159 replies to this topic

[awesome possum]

Jaimeisnotazombie, on 07 December 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

I've never been to Syria so i go off what he says. He says that Syria is more progressive then other islamic countries, they dont have alot of extream religious laws.

I've heard Damascus called the "Las Vegas of the Middle East" a few times.  Not that there are casinos and strip clubs everywhere but that there are dance clubs and bars and the youth can be young adults and be stupid without fear of being stoned to death for it.

[Kouran]

Lorien, on 07 December 2012 - 04:18 PM, said:

Maybe not.  It takes the, "use it or lose it" factor, out of the equation, short term.

To my mind it makes the possibility of proliferation worse.

[Castel]

awesome possum, on 07 December 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

I've heard Damascus called the "Las Vegas of the Middle East" a few times.  Not that there are casinos and strip clubs everywhere but that there are dance clubs and bars and the youth can be young adults and be stupid without fear of being stoned to death for it.

nvm got my answer. I should really check the previous page on these topics.

Edited by Castel, 07 December 2012 - 04:39 PM.

[Ser Robin Hill]

Kouran, on 07 December 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

To my mind it makes the possibility of proliferation worse.

Proliferation is not really an issue.  If one has access to the components and a reasonably good lab.

(CH₃)₂CHO]CH₃P(O)F

CH₃P(O)F₂ + (CH₃)₂CHOH → [(CH₃)₂CHO]CH₃P(O)F + HF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

[Shryke]

Kouran, on 07 December 2012 - 04:13 PM, said:

Shryke,

My point is that Assad has limited options at this point, he is going down period and he knows it. So what keeps him from using the weapons he has? He has already proven that he is willing to attack civilians and bomb non combat targets. So why not use gas as his last resort.

As to global intervention the UN doesnt have a very good record on that, see Rwanda etc. His father killed something like 30k people in Homs at one point. Hafez al Assad wasnt invaded and over thrown then either so why would Assad expect to be invaded now?

I guess if we wanted to prove that we arent going to stand by and watch we would hit something before he uses the gas and say thats just a taste of whats coming if you use the gas.

Oh new article: http://www.wired.com...hemical-terror/

Apparently we now think the formulation of the sarin the Syrians have might have a shelf life of up to a year. Thats real bad news.

I think he might try. My point is the US and Israel and Turkey and allies of theirs are all looking to stop that from happening.

Chemical weapons are rather frowned upon and no one wants them getting into the hands of ... well, anyone.

[Kouran]

Shryke, on 07 December 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

I think he might try. My point is the US and Israel and Turkey and allies of theirs are all looking to stop that from happening.

Chemical weapons are rather frowned upon and no one wants them getting into the hands of ... well, anyone.

Oh I agree, but I just dont see any way out of this if he wants to stand a chance on holding on to power. It would be nice if he just gave up, but I dont see him doing that.

[sologdin]

unbelievable.  is the US really gonna play the he-gasses-his-own-people card again?  are there numbnuts who believe that's sufficient reason to invade?

before invading syria, please tell me, mr. BHO, where the fuck the iraqi WMD happen to be.

[Triskele]

sologdin, on 07 December 2012 - 11:15 PM, said:

unbelievable.  is the US really gonna play the he-gasses-his-own-people card again?  are there numbnuts who believe that's sufficient reason to invade?

before invading syria, please tell me, mr. BHO, where the fuck the iraqi WMD happen to be.

Why blame BHO for this?

After all, it's not like Saddam gassing his own people was really the impetus for the Iraq war that BHO never supported (or was really ever in a position to support or not support).  Saddam gassing his own people always came across to me as one of the right's myriad excuse-justifications once the WMD didn't show up.

I do get wondering why, exactly, the chem. weapons are possibly emerging as the red line.  I just don't know what Saddam has to do with this particular situation.  It doesn't seem analogous.

ETA:  I mean the argument about Saddam gassing his own people...not the actual act which is very ugly.

Edited by Triskele, 07 December 2012 - 11:39 PM.

[sologdin]

are you fucking serious?  are you fucking with me right now?  i feel like billy bob thorton screaming at thermon fucking mermon in bad santa.  are you fucking serious?

was not the iraq war sold on the usage of WMD?  is not the syrian war being sold on the usage of WMD?

[jmastar]

ugh.. I dont want to go to war again... im so tired

[Triskele]

sologdin, on 07 December 2012 - 11:43 PM, said:

are you fucking serious?  are you fucking with me right now?  i feel like billy bob thorton screaming at thermon fucking mermon in bad santa.  are you fucking serious?

was not the iraq war sold on the usage of WMD?  is not the syrian war being sold on the usage of WMD?

My bolding.

That is not my recollection, but perhaps I am wrong.  I do not recall the war being sold on the use of WMD and particularly not on the use of WMD on the Kurds (I'm assuming here that we're talking about the selling in the run up to the war).  My recollection was that the war was sold on the possession of WMD which were supposed to make Americans scared cause al-Qaeda.  I'm sure you don't think TAA in Bush's day heading into Iraq was worried about Iraqis.

But once the possession was disproved, the excuses came in, and a common one was "Saddam is a tyrant, he gassed his own people!"

[Ser Robin Hill]

I agree that the US should not invade Syria, for the following reasons.

1.  Assad's regime will fall, even if we do nothing.
2.  The regime that replaces Assad, will be worse.

[sologdin]

it was all concurrent.  the main argument was that SH threatened the entire world with his evil WMD.  nevermind that the UN controlled the WMD sotcks, most of which were stale.  it was lying for the history books, in the proper text, not the footnotes.   peripheral arguments, such as blair's, included the gassed-his-own-people bit.  that allegation is of course true, even if the argument to invade is still false, as in, a violation of the UN charter.

i assume that the argument is that the cases are distinguishable--that actual usage of WMD by the syrian state in its own civil war is different than the BS case made by the US vis-a-vis iraq.  when however did the US regain credibility?  the US always lies about foreign policy.  the US always lies when it goes to war. the US is the greatest liar in the history of the world.  motherfuckers will countenace yet another invasion in oil-land on the basis of alleged WMD because the executive is controlled by the slightly-left-of-center business party?

[Triskele]

sologdin, on 08 December 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

when however did the US regain credibility?  the US always lies about foreign policy.  the US always lies when it goes to war. the US is the greatest liar in the history of the world.  motherfuckers will countenace yet another invasion in oil-land on the basis of alleged WMD because the executive is controlled by the slightly-left-of-center business party?

So it sounds like we don't actually disagree too much after clarification.

I am not sure that we should intervene in Syria, by the way.  Maybe we will, but my original response to you was your linking of BHO to Iraq's thing to Syria's thing which I didn't see as a fair link and still wouldn't if we intervene in Syria.  Iraq was sold as "CAUSE AL-QAEDA!!!!!"

[Darzin]

Quote

Syrian women dont have to wear a Burqaa right? He says the Rebals are very religious and will make it a law that it has to be worn.

First off, no one anywhere wears a Burqa outside of Afghanistan or Pakistan, and I don't see how the rebels would be anymore religious than in Libya or Egypt.

That said this is a terrible situation and the fact it is a minority trying to hold power against a majority makes it worse. Unlike Egypt Libya or Tunisia there is a good chance of wide spread massacres against Alawites once Assad falls, which is an argument for invading and if Turkey invaded with American support it would hard to frame that as the west attacking Islam given that Turkey is a Muslim country.

I'm also surprised Assad hasn't fled to the Alawite majority areas and tried to work out a deal of him ruling those areas and giving the rest of Syria over to the rebels. If he took all his planes and tanks the rebels would have a hard time beating him in a conventional war and I;m not sure they would have the drive to conquer the Alawite areas. That seems to me a viable plan and almost the best as even though Assad is still in power it averts genocide. I guess him and the generals value Damascus to much or have to many  business interests there. But even its the Generals and Security Forces that won't let him leave, it still seems like its in their best interest to also flee to rather than get killed by the inevitable mobs once the regime falls.

[Ser Robin Hill]

sologdin, on 08 December 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

the US always lies when it goes to war. the US is the greatest liar in the history of the world.  motherfuckers will countenace yet another invasion in oil-land on the basis of alleged WMD because the executive is controlled by the slightly-left-of-center business party?

Syria ranks 31st in oil production.  It is hardly worth invading, for its oil.

All nations lie.

[Darzin]

Quote

the US always lies when it goes to war. the US is the greatest liar in the history of the world.  motherfuckers will countenace yet another invasion in oil-land on the basis of alleged WMD because the executive is controlled by the slightly-left-of-center business party?

Also what does oil have do do with anything, we didn't invade Iraq because of oil, Saddam would have sold us oil, the reason he didn't is we didn't let him.

[Horza]

solo is posessed by the ghost of Smedley Butler, we need an exorcism.

Syria has had a chemical weapons arsenal for fucking ages, as did Iraq. They got their kit from the dastardly Soviets instead of peaceful democratic West Germany, and didn't lose a war with the US in the 90s (in fact Assad snr sold his Baathist comrade out) and thus didn't have their programs destroyed by the UN post-war. This is not controversial.

That the US has been a hypocrite about which nations can get away with gassing and lied about Iraq reconstituting its program in the 00s has no bearing on what it and the rest of the world should do should Assad jnr break out the sarin in this civil war thing he appears to be losing.

[Shryke]

Yeah, I'm not seeing the similarities here at all.

The smokescreen for the Iraq invasion wasn't "He might gas his own people!", it was "He had WMDs and he'll use them on America ... somehow.". Or spreading democracy. Or 9/11. Or, really, whatever was convenient at the time. Basically, the same shit many in the US are trying to stir up against Iran.

Also, no one is proposing or expecting anything like the Iraq war. If anything happens, it'll look like Libya I imagine.

[Triskele]

null

Edited by Triskele, 08 December 2012 - 03:45 AM.