's primarily ally, nor is it even in the top ten. Additionally, there's no such thing as "ally of the moment" for Russians. And again, I suggested offering that deal to Russians, seeing if they'll take it. Maybe they would. But when it's not even offered, you can't really tell if they'll take it or not, now, can you? And after Libya and Kosovo, I can see why Russia wouldn't be very trusting towards NATO.

In the Middle East, it most certainly is. Russia is alone in this theater, save for Iran and Syria.

Remind me again, aside from reasons of pride, why does Russia even need the Middle East?

Thus the deal should be offered, and we should see if they take it. If they do, cookie for me. If they don't cookie for me.

Why do you get a cookie if they don't take it? Wouldn't that solidify my point about Russia not putting a high priority on humanitarian concerns?

Sorry, should've said "if they don't, cookie for you". It should still be offered though.

Additionally, it seems, to Assad that the government's winning at the moment, so there's less chance of WMDs being using than you think: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/mid ... story.html



I.e. they've retaken the airport, and retaken that village.

You think months of advances are outweighed by a single victory? Perhaps sixty or seventy years ago, but in a modern war like this, a single stopped attack means jack-shit.

I'm not the kind of person who claimed victory for the rebels, or a likely one, once they hit started hitting Damascus. This is a matter of long term support.

I think retaking the airport is a big victory for the government, if they're not bullshitting about that.

[Hardened Pyrokinetics]

Another thought to point out: We don't know how many weapons, if any, the rebels themselves have secured. How do we know that, if Assad uses what he has, the rebels won't start flinging their own and turn Syria (and possibly surrounding regions such as parts of Turkey, Jordan, and all of Lebanon) into a wasteland?

Just another variable to throw into this mess.