Breaking: US and Britain pledge to use force within two weeks in Syria.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]i dunno about the last part but this is what i came in to say


just a few months ago, the assad/syria conflict jumped to the top of every media radar in the world.... for the suspected use of sarin gas that apparently hospitalized like three people. that's when obama drew his supposed red line.

since then, and actually since months prior to that, government forces were pushing rebels steadily back. they continue to hold 15 of 16 provincial capitals. they control the major transport routes. they won the bloody battle for that strategic town a little north of damascus.

and now they're going to test international resolve... by blatantly attacking and probably killing over a thousand people, not particularly far from where the UN probe for the minor sarin gas attack from a few months ago is currently stationed.

it makes no sense. the typical argument i've found is all embedded in the "now we can get away with it" logic. sometimes it appeals to American weakness. other times it appeals to russian/iranian strength. even appeals to the egyptian crackdown, like they can do it so why can't i, which is an argument that takes fantastic ignorance of the region.


the other side of the coin is that rebels haven't yet taken control of any chemical weapons stocks... question is, had that happened, would the government be compelled to publicize it to implicate the rebels in any pending attack... or keep it quiet because it might make the regime look weak?

either way, there is a lot of plausibility in the idea that weapons were smuggled out and the rebels got hold of them. the rebels have about 100x the reason to use chemical weapons compared with the government.

it's all just very strange.[/QUOTE]

So you think the rebels used chemical weapons in the hopes of bringing in the world community?

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]So you think the rebels used chemical weapons in the hopes of bringing in the world community?[/QUOTE]
i guess i can only say that it makes more sense to me than the alternative. just doing the basic calculus, it seems obvious that rebel forces have every reason to hope for their use whereas the regime has no reason to have used them. it's not like inciting nato intervention hasn't been done before, see: kosovo in late 90s


[QUOTE]i. he wouldn't pay a price for it
ii. he has nothing else to lose anyway.[/QUOTE]
again, how could he possibly believe either of these?

the second possibility is patently absurd. he's winning the war and the west has been consistently hesitant to take any strong stand on behalf of the insurgents. the arab peninsula is funding it but they haven't shown strong enough commitment either. he's got a nation to lose.

the first possibility literally only makes sense if he's absolutely insane. why would he push the United States into an ultimatum; either intervene or backtrack on everything you've said so far about the syrian conflict. that just defies comprehension.


i wouldn't really choose one possibility or the other. who the fk knows what went down? dictators have been known to do all kinds of crazy shit. but this particular dictator doesn't really have a track record of total irrationality, and the months leading to this horribble event just make it all very hard to swallow

[QUOTE=tomtucker]yeah i agree, it must be a lie..........regarding my comments on gas , why is gas worse then killing with bombs/bullets ?[/QUOTE]
well gas isn't really worse morally, at least in my opinion. the use of gas has the potential to harm more people indiscriminately, but murdering a thousand people incidentally and lining them up against a wall... same thing.

and from just an internationally condemned weapons standpoint, the NATO allies -- particularly the US and UK -- don't have much of a leg to stand on. flying death machines over three different countries is bad enough, but what's worse is that they're dropping cluster bombs, which killed more innocent bystanders in Iraq and Serbia than any other weapon. in Iraq they also tipped their automatic weapons rounds with depleted plutonium, which goes a long way to explain the rapid escalation of cancer rates in Iraqi cities that were most devastated.


but all that aside, the heart eating shit is what i was really disputing, and only because it isn't exactly a policy sanctioned by the rebel leaders or approved by its rank and file... just the actions of one soldier caught on tape. so it's not really the best comparison. imo anyway

Let Syria and it's neighbors deal with it. I'm tired of the U.S. getting involved in every conflict half way around the World.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]again, how could he possibly believe either of these?[/QUOTE]
I don't know. I don't know what he thinks.

Why would he deny the UN inspector access for several days?

cool, this thread took a nice turn. :cheers:

[QUOTE=RidonKs]well gas isn't really worse morally, at least in my opinion. the use of gas has the potential to harm more people indiscriminately, but murdering a thousand people incidentally and lining them up against a wall... same thing. ...[/QUOTE]
isn't use of such gas against the geneva convention / international protocol of 'polite' warfare?

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]I don't know. I don't know what he thinks.

Why would he deny the UN inspector access for several days?[/QUOTE]
the logic behind the syrian government implementing the attack is what i was attacking. the blatant evidence is; government forces control the country's weapons stock, weapons were clearly used, so government forces used it. that assad could have possibly calculated such an action is what comes across as ludicrous... and why we should be skeptical about assured claims from your state department and british/french officials that the government was behind this.

but of course like you, i have no idea why he would delay their entrance. it's certainly suspicious, same as the logic above.

my concern is that any assumption leads to a rash decision... like setting up a no-fly zone that could potentially escalate, as it did in libya, to a bombing campaign. which is direct intervention into a civil war that, by all estimates, has pretty much reached a stalemate. an escalation means more violence not just in syria but in neighbouring countries as well. it's a scary scenario that shouldn't be rushed into until the facts are well understood.

[QUOTE]isn't use of such gas against the geneva convention / international protocol of 'polite' warfare?[/QUOTE]
i was responding to calling them "way worse", which i took to mean in a moral sense. legally speaking, you're right... there's a convention that bans the use of gasses that syria has ratified.

but like any of these international bans/treaties/protocols, most states play pretty fast and loose with the rules. like retaining the right to engage in chemical warfare in retaliation... say the United States in self-defense over 10% of Vietnamese land.

[QUOTE=RidonKs]i was responding to calling them "way worse", which i took to mean in a moral sense. legally speaking, you're right... there's a convention that bans the use of gasses that syria has ratified.

but like any of these international bans/treaties/protocols, most states play pretty fast and loose with the rules. like retaining the right to engage in chemical warfare in retaliation... say the United States in self-defense over 10% of Vietnamese land.[/QUOTE]
um, hmm... okay, thanks for elaborating.


i guess one question (for whoever) would be-- what if it was determined in retrospect with 99% surety that banned gas had been used? would anyone be able to use that as significant ammo against the UN or the US? would it be a huge blow to the prestige of the democratic party, say?

you're saying if the obama admin sits on its hands, and then some time down the road, we get proof that assad was behind the attack? because we already know toxic gasses were used, Doctors Without Borders are already on the scene... which gasses isn't yet confirmed.

i don't think it would be used much at all tbh. i mean, for political purposes it would probably be used... for hawks to demonstrate obama's fp weakness, or to point at w/e aftermath occurred (lots of violence obv, its a civil war) as proof that internvention was necessary, or total cynics like myself who will call this just another nail in the coffin of "left-wing" integrity. i really can't see it hurting the democratic party's "prestige" in any meaningful way... like prestige with regard to what? humanitarian intervention / responsibility to protect doctrine? i mean fk, egypt just had its bloodiest day in years, perpetrated by the military against peaceful pro-democracy protesters... which the obama admin appears mostly ambivalent about.


what do you think lol? i keep seeing you in all these political threads reading and questioning different posters... putting people to task and all. but some of these guys, i mean really, nick young and longhornfan and some others are just spewing nonsense. what was nick young saying in this thread? like the obama admin has assassinated tons of american citizens? thats bullshit, its like three or four. two of them are members of the same family.

you've probably got 100x the grasp on this shit as those guys do, they just pose as authoritative... like anybody probably does in these threads to some extent to get across a point. like im no phd but i like to think i can tell when somebody is full of shit just from a basic reading of the news.... of course with my own slant/spin like anybody else.

[QUOTE=KevinNYC]I don't know. I don't know what he thinks.

Why would he deny the UN inspector access for several days?[/QUOTE]

Does it matter? Would a couple of days have allowed a sufficient cover-up?


Personally I doubt the strength of the gas. I saw photo's the day after of people sans gas-mask standing next to gassed corpses. I'm no chemical weapons expert, but that doesn't seem safe if it was sarin gas etc.

if syria falls Iran is next that's the main goal anyaway.:(

If you want to know why chemical weapons were banned, read up on WWI.

[QUOTE=HarryCallahan]Does it matter? Would a couple of days have allowed a sufficient cover-up?


Personally I doubt the strength of the gas. I saw photo's the day after of people sans gas-mask standing next to gassed corpses. I'm no chemical weapons expert, but that doesn't seem safe if it was sarin gas etc.[/QUOTE]

Apparently these chemicals degrade very quickly. Also if you look up images of the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway from 1995, you can see a lot of responders not wearing gas masks

[IMG]http://www.ait.org.tw/infousa/zhtw/E-JOURNAL/EJ_Nuclear/rescue.jpg[/IMG]

[IMG]http://www.wired.com/images/article/full/2009/03/sarin_480x.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=RidonKs]you're saying if the obama admin sits on its hands, and then some time down the road, we get proof that assad was behind the attack? because we already know toxic gasses were used, Doctors Without Borders are already on the scene... which gasses isn't yet confirmed.[/quote]
okay, thanks... i didn't know that gasses were confirmed. i hardly know anything about this theatre.

[quote]i don't think it would be used much at all tbh. i mean, for political purposes it would probably be used... for hawks to demonstrate obama's fp weakness, or to point at w/e aftermath occurred (lots of violence obv, its a civil war) as proof that internvention was necessary, or total cynics like myself who will call this just another nail in the coffin of "left-wing" integrity. i really can't see it hurting the democratic party's "prestige" in any meaningful way... like prestige with regard to what? humanitarian intervention / responsibility to protect doctrine? i mean fk, egypt just had its bloodiest day in years, perpetrated by the military against peaceful pro-democracy protesters... which the obama admin appears mostly ambivalent about.[/quote]
egypt is in a different phase of the process... is my working take on that. a different situation with different set of concerns for the forces of the G8 or whatever.

prestige-- i meant political clout for the dems, essentially. the balance of power and ability to maintain political share and voter stability, etc.

[quote]what do you think lol? i keep seeing you in all these political threads reading and questioning different posters... putting people to task and all. but some of these guys, i mean really, nick young and longhornfan and some others are just spewing nonsense. what was nick young saying in this thread? like the obama admin has assassinated tons of american citizens? thats bullshit, its like three or four. two of them are members of the same family.

you've probably got 100x the grasp on this shit as those guys do, they just pose as authoritative... like anybody probably does in these threads to some extent to get across a point. like im no phd but i like to think i can tell when somebody is full of shit just from a basic reading of the news.... of course with my own slant/spin like anybody else.[/QUOTE]
haha i've definitely been posting it up lately. i have some free time these days and this is one of those internet places i've grown used to. i realised just today that the reason i probably keep coming back here is because most people here are in a sort of growth and risk phase. i've older than most, but due to crazy life circumstances, that's me as well for the time being.

i don't feel i know more than nick and longhorn... i feel like i know less, much less than many here. what i'm mostly trying to work on is my ability to see past the glare bouncing off the leaves and get to the tree trunk of an issue... and to understand what the real branches are as opposed to the popularly presumed ones. i'm refining my process of understanding things, essentially.

i try not to use anyone for my own needs here, but i know i have some bad habits... so, some additional things to work on. it is really a pleasure to read your stuff, kevin's and a few others. i aim to start my understanding as a toddler upon most issues, which allows me to understand the whole thing much more quickly and efficiently in the end. i forget if that's a socratic thing or not, lol.

i pretty much enjoy all the people here, however. everyone's got an interesting story to me, an interesting take. not every post i am a fan of, however.

arrr, where was i going with this exactly?