Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Anslol]

Do you have evidence to prove that this is all about social control, profiting off of war, and that the 'man' is suppressing basic humanity? Cause I see more evidence, hard, cold facts, that show why we shouldn't go in versus evidence that we should go in to debt more for Syria.

[Lyn Farel]

Real rational pragmatics could also argue what might be one of the reasons behind the war : they want Assad government down, no matter what, to only have Iran left as a Shiite state that will be dealt with in time (even if Alawites are kindof like moderate shiites). They want Sunnis in place and have good relationships with Sunni states.

They could argue that it's the best approach in the region as far as it means defending "our interests". Anti war people are not the only one to hold the monopoly on rational thinking. The irrational thinking is just following the moral/ethics approach claimed by Westerners to their public opinion to make them agree imo.

By the way, I disagree with the war, and I consider myself a pure rational. But empathy is complementary as long as it is held in control and accounted for what it is, not ignored. It's here for a reason, and acknowledging its very existence is also being rational about it, as contradictory as it might sound.

[Pieter Tuulinen]

Well, it's going to happen now. The Select committee  has voted in favour and that's really all Obama needs to push the button.

I'm not sure what Putin's endgame is - usually the Russians and Chinese like to make the western powers act without a mandate from the UN so that they can feel free to do their shit in places like Chechnya and Taiwan without a UN mandate.

If he makes Obama publicly alter his stance on Syria as a result of the G20 meeting then he'll increase Russia's appearance of global relevance, that might be one of his goals. However Obama won't allow Putin to derail American intervention at this point - although he's likely to allow Putin to 'convince' him not to go all in, since he doesn't want to put boots on the ground anymore than Assad wants them there!

I would expect a limited target package of strictly military infrastructure. I would expect drone attacks on key personnel. I would a credible attempt to knock out Assad's chemical weapon infrastructure.

And, by the way, the evidence does sound compelling that Assad shelled his own people with Saarin gas. I don't know if the truth of that is actually relevant to anybody?

[Anslol]

* Anslol hopes that the U.S. actually does have secret giant mechs for the impending shit storm.

[Lyn Farel]

Always hard to tell. We only see what filters through.

US secret services say that they have proofs that Assad did it, France DGSE say that they also have proofs, and they argue that nobody except Assad could have had the means to use chemical weapons at such a scale, and certainly not rebels.

However, critics point that it's not real irrefutable proofs but rather a body of evidences.

But that is hardly relevant to me though. We are perfectly fine when it's Africans murdering each other by hundred of millions with machetes and a lot of similar cases of mass war casualties, and suddenly we are supposedly concerned about "a few" hundred death done by chemical gas.


Ninja edit : and funnily enough we had the same kind of media reports done in Syria recently where local Syrians were asked what they thought of the position of the country, like we had some when Bush administration decided to attack Iraq. Syrians say that they won't forget, even if we do nothing now, and that we made an enemy out of them. Back in Iraq, local Iraqi were saying the exact contrary, praising our decision not to go. It is rather telling.

[Felix Rasker]

Do you have evidence to prove that this is all about social control, profiting off of war, and that the 'man' is suppressing basic humanity? Cause I see more evidence, hard, cold facts, that show why we shouldn't go in versus evidence that we should go in to debt more for Syria.

If you can think of a financial or logical reason behind this action, something that actually improves life for either the US or Syria, I'd love to hear it.

Note that even if Assad is removed, the "rebels" will likely be the ones to fill the power vacuum. In Egypt, faced with a similar switch in leadership, the coup was successful. Within a month, there were hundreds of pro-Morsi citizens killed and thousands wounded. Rarely does removing a leader so suddenly actually benefit the people. So that's not it.

Damaging Syrian infrastructure doesn't benefit either side, logically. So that's not it.

As Lyn pointed out, our PR with the nation already sucks, so it doesn't matter if we "help" or not, it won't improve relations to throw a few missiles their way, nor will it improve our global image. So that's not it.

It benefits nobody. So why is it happening?

[orange]

Well, it's going to happen now. The Select committee  has voted in favour and that's really all Obama needs to push the button.

The administration argues that they don't need anyone's permission to do it.  The Committee voted to take the resolution to the full Senate.   The House is likely to tell Obama no for various reasons.

I would expect a limited target package of strictly military infrastructure. I would expect drone attacks on key personnel. I would a credible attempt to knock out Assad's chemical weapon infrastructure.

If drones strike at key personnel then the world should be terrified, because it would be a clear indication that the US is arming the descendants of the RQ-170.  The Predator and Reaper do not operate well in a contested environment.

And, by the way, the evidence does sound compelling that Assad shelled his own people with Saarin gas. I don't know if the truth of that is actually relevant to anybody?

US secret services say that they have proofs that Assad did it, France DGSE say that they also have proofs, and they argue that nobody except Assad could have had the means to use chemical weapons at such a scale, and certainly not rebels

This really.  The US and French are asking the world to trust them that Assad did this, but Russia has provided a rather detailed 100 page scientific report on the March chemical weapon attack that says it was rebels outside of Aleppo.  The US and French have released far less actual evidence or analysis to back up the claims.

[Pieter Tuulinen]

1. I think that the okay from the committee gives him X+Y days to operate without full senate approval. And, also, I think the jury is out on which way the Senate will jump for various reasons.

2. And how long after 'go time' would the airspace remain contested? 24 hours? 48?

3. And the Brits have proof from recovered pieces of the delivery platforms and the trajectory of the delivery that finger Syrian security forces so.... whelp...

In addition several experts have questioned the veracity of the Russian report - for example it claims that the West used Saarin in World War II when the West discovered the recipe for Saarin in the ruins of post-WWII Germany.

[orange]

1. As I said, he (and all Presidents before him) would argue that he does not need Congress's permission to act.  "The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war."

The vote is actually not needed for the President to take action.

2. There are a lot of factors impacting the available order of battle for the US forces necessary to achieve air dominance such that Reapers or Predators could operate as they have in Afghanistan and Iraq. (They may not actually be based anywhere close enough to conduct operations into Syria.)  Air campaigns tend take some time, in Desert Storm the air war was around a month while the ground war was around 5 days.  Operation Allied Force, the Kosovo air campaign was 78 days.   OEF and OIF both did not have significant dedicated air campaigns that involved enemy counterair.

3. I am saying that the West needs to pony up a bit more than "trust us, we have evidence."

[Lyn Farel]

On 2th September the french defense minister has declassified some of the various DGSE reports on the gas attack.

It explains various historical facts at first and say that Syria is not part of the signatories of the Convention for the non use of chemical weapons (1993), and state that they are one of the countries with the most chemical arms in the world. Nothing really new.

Most of their stock is either Saarin and mustard (hundreds of tonnes), or VX gas (the deadliest, dozen of tonnes). Their arsenal is composed of SCUD B (300km range) and SCUD C (500km range), M600 (250-300 km), SS21 (70 km), air bombs (100 to 300 litres of gas), 302 and 320 mm rockets (50km).

Only Al Assad and the highest ranking of his clan are authorized to order chemical strikes.

The Syrian government would have violated the Geneva convention since 1968, and recent strikes would have taken place in the cities of Saraqeb the 29th April, and Jobar. Proofs of chemical use would be samples taken on bodies and soil. For Saraqeb it would have been carried through a chopper dropping small canisters filled with white smoke fumes.

August 21st with 41 videos analyzed would have shown another series of attacks in Ghuta East (Ain Tarma, Duma, Erbin, Jobar, Kfar Batna, Qas Alaa, Zamalka) and West (Mudamiyat Sham). 281 dead with 50% women and children.

From various humanitarian sources the count would go up to 1500 casualties.

They argue that considering the huge amount of video and other sources the rebel opposition would not be able to fake and control them all.

The attack of the 21st would have been carried through standard artillery shells and air bombing.

Inspectors would have been delayed several days before being able to access the area.

The attack would have been done to prevent at the time the rebel opposition to take an airforce airport near Damas.


Roughly..

[orange]

Thank you, Lyn.  I had not seen that France had declassified info, but it still does not excuse the US administration from hiding behind the "national means" excuse in making the case to the American public.

[Lyn Farel]

Well tbh the declassified thing is just a few official notes addressed to the government, not the real hard analyses... Not much to feed us unfortunately.

[Repentence Tyrathlion]

Well, things just got interesting courtesy of John Kerry and Russia.

My first thought when I heard the news was that there was an emergency face saving procedure going into action.  This way, everybody wins.  Assuming they can actually work together on it and it isn't just some big ploy, which is also possible.

[Anslol]

Well, things just got interesting courtesy of John Kerry and Russia.

My first thought when I heard the news was that there was an emergency face saving procedure going into action.  This way, everybody wins.  Assuming they can actually work together on it and it isn't just some big ploy, which is also possible.

...what happened.

[Saede Riordan]

Very interesting analysis