|
should the US intervene in Syria?
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Spacey Orange |
| I say no. Let the Syrians solve their own problems. |
|
|
| Adam420 |
| Right. Except they don't exactly seem to be capable of doing that. |
|
|
| Adam420 |
| Should Iran intervene in Syria? |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| Russia should just tell them to knock their off because they don't want to have to fight against the US military. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
Somebody needs to mediate both the dismantling of Syria's current regime, as well as safeguards from the current opposition forces seizing power and either fracturing Syria farther or installing yet another theocracy in the region. Nobody is going to do that, though, so this is only going to get worse as the US tiptoes around the idea of... singlehandedly enforcing a no-fly zone? Lobbing tomahawks at chemical weapons facilities to simultaneously prevent their deployment and create an environmental hazard to anything in proximity to them?
I wonder if it would be more effective to instead dump hundreds of millions into relief and humanitarian aid to nearby nations to support refugee exodus and minimize the collateral damage of infighting. I cannot buy that either side truly wants the US' "help" to further its directive, contrary to Russian conjecture, nor should the US benefit from however it shakes out.
What's most dismaying is the mounting international inaction to what is absolutely a violation of the Geneva Convention, no matter whose narrative holds water. Criticism of the US as 'world police' may hold some validity, despite its triteness, but for all our self-righteousness, it sure seems like nobody else is willing to do a damned thing over what is very clearly genocide. Not that our bungling in the matter is the best option... |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| Using Napalm on the Chemical weapons facilities would prevent the environmental hazard you suggested. |
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...perts-warn.html
| quote: | | When asked if there is any way to ensure complete destruction of the nerve agents without going in with soldiers, seizing the chemicals and burning them in a special processing plant, Ralf Trapp, a French chemical weapons consultant and longtime expert in the field, said simply: "Not really." |
Napalm tops out at about 2200F, too, and as the article states you'd need around 2100F to effectively burn the agents in question. And their stores tend to be beneath densely populated urban areas; there's just no surefire (...) way to do so without endangering those very same people you might be looking to protect. Not to mention that any preferable endgame would generally leave Syria's cities, and even defense capabilities, quite intact due to the inevitable decades of terrorism they will face because of this fracture. |
|
|
| WittyHandle |
| Have we gotten credible proof that Assad launched the most recent gas attack? Or are we taking the US government's word here, the same way we did with WMD's in Iraq? It seems pretty convenient that we lay out a specific line in the sand a while back and now it appears to have been crossed, but could have been pulled off by other interests who want US involvement. I just don't trust our government's word on issues like this. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | A short guide to the Middle East:
Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!!
Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.
But Gulf states are pro-Sisi!Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!
Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!
Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US!
Gulf states are pro US. But Turkey is with Gulf states Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by Gulf states!
Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day
KN Al-Sabah
London, UK
|
|
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown...perts-warn.html
Napalm tops out at about 2200F, too, and as the article states you'd need around 2100F to effectively burn the agents in question. And their stores tend to be beneath densely populated urban areas; there's just no surefire (...) way to do so without endangering those very same people you might be looking to protect. Not to mention that any preferable endgame would generally leave Syria's cities, and even defense capabilities, quite intact due to the inevitable decades of terrorism they will face because of this fracture. |
What about thermite plasma? HAVEN'T YOU SEEN THE ROCK?!
Actually Thermate (used by the military) can burn over 2,500F, so I'd imagine a coordinated attack of that to eradicate the chemical weapons factories as well as conventional weaponry to take out anti-air, communications, etc would be a fairly effective way to cripple their military to the point of a more peaceful resolution. Russia is not going to risk going to war with the US, so I think if hit the fan Russia would condemn it, and maybe ship them some weapons but that's about it, especially if it's not just the US and they have the backing of the UN, (minus a possible veto by Russia or China).
Obama has already said no boots on the ground in Syria, so it looks like we're just going to be bombing the ever living out of them. |
|
|
| itsamemario |
| quote: | Originally posted by WittyHandle
Have we gotten credible proof that Assad launched the most recent gas attack? Or are we taking the US government's word here, the same way we did with WMD's in Iraq? It seems pretty convenient that we lay out a specific line in the sand a while back and now it appears to have been crossed, but could have been pulled off by other interests who want US involvement. I just don't trust our government's word on issues like this. |
Yes. The world, and the UN, agrees that Assads regime were behind this, and that it was a chemical attack. Their behaviour in the aftermath has been typical of a guilty party. They were echoing the words of the VRS during the siege of Sarajevo "oh yeah, they're shelling themselves".
Assad is getting cocky. He's been killing his people for two years now, at a rate of 136 people per day (This includes his own losses), without any real consequence. He can do whatever he wants, he even used small scale chemical attacks like the one on March 19. But it wasn't big enough of a deterrent, so he stepped it up, hoping to take out the entire town in a Syrian 'Halabja attack', except his nerve agents had nowhere near the potency, and special combination as the Iraqi gvt had.
And as a sidenote, I'd like to reaffirm my view that Iraqs non-existing WMD's are in Syria, and have been there since before the Iraqi invasion. The WMD's in question were always of a biological or chemical nature, and while they didn't find many agents per se, they found trace amounts and empty bags of precursors at recently emptied out factories and warehouses. i don't know why noone ever mentions that.
and The Iraq invasion wasn't 100% for economical reasons. What they were trying to do, was to get the moral upper hand. If they set a line, and stops everybody with the "bad weapons" that "kills in an unlicensed way" or some bull like that, then they are free to go do whatever they want. As long as they step up and do UN's job, while they are still holding roll calls, then they get to be heroes. but they royally ed up Iraq, and the monetary goals were too obvious for even the media to ignore. i believe obama is trying to play the same hand in syria, and it's a good plan imo, seeing as there is no gold to get this time. only glory, if done right that is.
he's been suuuuper careful, letting his henchmen make feeler statements to the press before the final decision.
i believe the us should go into syria, and i believe it is the right thing to do. france is behind them, even though the UK backed out.
I hope Norway sends the bomber jets that drops the bomb on the Presidential palace.
Assad is a monster, and he has to go. Whether it's the Saddam-, Gadaffi- or the bin Laden-way, he must go. I'd surely rather see him killed than face a trial, as I find the sentences handed down for acts of genocide and other large-scale atrocities to be nothing short of hilarious. The downside of that of course being that many guilty miltary leaders etc will go unpunished, as it seems to be a "punish the leader and errrrrthings allright" mentality going around.. |
|
|
| srussell0018 |
| Obama has already said they're not "going in." I'd imagine just a number of Reaper strikes and Cruise missiles destroying military targets launched from Naval vessels in the Mediterranean. |
|
|
|
|
