Syria loads chemical weapons into bombs; military awaits Assad's order

[sigurros81]

Here we go again....

Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on your perspective), we have learned from the boondoggle in Iraq not to go in guns-blazing unless we have something more concrete. If Assad ends up using them in highly populated areas, you can expect that Syria will quickly be invaded and the Assad regime will end for good. Realistically, there is a small chance that we may see some minor use of these weapons as a last resort. The outcome of the situation in Syria will all but be assured by the time the order(s) are given.

Thanks for that hard hitting analysis Lou.

 

[irishScott]

Agreed. I don't have much remaining faith in government, but I do still have faith that no American President will commit American troops to fight and die unless he or she thinks it is the best thing to do for the nation. If Obama chooses to act more directly, I will assume that in accordance with the intelligence he currently has, he thinks it is necessary. Therefore I will support him as I did in Libya and as I did with Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether or not it seems like the best thing to do for the nation given the necessarily very restricted intelligence available to the general public. I really hope it can be avoided as I think our days of being the world's policeman should end, and I'm tired of helping pave the way for the newest Muslim Brotherhood nation, but if Obama chooses military force I'll assume he thinks it necessary and has made the best decision based on the intel he has available.

Personally, in principle I think if we have solid evidence that he is preparing WMD to be delivered by plane, we should set up a UN no-fly zone over the parts of the country he does not control. But I can also accept that the President must factor into account Russian sentiment - don't want to start World War III here - as well as Syria's air defenses and alternative delivery systems and our relations with other nations; none of this happens in a vacuum. The equation as seen from CNN may not much resemble the equation as seen from the Oval Office, and we would all do well to remember that.

Honestly, I'm just sick of the American military and America in general being the world's on-call police one day and demonized the next. If "the world" really cares so much about Syria and military action is necessary, then they should get off their collective asses, combine resources and fucking do something. The fact that they can't was displayed all too well in Libya, which flat out would not have accomplished what it did without US participation.

Now as you say the equation probably looks very different from the Oval Office, but I personally see no reason to get involved. Spreading democracy is a great ideal, but the cold war is over, and we're fucking broke. If American interests aren't directly and significantly threatened, we should sit this and many other conflict out and let the world fend for itself for once in a half-century.

 

[sigurros81]

It's. Not. Our. Problem.

Even in this day and age, people like this dumbass say it's not our problem. News flash, we all liven on the same planet. The world is smaller than you think. Whether I support us going to war or not, and geo-politics aside, I believe that a country as powerful and advance as ours should what we can to defend the weak and helpless, whether they're within our own country or in another.

 

[irishScott]

Even in this day and age, people like this dumbass say it's not our problem. News flash, we all liven on the same planet. The world is smaller than you think. Whether I support us going to war or not, and geo-politics aside, I believe that a country as powerful and advance as ours should what we can to defend the weak and helpless, whether they're within our own country or in another.

We're broke and the cold war is over. I fail to see why we should expend billions trying to fix other nation's problems, especially when, short of multiple decades of nation building, we can't. For American military intervention to be necessary, American interests should be directly threatened. That or the world should start paying us taxes to be their on-call police force.

 

[Munky]

I predict this will be Obama's "WMD's in Iraq" if it goes through... which I hope it doesn't. I've had enough with the US playing world police at the cost of American lives and taxes.

 

[irishScott]

I predict this will be Obama's "WMD's in Iraq" if it goes through... which I hope it doesn't. I've had enough with the US playing world police at the cost of American lives and taxes.

Meh, I doubt it. For one Syria has actually confirmed it has the goods, so we're not just going off of sheer [un]intelligence. Plus I doubt we'll go in until/unless Assad actually uses them.

 

[Nebor]

Honestly, I'm just sick of the American military and America in general being the world's on-call police one day and demonized the next. If "the world" really cares so much about Syria and military action is necessary, then they should get off their collective asses, combine resources and fucking do something. The fact that they can't was displayed all too well in Libya, which flat out would not have accomplished what it did without US participation.

Now as you say the equation probably looks very different from the Oval Office, but I personally see no reason to get involved. Spreading democracy is a great ideal, but the cold war is over, and we're fucking broke. If American interests aren't directly and significantly threatened, we should sit this and many other conflict out and let the world fend for itself for once in a half-century.

This. It's not our problem. If the world feels it's so outrageous, let them handle it. Because if we get involved, we'll get nothing but grief, debt and dead Americans out of the deal, just like in Libya.

 

[randomrogue]

Even if he gasses his own people I feel that we shouldn't invest time, treasure, or blood on it. Let someone else do it. There's nothing there for us and we're not morally obligated to stick our nose in everyone elses affairs.

Personally I don't believe a lick of this though and I find it interesting that even after the Iraq debacle people are still able to read an article like this.

"U.S. officials told NBC News on Wednesday."
"Clinton said" ... "might turn to chemical weapons or that the banned weapons could fall into other hands."

As far as I'm concerned these "officials" can shut up or use their real names. I'd like some credibility to these war mongering reports.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I think the neighboring countries like Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel should take precautions to protect their borders to ensure they can knock down any missiles that may come their way.

 

[EagleKeeper]

I think the neighboring countries like Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel should take precautions to protect their borders to ensure they can knock down any missiles that may come their way.

Turkey and Israel should be the countries that need to keep their eyes open.

Syria runs Lebanon.
Syria has no beef in any way with Jordan; rebels are not on that side of the country.

 

[diesbudt]

Are you suggesting a preemptive strike?

We should call in Bond, James Bond.

He can solve this byhimself, there may be collateral damage.

 

[diesbudt]

Honestly, I'm just sick of the American military and America in general being the world's on-call police one day and demonized the next. If "the world" really cares so much about Syria and military action is necessary, then they should get off their collective asses, combine resources and fucking do something. The fact that they can't was displayed all too well in Libya, which flat out would not have accomplished what it did without US participation.

Now as you say the equation probably looks very different from the Oval Office, but I personally see no reason to get involved. Spreading democracy is a great ideal, but the cold war is over, and we're fucking broke. If American interests aren't directly and significantly threatened, we should sit this and many other conflict out and let the world fend for itself for once in a half-century.

To be fair, police in our country are demonized daily also. It is just how people are with authority.

 

[gotsmack]

American workers make bombs. See? Positive in everything. Plus, we're F'ing awesome at the War shit...

No, we suck.at war. Name the last war we won.


What we are good at is fuking sht up.

 

[MiniDoom]

No, we suck.at war. Name the last war we won.


What we are good at is fuking sht up.

no. we're great at war (fucking shit up) we marched to baghdad in less than two days and rolled right through afghanistan. we suck at nation building. see post war iraq and afghanistan.

 

[Juror No. 8]

There is always some idiot trying to deflect the real issue which is Syria and chemical weapons...

Who says Syria and chemical weapons is the real issue here?

I say the U.S. government and its incessant warmongering is the issue.

 

[Juror No. 8]

So do you have some actual information proving the statement false or are you just spouting baseless assumptions again?

Why, do you have some actual information proving the statement true?

If so, it's your theory and it's your responsibility to prove it. Good luck, sweetie.

 

[chucky2]

No, we suck.at war. Name the last war we won.


What we are good at is fuking sht up.

no. we're great at war (fucking shit up) we marched to baghdad in less than two days and rolled right through afghanistan. we suck at nation building. see post war iraq and afghanistan.

Exactly.

 

[werepossum]

What difference is there between roving death squads killing tens of thousands and using a chemical agent to kill tens of thousands? The end is still tens of thousands dead at the hands of a dictator.

Nobody went after Saddam when he gassed the Kurds, look at all the opposition to going into Iraq and killing him. So is there a statute of limitations on when a dictator can be ousted for using chemical weapons?

You all want war. Fine. Go fight it. Enlist your sons, enlist yourself. Unless you're over 42 you can enlist in the Army. Put your life where your warmongering mouth is. I did and fought in Iraq and Afghanistan and spent years of my life in those countries. Will you? Will everyone else that's clamoring for more war? I have my doubts.

Honestly, I'm just sick of the American military and America in general being the world's on-call police one day and demonized the next. If "the world" really cares so much about Syria and military action is necessary, then they should get off their collective asses, combine resources and fucking do something. The fact that they can't was displayed all too well in Libya, which flat out would not have accomplished what it did without US participation.

Now as you say the equation probably looks very different from the Oval Office, but I personally see no reason to get involved. Spreading democracy is a great ideal, but the cold war is over, and we're fucking broke. If American interests aren't directly and significantly threatened, we should sit this and many other conflict out and let the world fend for itself for once in a half-century.

You guys mistake me. I don't want war, I'm just agreeing with Matt that IF we go to war, we need to support our President and our troops, not choose up sides based on politics. I too am heartily sick of America being the world's policeman. I long for a new isolationism. However - that position costs me nothing. No Syrians will die because I choose not to intervene; no US servicemen will die because I choose to intervene. The President does not have that luxury. He has to decide, assuming Congress doesn't usurp his power with their power of the purse, and either way, people are going to die. And personally, I'm ten years too old and twelve years out of eligibility for even the military reserves, so my decision costs me nothing there either way.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Turkey is getting Patriot class missiles.

That is the extent of involvement at this point in time.

What this means isn't something anyone with half a brain can't figure out.

Since there are plenty of posters in this thread that do not appear to have even half a brain i will point it out. Should Assad deploy chemical munitions Turkey will intervene.

If he doesn't use them, nothing will happen (unless he goes full retard and attacks Turkey who will then invoke article 5).

 

[RampantAndroid]

Turkey is getting Patriot class missiles.

That is the extent of involvement at this point in time.

What this means isn't something anyone with half a brain can't figure out.

Since there are plenty of posters in this thread that do not appear to have even half a brain i will point it out. Should Assad deploy chemical munitions Turkey will intervene.

If he doesn't use them, nothing will happen (unless he goes full retard and attacks Turkey who will then invoke article 5).

It's more than just missiles:

As fears grow in the West that Syrian President Bashar Assad will unleash chemical weapons as an act of desperation, NATO moved forward Thursday with its plan to place Patriot missiles and troops along Syria’s border with Turkey to protect against potential attacks.

Source: http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi...ot-missiles/0iwp0v1K6WAo6xwtxTYwiK/story.html

 

[Nebor]

If you're interested in the Patriot deployment to Turkey, I recommend you take a moment to read the wikipedia about the Patriot missile system. It's track record is questionable at best (in regards to engaging rockets\missiles.)

 

[RampantAndroid]

If you're interested in the Patriot deployment to Turkey, I recommend you take a moment to read the wikipedia about the Patriot missile system. It's track record is questionable at best (in regards to engaging rockets\missiles.)

Aren't the chemical munitions loaded into conventional bombs? NOT missiles? That's the impression I got...

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

It's more than just missiles:



Source: http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi...ot-missiles/0iwp0v1K6WAo6xwtxTYwiK/story.html

True, there will be 400 troops deployed on the border as well as a monitoring aircraft, however these troops are not there to prepare for an invasion of Syria and has no mandate to cross the border.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

If you're interested in the Patriot deployment to Turkey, I recommend you take a moment to read the wikipedia about the Patriot missile system. It's track record is questionable at best (in regards to engaging rockets\missiles.)

I recall it being fairly successful in Iraq and as i understand it Turkey will have some upgraded variant of the GEM+.

 

[Generator]

What difference is there between roving death squads killing tens of thousands and using a chemical agent to kill tens of thousands? The end is still tens of thousands dead at the hands of a dictator.

Nobody went after Saddam when he gassed the Kurds, look at all the opposition to going into Iraq and killing him. So is there a statute of limitations on when a dictator can be ousted for using chemical weapons?

You all want war. Fine. Go fight it. Enlist your sons, enlist yourself. Unless you're over 42 you can enlist in the Army. Put your life where your warmongering mouth is. I did and fought in Iraq and Afghanistan and spent years of my life in those countries. Will you? Will everyone else that's clamoring for more war? I have my doubts.

Listen to this man you fucking rubes!