The Official Syria (and all things about it) Thread

[Mike the Progressive]

What imperialist US war machine? "American imperialism" in the 21st century is a myth.

Oh, you're serious? So I guess these don't mean anything, huh?
The US wields unprecedented power projection beyond any historical civilization.

OMG...military bases? A few of which have a dozen or more so soldiers? How are we not running these countries with our uber, sexy unprecedented power?

[Srboslavija]

Appropriate meme is appropriate

[Souriya Al-Assad]

Appropriate meme is appropriate

(Image)

Absolutely true meme is absolutely true.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

The point is, in this line of thinking, delaying a potential conflict further is measured in lives lost to inaction. And though clearly Syria is in a different situation than the Third Reich, hundreds of thousands of people have died in a conflict that seems to be escalating, rather than cindering.

Something has to be done, clearly. The rebels don't smell any nicer than their governing counterparts, but Assad clearly has some things to answer for.

Just to quickly point something out: Hitler killed 90% of Jews in Nazi Germany, which is why he "only" killed 100,000 in 1945; they were either liberated, or he couldn't find anymore to kill, or both.

Now, in terms of Assad, the issue is one of commitment. NATO wasn't willing to commit to having a decent election in Afghanistan. How many resources can NATO actually commit to make life in Syria better? Americans, British, French, etc, are war weary. Others don't even want a war. How are you going to make life better in Syria, without boots on the ground?

That's true, to some extent. I wish I could grab at the deaths-per-annum of other groups throughout the Holocaust, but I still think that, with Russia turning the tide of the war early in 1943 in Stalingrad, Germany's genocide was toned down by virtue of war distractions.

As far as Assad, I think that one optimal solution that may perhaps be obtained is a Syrian government organized akin to the one that ruled before the Arab Spring, only presided by members of one or more of Assad's political opponents. This could potentially be set into motion by the defection of one or more of Assad's significant aides, which could be caused without the presence of US troops. It really depends, though, on how Assad's advisers and other players act in response to the first US attack, rather than on how the US attacks.

Because, at this point, we know the scope in which Obama intends to attack. The only things unknown are when and where.

[Imperializt Russia]

Some bad shit happened.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 82120.html

Senate has backed a resolution to use force against Syria, we took a huge step to military action today.

And this is bad?

Yes?

Military action will launch missiles at Syria. So far as I'm aware, the limitations on the action will not include prohibiting airstrike. Targeted missile strike will produce civilian casualties as fallout, or failed information.
I doubt the ability of a Tomahawk campaign to significantly impair either the regime's or opposition's capability to launch chemical attacks. Thus making doing so, pointlessly symbolic at best - and at worst, a veiled attempt at regime change.

A regime change which will result in mass sectarian violence, possibly an escalation of what's already occurring, just to piss off Hezbollah and Iran.

[United commonwealth of ayrshire]

Appropriate meme is appropriate

(Image)

Too good, man. Too good.

By the way, how are things proceeding in congress?

[Imperializt Russia]

Question: Why should we care if the Syrians are in a civil war? If they use chemical warfare on eachother, it is their problem, not ours. Let natural selection take its course in form of civil war. Let the Syrians fix it themselves, and if the rebels win, and terrorist attacks are launched on our nation, let's blast them to the stone age.

I don't know if I should be more insulted by your lag of regard for international law violations or bastardizing Darwin's theory.

I personally find it insulting that a hundred thousand deaths, five million displacements and two million seeking refuge from the country from "conventional warfare" provoked no response.
But ooooooohohhhh chemweps z0mg

I think the rebels used the chemical weapons and then they pointed the finger to Assad.

Doubt it.

It's extremely likely that Assad used chemical weapons against his own people.

If we're basing a military intervention on "likelihoods", which is unfortunately what the western powers seem to think satisfactory at the moment, then this is a terrifying moment for the legitimacy of the west's actions.

I think he's talking about the targeted killings part, which I also hear is a no no in UN land.

I have yet to see a source, and I doubt I'll see a source that it's all rebel groups doing this.

Of course, it does nothing to the fact that Assad gassed civilians, a decidedly douchey thing to do.

It's not presently a fact.
Presently, it's based on conjecture.

And that politicians have conveniently forgotten about all the "terrorists could be synthesising chemical agents in their homes!" messages they were rolling out in the last few years (about sarin, ricin, anthrax [the fact anthrax is a bioweapon is mildly irrelevant to the point]) to claim that rebels "do not have the capacity" to synthesis chemical agents, in spite of terrorist groups captured with chemical weapon factories and quantities of completed agent in Turkey and Iraq, and the claim by Syrian government forces earlier in the year that they found a huge industrial-size stockpile of toxic chemicals and possible precursor agents.
The Russian assessment of the attacks claimed that non-standard munitions were used, with non-standard qualities of agent and non-standard bursting charges (specifically, RDX).

Why would Assad use chemical weapons on his own people.
First of all he knows that America would take charge if he used chemical weapons.
And second, if you're going to use them, use them on the rebels.

Why? Maybe because of the mass protests and the civil war in Syria where the rebels are trying to take over.

You mean, the civil war that Assad's forces and backers are winning on the ground and that Assad has popular support for?

Then present evidence as to who used them, evidence that's beyond a reasonable doubt. Apparently when America bombs it's not "innocent before guitly," it's "guilty cause we say so!" The problem with that precedent, is that the top dogs can change. And you really want to hand that precedent to China, Joe?

Do you seriously doubt international intelligence? Do you seriously think that John fucking Kerry and President Obama are hawks?

Fucking bullshit.

All they've provided are conjecture to the tune "Government forces have chemical stocks, government forces have chemical deployment systems, therefore government forces probably used chemical weapons".

"lul, i'm winning a civil war through conventional means and the west can do shit all to stop me, better use chemical weapons to give them a reason to stop me!!"

- yeah, great motive. Rebels have used chemical weapons before

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAT9z278kTc (BBC)

That's an old report. Current intelligence and the common sense that rebels don't have the equipment for it suggests that that's wrong.

Chemical weapons can be deployed by a mortar - a tube with a firing pin in it. Something you can, and the IRA did, fashion out of a cement tub.
They can be deployed by artillery rocket - something you can, and terrorist groups frequently do, fashion out of metal spares and an oxygen/alcohol mix as fuel.
They can be deployed by artillery shell. Artillery pieces are widely available on all sides, as a key cornerstone of warfighting.

The only deployment mechanism that would completely rule out rebel forces and implicate government forces would be deployment by heavy artillery rocket such as FROG-7 or ballistic missile such as Scud or Iskander. I sincerely doubt that they would expend such a valuable asset on "pockets of resistance" in the capital, which leaves you to the first three vague, easily fabricated or acquired delivery systems.

And the Russian claim that the munitions were nonstandard, with nonstandard agent and nonstandard bursting charge.

[Imperializt Russia]

When you put it that way it sounds insignificant, although I think there should be slightly bigger consequences then that, and Id rather have a international organization carry out those consequences.

The UN won't do it. We have to.

Circumventing the UN completely defeats the point of having the UN.
And leaving US actions without international legitimacy, supposedly.

"But clearly, it could never be rebels. Because they don't possess those kinds of weapons."
"How do you know?"
"Well, we said so!"

If the same style of argumentation was used to oppose Gay Marriage, NSG would be ripping these arguments to shreds, because they're circular in nature, along the lines of "we said so, ergo it's right!"

When you are a primary source, "because I said so" is a completely valid argument.

It is when you back it up.
Which no-one has yet done.

Still waiting for evidence that's beyond a reasonable doubt. "Assad did it, cause we said so, trust us" is still not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

We have intel from multiple nations saying "yeah, he fucking gassed them". Do we second-guess a reporter when he writes about something?

No, you have intelligence assessments from multiple nation's intelligence agencies stating the possible likelihood and capability of the regime to be able to carry out the strike.

The primary sources for Assad using chemical weapons are... those who want to depose him? Lolwut.

Or maybe we want to depose him because we found out he had chemical weapons.

Either way, I can't tell whether you just don't understand international politics and intelligence or you're being purposefully obtuse due to your vision being clouded by bad memories of Iraq.

It's not just bad memories, it's a living nightmare.

The Iran-Iraq War, and Halabja, were largely ignored by the US and implicitly supported.

Until the time came to write the case to war against Iraq, and Halabja, until this time blamed on the Iranians, it suddenly became opinion that Iraqi forces carried out the attack.
For fifteen years, the CIA implicitly supported the actions carried out at Halabja, because they were against Iran. It was both an attempted genocide, and a chemical attack on a civilian population. More than three thousand people died.

And the US just didn't care. It wasn't mentioned in the two UN resolutions settling the Iran-Iraq War. It was barely regarded in the case for the Gulf War. It only mattered when toppling Saddam became a priority.

US has stated it would be "limited strikes, with no regime change" as the end game.

Basically - bomb Syria a bit and then leave.

Hundreds, if not thousands of civilians will die as US collateral and no significant change will be achieved.

"Assad killed people the wrong way, so we'll go kill them the right way" - imperialist US war machine

What imperialist US war machine? "American imperialism" in the 21st century is a myth.

The Middle East is both a powderkeg and a vested interest, which must be controlled, manipulated and orchestrated.
Regime change in Syria would weaken Iran and Hezbollah, which would strengthen Arabia and Israel.

[Agritum]

I'd be eager to hear more info on what's happening in Israeli public opinion, right now.

Dogdoo, you with us?

[Imperializt Russia]

The French report has been completely taken down from the French Foreign Ministry website.

[Agritum]

The French report has been completely taken down from the French Foreign Ministry website.

What.

[Imperializt Russia]

The French report has been completely taken down from the French Foreign Ministry website.

What.

The French report on the plausibility of government chemical weapons use, hosted on the French Foreign Ministry website and published there three days ago, has since been taken down from the site. I forgot to save it.

[Agritum]

What.

The French report on the plausibility of government chemical weapons use, hosted on the French Foreign Ministry website and published there three days ago, has since been taken down from the site. I forgot to save it.

Mmh, try the Ministry of Defense or whatever it's called in French?

[Agritum]

Found the English one. Is it the one you are speaking of?

[Imperializt Russia]

Found the English one. Is it the one you are speaking of?

Yep, thank you!

[Danhanjeedh]

Its official, the "evidence" from the US and France isn't solid at all. (Told the Dutch intelligent service to the Dutch gouverment yesterday)
-No link, sorry

In other news, Germany claims to have prove that Assad was involved but still refuses to take part in any military action.

http://nos.nl/artikel/547698-duits-bewijs-tegen-assad.html

[CTALNH]

Everyones knows who did it but they won't tell.

[The Victorian Empire]

Is it possible to support the rebels that AREN'T being supported by Islamic extremist groups that will mostl ikely assume control and create a Islamic Fundamentalist state? If so, I like that idea.

No, because the Gulf will never allow otherwise. Not to mention that almost all the "rebels" on the ground have fantasies of committing sectarian genocide after the war, or moving on to massacring people in neighbouring Lebanon, or pass through Iraq to then massacre against Iranians, which some of these "rebels" already call "Rafidah", "Mushrikis", amongst other names, that to them "must be cleansed".

Trust me, I have heard this rhetoric from lots of them too many times not to think otherwise.

[Citation need]

[Alien Space Bats]

By the way, how are things proceeding in congress?

The Republicans are seeing this as an opportunity to finish the President off.

Were a Republican President asking for this intervention under these exact circumstances ("red lines" and all), John Boehner would be whipping his Caucus harder that a dominatrix on crystal meth, and — with the exception of Rand Paul and a few random backbenchers — the entire GOP would be falling all over themselves to "support the President" (under threat of drawing the scorn of conservative talk radio blowhards like Rush Limbaugh [who repeats RT's line about how it was the rebels who used chemical weapons and not Assad; were a Republican in power, he'd be condemning anyone who said what he's saying on the air today as a traitor and a Russian tool]). In the meantime, Democrats who might want to oppose the President would be edging towards support of the authorization on the grounds that opposing it might make them look weak, leaving only those Democrats in possession of safe seats to oppose the vote.

Under that scenario, I'd expect the final numbers to be 75-25 in the Senate and 320-115 in the House.

But we don't have a Republican President; we have a Democratic one. Consequently, I'd expect something like a 58-42 vote in the Senate (without a filibuster) and then a 185-250 vote (against) in the House. After that, the Republicans will spend the next several months declaring the Obama Presidency "over" and screaming loudly about how the President's "fecklessness" has done "irreparable harm" to the country.

I'm going to need to buy several bottles of Tums just to keep my stomach settled; the aftermath of this vote is going to be completely nauseating.

[Imperializt Russia]

If intervention passes, I might just have to cry.

[CTALNH]

If intervention passes, I might just have to cry.

I only cry when I hit my small toe on a chair.

[Trevion]

I heard that U.S.A bombed Syria... I don't believe it. What about you? Do you believe that this action took place?

[Souriya Al-Assad]

To the point & within the context memes are to the point & within the context...

[Vazdania]

I heard that U.S.A bombed Syria... I don't believe it. What about you? Do you believe that this action took place?

No, who ever told you this was clearly lying. Obama is in Russia today to talk about such action.

[New Chalcedon]

By the way, how are things proceeding in congress?

The Republicans are seeing this as an opportunity to finish the President off.

Were a Republican President asking for this intervention under these exact circumstances ("red lines" and all), John Boehner would be whipping his Caucus harder that a dominatrix on crystal meth, and — with the exception of Rand Paul and a few random backbenchers — the entire GOP would be falling all over themselves to "support the President" (under threat of drawing the scorn of conservative talk radio blowhards like Rush Limbaugh [who repeats RT's line about how it was the rebels who used chemical weapons and not Assad; were a Republican in power, he'd be condemning anyone who said what he's saying on the air today as a traitor and a Russian tool]). In the meantime, Democrats who might want to oppose the President would be edging towards support of the authorization on the grounds that opposing it might make them look weak, leaving only those Democrats in possession of safe seats to oppose the vote.

Under that scenario, I'd expect the final numbers to be 75-25 in the Senate and 320-115 in the House.

But we don't have a Republican President; we have a Democratic one. Consequently, I'd expect something like a 58-42 vote in the Senate (without a filibuster) and then a 185-250 vote (against) in the House. After that, the Republicans will spend the next several months declaring the Obama Presidency "over" and screaming loudly about how the President's "fecklessness" has done "irreparable harm" to the country.

I'm going to need to buy several bottles of Tums just to keep my stomach settled; the aftermath of this vote is going to be completely nauseating.

Will even today's brain-dead media be able to ignore the fact that most of the "nay" votes came from Republicans in the House?