Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

ckn

Syria and Obama

352 posts in this topic

It was actually Al-Qaeda who did the chemical bombing and they got the weapons from their Israeli suppliers.  Here's proof:

 

 

Surely that's enough to convince anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Galloway in "not very honest" shocker.

 

I'm not sure that his opinions should have much bearing one way or another on what anyone else should think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the UN said that the rebels did have chemical weapons. Now either the UN are lying or the situation is a little more complex than you paint it.

As I mentioned above, having a few barrels full of sarin components is massively different proposition from having a dispersion mechanism capable of firing it and not wiping yourself out at the same time.  Unless you're completely competent in a pristine lab then your components will have shelf lives of days and will most likely be quite useless, the easiest way to combat that is to have a binary distribution system that combines during flight.  The easiest way to do that is put it in an artillery shell that does all the spinning and combination for you, unfortunately you then have to design an artillery shell to do the job for you, a standard HE round will incinerate the chemicals.  Then you have the artillery side, it's a far harder proposition firing an airburst round that disperses at the right altitude than a standard HE one that explodes on contact.

 

Unless I've really missed the stories about the rebels having sophisticated military labs, government grade munitions and highly trained artillery crews then I just can't see the rebels having the skills to do that.  Yes, they could have chemical weapons and use a few suicide bombers to disperse it but then the casualties (injured and killed) would be in the hundreds if they were extremely lucky rather than thousands.

 

If I'm wrong then I'm wrong but on these things the simplest answer is usually the correct one:  the Assad government fired the weapons from their pre-positioned military bases, in range of the affected areas, that have known chemical weapon stores from their fully surveyed and accurately positioned artillery guns crewed by very experienced gun crews.  Anything else is just unlikely and stretches credibility just a wee bit far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the whole world was united against what's happening in Syria, it might be different. But it isn't. Russia and Iran to name but two key players are not onside at all.

 

 

The Russians have a big problem with Islamic fundamentalism in their own backyard and they won't want more of it by having Syria collapse and provide a base.

 

The Iranians probably have a similar problem although they don't talk about it, and what's more they have nuclear armed aggressors on pretty much all sides.

 

It's fairly logical for both governments to back Assad, regardless of how much of a nasty piece of work he is, simply as a backstop against  further destabilisation on their own patches.   They're not going to magically get "on side".

 

If the West wants to intervene, then they have to weigh up the costs of getting Iran, and more importantly Russia, involved on the other side.

 

The only sensible course of action is to encourage a negotiated peace.  Anything else starts to risk a cascade into a proper shooting war between the West and countries that a bit better placed to fight back than Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

The risk of 2014 being a rerun of 1914 is just too great.  We should stay the hell out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm wrong then I'm wrong but on these things the simplest answer is usually the correct one:  the Assad government fired the weapons from their pre-positioned military bases, in range of the affected areas, that have known chemical weapon stores from their fully surveyed and accurately positioned artillery guns crewed by very experienced gun crews.  Anything else is just unlikely and stretches credibility just a wee bit far.

 

You are not allowed to use subject matter expertise on threads like this! ;) Very interesting read. I remember a couple of chlorine bombs going off in Iraq at the height of secterian violence in 06 but the effects were minimal due to the lack of expertise and delivery capability. This if confirmed in Syria, would require expertise and a robust delivery system to cause such carnage; the rebels do not have that capability. Therefore if Assad had nothing to hide, why would he and his regime prevent the UN Inspectors immediately entering the area to verify what happened?

 

By intervention, I meant well, you know, how helpful we've been over India and Africa over the last 500 years....oh, and Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, Palestine, Israel, Rhodesia, South Africa, all countries that have benefitted from our "intervention" over hundreds of years.  

 

I just trust and hope that we do not launch a missile attack on Syria. It'll be like intervening in a particularly bloody domestic. You know, hubby and wife knockin ten bells out of each other but turn on anyone who tries to intervene. We'll end up with the whole of the middle east against us.

 

But a decent list of positive interventions could also be drawn up over hundreds of years too. I appreciate you meant well but we have had a positive effect worldwide in the past as well, which people do tend to forget. That said, it doesn't mean I am an advocate of getting involved in Syria. I don't think we have the capacity or will to get involved other than limited air strikes against known weapons facilities, which I gather is all the US/UK/French are thinking about presently. But the fact remains that this was an awful episode and frankly the UN is not doing its job. Do we let both sides continue to commit atrocities? What precedent does that send around the world if the UN does not intervene? The world could certainly become a much darker and dangerous place if something is not done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russians have a big problem with Islamic fundamentalism in their own backyard and they won't want more of it by having Syria collapse and provide a base.

 

The Iranians probably have a similar problem although they don't talk about it, and what's more they have nuclear armed aggressors on pretty much all sides.

 

It has nothing to do with Islamic Fundamentalism regarding the Russians and the Iranians. It has everything to do with economic power, regional influence and countering the interests of the West.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do we let both sides continue to commit atrocities? What precedent does that send around the world if the UN does not intervene? The world could certainly become a much darker and dangerous place if something is not done.

The precedent was set a long time ago. The list of conflicts without UN intervention is very long. It's just that most people don't realise this because those conflicts get very little media attention. Congo is a perfect example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with Islamic Fundamentalism regarding the Russians and the Iranians. It has everything to do with economic power, regional influence and countering the interests of the West.

 

 

You want to look up Dokka Umarov, self proclaimed Emir of the Caucasus Emirate and a man with a $5m bounty on his head from the US government.

 

Nice bloke.  Keeps organising for people to get blown up in Russia. 

 

Islamist actions in Russia have now reached as far north as Tartarstan, which is about 500 miles from Moscow.  In Russian terms, that's next door.

 

 

The Russians are very serious about combating Islamic terrorism, having fought numerous brutal wars in the Caucasus region recently, and they will back Assad to keep a lid on it.

 

The whole thing is a mess, one we are better off out of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See my post above about the likelihood of it being a rebel attack.

 

Let's just, for a moment, imagine that it was a rebel attack.

 

Should we therefore pile in on Assad's side?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While they're both shooting, stabbing, torturing each other with "conventional" weapons we can just let them get on with it. However, when one side plays dirty as it were, there's probably some little known rule that compels intervention. So, instead of a drawn out "can't we all just get along" saga, why not just launch a week of constant, uncompromising bombardment. Give the proper weapons an airing not the ones that cause mild discomfort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just, for a moment, imagine that it was a rebel attack.

 

Should we therefore pile in on Assad's side?

It's nothing to do with taking a side, it's to do with flagrantly flaunting the biggest taboo in modern military conflict.  If you stretched credibility to its highest and decided it was the rebels then they deserve a serious smacking down just as much as if it were Assad.  If that means the other side gets a bit of a military tactical advantage then so be it, they get the "advantage" of not being the side to bring WMDs into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While they're both shooting, stabbing, torturing each other with "conventional" weapons we can just let them get on with it. However, when one side plays dirty as it were, there's probably some little known rule that compels intervention. So, instead of a drawn out "can't we all just get along" saga, why not just launch a week of constant, uncompromising bombardment. Give the proper weapons an airing not the ones that cause mild discomfort.

 

 

Wow yeah!!!! sounds like a plan, i mean, why not? Lets make sure that Iran and russia get involved, lets give the Muslin fundamentalists even more reason to whip up the poorly educated and disaffected inner-city youth into thinking the attack is against them and their co-religionists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are not allowed to use subject matter expertise on threads like this! ;) Very interesting read. I remember a couple of chlorine bombs going off in Iraq at the height of secterian violence in 06 but the effects were minimal due to the lack of expertise and delivery capability. This if confirmed in Syria, would require expertise and a robust delivery system to cause such carnage; the rebels do not have that capability. Therefore if Assad had nothing to hide, why would he and his regime prevent the UN Inspectors immediately entering the area to verify what happened?

Sometimes you have to use SME when making a point otherwise it just becomes unsubstantiated opinion ;)

 

There was also the 2004 incident with a stolen Saddam era Iraqi army chemical artillery shell that had been completely fitted for firing.  (Link to NBC article).  It had degraded so badly that it was borderline useless plus the insurgents just blew the thing up thinking it was a normal artillery HE shell.  It shows that you can have the chemicals and the right dispersal shell but if you keep it for long enough or don't have the right artillery piece to fire it from or training in what to do with the thing from then you'd be as well throwing stones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Wow yeah!!!! sounds like a plan, i mean, why not? Lets make sure that Iran and russia get involved, lets give the Muslin fundamentalists even more reason to whip up the poorly educated and disaffected inner-city youth into thinking the attack is against them and their co-religionists.

Russia/Iran won't get involved.

They think that anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned above, having a few barrels full of sarin components is massively different proposition from having a dispersion mechanism capable of firing it and not wiping yourself out at the same time.  Unless you're completely competent in a pristine lab then your components will have shelf lives of days and will most likely be quite useless, the easiest way to combat that is to have a binary distribution system that combines during flight.  The easiest way to do that is put it in an artillery shell that does all the spinning and combination for you, unfortunately you then have to design an artillery shell to do the job for you, a standard HE round will incinerate the chemicals.  Then you have the artillery side, it's a far harder proposition firing an airburst round that disperses at the right altitude than a standard HE one that explodes on contact.

 

Unless I've really missed the stories about the rebels having sophisticated military labs, government grade munitions and highly trained artillery crews then I just can't see the rebels having the skills to do that.  Yes, they could have chemical weapons and use a few suicide bombers to disperse it but then the casualties (injured and killed) would be in the hundreds if they were extremely lucky rather than thousands.

 

If I'm wrong then I'm wrong but on these things the simplest answer is usually the correct one:  the Assad government fired the weapons from their pre-positioned military bases, in range of the affected areas, that have known chemical weapon stores from their fully surveyed and accurately positioned artillery guns crewed by very experienced gun crews.  Anything else is just unlikely and stretches credibility just a wee bit far.

It probably is the correct answer but what if it isn't?

 

Remember that the FSA was initially made up of Syrian army units that had defected to the rebels, they've also captured military installations.

 

Now the odds are still with Assad but if we must intervene it would be better if it was on the side that had used chemical weapons, it would be terrible if we ended up backing the side that had used them.

 

Not to mention that we still don't have any plan. Bomb Syria and then what?

 

Do we wait for Assad to win and ###### ourselves about how we will retaliate?

 

Do we make sure he loses and get dragged into nation building?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's nothing to do with taking a side, it's to do with flagrantly flaunting the biggest taboo in modern military conflict. 

 

 

So we can get in there, deliver a slap on the wrist to Assad for being naughty, get out again and that will be that?

 

No fear of it escalating, minimum fuss, all home by Christmas?

 

Sounds good to me.  Bang on chaps, first to Damascus gets a free kebab!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed.     Somehow, even with the best of intentions, it will all go #### up, even more lives will be lost on all sides, and we'll have alienated even more people in the region.  And I still beleve we don't really know who is telling the truth or telling the lies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*shakes head slowly*

But for the Russians and Iranians playing pathetic, narrow political games that go against every agreed principle on WMDs we'd already have a UN security council resolution authorising force to get UN inspectors on site regardless of consequences.  We do nothing, they win.  We do nothing, whoever fired the chemical weapons wins.  We do nothing, the little wedge about "we don't really mean it when we say that's utterly unacceptable" comes into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Russians are very serious about combating Islamic terrorism, having fought numerous brutal wars in the Caucasus region recently, and they will back Assad to keep a lid on it.

 

I fully appreciate that the Russian are deadly serious about combatting terrorism, especially within their own borders. However, Syria is a very different matter. Their real goal is to prevent the development of an energy pipeline across the Middle East, which would have a massive impact on the Russian economy as they dominate European energy supplies. The pipeline would bypass Russian channels have cripple their economy. I am sure they have concerns about the nature of some rebel formations in Syria but it is certainly not the driving factor. It is definitely not the case with Iran who have no qualms of funding Islamic Fundamentalists or any other terrorist organisation in the world.

 

It's nothing to do with taking a side, it's to do with flagrantly flaunting the biggest taboo in modern military conflict.  If you stretched credibility to its highest and decided it was the rebels then they deserve a serious smacking down just as much as if it were Assad.  If that means the other side gets a bit of a military tactical advantage then so be it, they get the "advantage" of not being the side to bring WMDs into play.

 

Smack on the money with that comment. There is no bigger taboo in military conflict than using WMDs, breaks numerous conventions and would set a very dangerous precedent if not tackled, not matter which side used the weapons.

 

*shakes head slowly*

But for the Russians and Iranians playing pathetic, narrow political games that go against every agreed principle on WMDs we'd already have a UN security council resolution authorising force to get UN inspectors on site regardless of consequences.  We do nothing, they win.  We do nothing, whoever fired the chemical weapons wins.  We do nothing, the little wedge about "we don't really mean it when we say that's utterly unacceptable" comes into play.

 

Neither the Russians or Iranians (throw the Chinese into the equation as well) give a flying hoot about the use of chemical weapons in Syria otherwise they'd have acted straight away. They have shown their true colours by stalling at the Security Council whilst the affected areas have been blown to pieces by artillery from the Assad Regime. Only now are the weapons inspectors allowed into the area. As I stated earlier, if the UN does nothing, a huge and dangerous precedent will have been set. The world will be a much darker place.

 

Is it not for the UN to enter as opposed to the US?

 

The US, UK and France are not talking about entering Syria; they'll bomb known chemical weapons facilities and infrastructure as a warning that such attacks are not acceptable. It is up to the UN to put boots on the ground in Syria to stop violence but that will never happen as the UN is impotent and nobody (including us) actually gives a hoot about the plight of the civilians in those locations as we aren't willing to escalate the conflict to levels, which will follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nobody (including us) actually gives a hoot about the plight of the civilians in those locations

 

And isn't that the sickest element of the whole sorry business?

 

This is all about certain politicians in the west saving face and being seen to look tough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony Blair says that we should become embroiled in the conflict. A glowing recommendation if ever there was one.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And isn't that the sickest element of the whole sorry business?

 

This is all about certain politicians in the west saving face and being seen to look tough.

I think almost everybody has finally learned the lessons from Iraq and Libya. The Arabs will kill each other no matter what we do. They are violently intolerant of us, the Israelis and above all of each other. The one thing that is guaranteed is that it will result in them hating us a bit more and putting Western lives in danger for no real gain.

I don't think anyone really believes that Syria can be anything other than a genocidal bloodbath and hence we've just given up on it. It's not that we don't care, we are simply jaded (and with good reason).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tony Blair says that we should become embroiled in the conflict. A glowing recommendation if ever there was one.....

If tony Blair says we should bomb Syria then you know it's a bad idea! He also supported the military intervention in Libya and even calls for tough action against Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.