|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vHkKf2W.jpg)
Right? The levels of hypocrisy regarding US interventions has always been absurdly high, but at this point, I don't think there's any room left for Obama to work with, thank Christ.
We bomb and kill people in a country that the American people know next-to-nothing about, full of people we don't know, like it's going to make that country a better place? That shit has never worked, ever, ever, ever! And what right do we have to complain about this shit? Is getting gassed by your government worse than getting fire-bombed by a semi-robotic, un-manned aircraft sent from the other side of the world?
There is no logic or rationale to it. We're either going to go to war with yet another Middle-East country (while ignoring all the gross atrocities occurring elsewhere in the world), or we're not. This idea of "we'll just bomb them" is the fucking worst -- it's just as bad an atrocity as anything any dictator has ever done. It disgusts me that any American would advocate for that. People act like it's MORE HUMANE than a ground invasion. It might be more humane to our soldiers, but to the people watching their country get blown up, it's probably even worse than a ground invasion as they're made to feel completely helpless as a faceless enemy decimates them. They're in a civil war, both sides have their share of blame when it comes to ruining their country and killing innocents -- what are we going to do except make things worse?
It really is another Vietnam situation. A country is in turmoil, facing atrocities, and while we normally wouldn't give a shit, another country we like or don't like has some vested interest in the outcome, so all of a sudden we hear speeches about what awful things are happening and how we must go to war to somehow preserve human life. So we invade, go to war, and what then? What good are we going to accomplish in Syria, by adding even more weapons and explosives into this mix?
Shut the **** up, Obama. Grow some balls, and stop being a M.I.C. puppet.
|
@Leporello, I have a lot of respect for Tyson, so I'm kind of disappointed he's tweeting shit like this. The bomb one isn't so bad, but the comparison to lethal injection is retarded. The reason we abhor chemical weapons is
1) they are entirely indiscriminate and incredibly difficult to limit in their effect- you use chemical munitions somewhere and people will randomly die based on where the wind is blowing, the elevation etc. While conventional munitions are also somewhat indiscriminate, they're a lot easier to control in terms of risk- munitions have a carefully measured effective blast radius and so when used the user can gauge who they're going to slaughter with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Chemical munitions just kill everything in a vague 'nearby' with high and often lingering reliability. The lethal injection is the absolute opposite of this. The UN objects to the indiscriminate killing of humans, not the use of chemicals.
2) other than a moderate area in the zone of nuclear fallout, chemical weapons exposure is perhaps the most inhumane method of killing other people. Conventional munitions that deal lethal damage will generally do so instantly in most cases- either pressure shock or trauma will end it fast. It may look ugly for the spectator and chance can create some particularly nasty deaths as well, but largely you either die instantly or after a short period of unconsciousness, or recover partially or fully in the end. Any amount of modern chemical weapons exposure will kill you while you are awake and painfully aware of it and with next to no chance of avoiding death. Unlike conventional munitions, the injured are the exception, the dead are the rule. I'm not doing this because I delight in gory details, I'm doing it to contrast to the lethal injection, which is specifically engineered to kill someone as quickly and humanely as possible. Whether it does we can't say, but that is the intent. The intent of chemical weapons is indiscriminate and terrible murder designed to kill everything they touch in the most unpleasant way imaginable specifically to incite the maximum terror in everything it doesn't. The UN objects to weapons which are designed to inflict misery and suffering rather than concrete military objectives, not the use of chemicals.
THAT is why we abhor chemical weapons. Not 'because they are chemicals'.
It saddens me to see an intelligent and wise man spouting utter bullshit.
|
On September 12 2013 09:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 09:18 Uvantak wrote: Also, even tho i would really like US invading full scale Syria and kill two birds with a single rock (make Al Nusra and ISIS leave the country or at least put them to line and topple Assad's government) i know it is not gonna happen, US people are not educate enough to know what it is happening in Syria and how this could affect their future, and all western countries for that matter. But cruise missiles now and good training for the FSA and the later new SAA that will be formed when Assad falls, plus international aid form UN and other organizations and some educational efforts from western powers to condition Syrian population should be good enough to avoid extremists to take over Syria after this war is over. Please explain why it is in America's best interest to invade.
On September 12 2013 09:23 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 09:18 Uvantak wrote: Also, even tho i would really like US invading full scale Syria and kill two birds with a single rock (make Al Nusra and ISIS leave the country or at least put them to line and topple Assad's government) i know it is not gonna happen, US people are not educate enough to know what it is happening in Syria and how this could affect their future, and all western countries for that matter. But cruise missiles now and good training for the FSA and the later new SAA that will be formed when Assad falls, plus international aid form UN and other organizations and some educational efforts from western powers to condition Syrian population should be good enough to avoid extremists to take over Syria after this war is over. Please explain why it is in America's best interest to invade.
Let's say that the US does not invade at all and the war drags a year more and finally the FSA wins, by then Al Nusra and ISIS will have control of a big chunk of the country since they are the strongest FSA factions atm and they are the ones that we see behind almost of all the mass killings, minorities killings and beheadings "committed by the FSA", so when this war against Assad is over if these mass killings continue, it is very probable that the rest of the actual FSA will try to fight them ( i have seen a few interviews to FSA commanders and how they talk of Al Nusra being a pain in the ass and how their alliance it is just a matter of convenience, but if Al nusra tries to overtake a big part of the country they will fight them), and this will spire down into sectarian war, but since Al Nusra has Al Qaeda backing them and Al Qaeda has quite a bit of resources it may happen that Al Nusra could overtake the new formed Syrian government or at least get a big representation on it, and that it would mean that they can spread their extremists ideals further into the general population possibly dragging a small percentage of it into the known circlejerk of "we hate america, let's kill them for what they have done to us" and convincing another considerable percentage into "Fuck america" and the rest of the population would be all "america didn't help us when we asked them, why should we bother if they get killed by the extremists they create?".
And plus with all the new political leaders that would try to push these new extremists ideals into the Syrian mainstream and it would give Al Qaeda more resources than they already have now, and possibly even stranded chemical weapons or the chemicals to make them from the ones that would have been left from Assad stranded warfare labs.
Now this is all built upon quite a bit of conjectures that need to be align for something like this to happen, but it has happened before in the past, in Afghanistan and the rising of Al Qaeda, which is a by product of the Americans leaving Afghanistan all by itself after the URSS invasion en the 80's instead of helping the population to rebuild their country, have you seen that picture of Ronald Reagan meeting with some talibans? well these where the good guys at the time that picture was taken, but they where left alone to fight muslims extremists and rebuild their country without external help, what happened? Well the rancor of being forgotten, lied and used to fight Russians is a powerful feeling and a considerable amount of the population started feeling the same way and they gave their backs to the "good" talibans that supported the US even when the US forgot them, and the population did so because the "good talibans" didn't have the capacity and resources to help the population and instead the population started asking for help/helping Al Qaeda to rebuild Afghanistan while impose their extremists views of the Qurán and giving a blanket to the anti western ideals that the population developed after being used by the US to fight the URSS.
That is broadly what happened in Afghanistan post URSS invasion, and that is my fear for Syria, that the country is left alone when the FSA and population asked for two years for external help, +100.000 people have died and those that are alive remember the ones that didn't helped them, the ones that could have avoided such bloodshed (Lybia's civilian war lasted 8 months where "only" ~25.000 people died), that is my fear, that those that are alive feel rancor towards those that could have helped and didn't do so, and for what i can see, read and find a considerable amount of people feel that way.
Srry but i don't have more time to keep writing, i need to be up tomorrow morning. But i'll do my best to answer tomorrow morning b4 going to college if you want to keep arguing about my view of things ^^
Also srry for any swapped word, for some reason my brain swaps words for others or writes them backwards and i have to check if i didn't mess up badly in the grammar and stuff, but sometimes i miss some.
|
The CIA has begun delivering weapons to rebels in Syria, ending months of delay in lethal aid that had been promised by the Obama administration, according to U.S. officials and Syrian figures. The shipments began streaming into the country over the past two weeks, along with separate deliveries by the State Department of vehicles and other gear — a flow of material that marks a major escalation of the U.S. role in Syria’s civil war.
The arms shipments, which are limited to light weapons and other munitions that can be tracked, began arriving in Syria at a moment of heightened tensions over threats by President Obama to order missile strikes to punish the regime of Bashar al-Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons in a deadly attack near Damascus last month.
Source
|
On September 12 2013 11:27 Uvantak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 09:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2013 09:18 Uvantak wrote: Also, even tho i would really like US invading full scale Syria and kill two birds with a single rock (make Al Nusra and ISIS leave the country or at least put them to line and topple Assad's government) i know it is not gonna happen, US people are not educate enough to know what it is happening in Syria and how this could affect their future, and all western countries for that matter. But cruise missiles now and good training for the FSA and the later new SAA that will be formed when Assad falls, plus international aid form UN and other organizations and some educational efforts from western powers to condition Syrian population should be good enough to avoid extremists to take over Syria after this war is over. Please explain why it is in America's best interest to invade. Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 09:23 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2013 09:18 Uvantak wrote: Also, even tho i would really like US invading full scale Syria and kill two birds with a single rock (make Al Nusra and ISIS leave the country or at least put them to line and topple Assad's government) i know it is not gonna happen, US people are not educate enough to know what it is happening in Syria and how this could affect their future, and all western countries for that matter. But cruise missiles now and good training for the FSA and the later new SAA that will be formed when Assad falls, plus international aid form UN and other organizations and some educational efforts from western powers to condition Syrian population should be good enough to avoid extremists to take over Syria after this war is over. Please explain why it is in America's best interest to invade. Let's say that the US does not invade at all and the war drags a year more and finally the FSA wins, by then Al Nusra and ISIS will have control of a big chunk of the country since they are the strongest FSA factions atm and they are the ones that we see behind almost of all the mass killings, minorities killings and beheadings "committed by the FSA", so when this war against Assad is over if these mass killings continue, it is very probable that the rest of the actual FSA will try to fight them ( i have seen a few interviews to FSA commanders and how they talk of Al Nusra being a pain in the ass and how their alliance it is just a matter of convenience, but if Al nusra tries to overtake a big part of the country they will fight them), and this will spire down into sectarian war, but since Al Nusra has Al Qaeda backing them and Al Qaeda has quite a bit of resources it may happen that Al Nusra could overtake the new formed Syrian government or at least get a big representation on it, and that it would mean that they can spread their extremists ideals further into the general population possibly dragging a small percentage of it into the known circlejerk of "we hate america, let's kill them for what they have done to us" and convincing another considerable percentage into "Fuck america" and the rest of the population would be all "america didn't help us when we asked them, why should we bother if they get killed by the extremists they create?". And plus with all the new political leaders that would try to push these new extremists ideals into the Syrian mainstream and it would give Al Qaeda more resources than they already have now, and possibly even stranded chemical weapons or the chemicals to make them from the ones that would have been left from Assad stranded warfare labs. Now this is all built upon quite a bit of conjectures that need to be align for something like this to happen, but it has happened before in the past, in Afghanistan and the rising of Al Qaeda, which is a by product of the Americans leaving Afghanistan all by itself after the URSS invasion en the 80's instead of helping the population to rebuild their country, have you seen that picture of Ronald Reagan meeting with some talibans? well these where the good guys at the time that picture was taken, but they where left alone to fight muslims extremists and rebuild their country without external help, what happened? Well the rancor of being forgotten, lied and used to fight Russians is a powerful feeling and a considerable amount of the population started feeling the same way and they gave their backs to the "good" talibans that supported the US even when the US forgot them, and the population did so because the "good talibans" didn't have the capacity and resources to help the population and instead the population started asking for help/helping Al Qaeda to rebuild Afghanistan while impose their extremists views of the Qurán and giving a blanket to the anti western ideals that the population developed after being used by the US to fight the URSS. That is broadly what happened in Afghanistan post URSS invasion, and that is my fear for Syria, that the country is left alone when the FSA and population asked for two years for external help, +100.000 people have died and those that are alive remember the ones that didn't helped them, the ones that could have avoided such bloodshed (Lybia's civilian war lasted 8 months where "only" ~25.000 people died), that is my fear, that those that are alive feel rancor towards those that could have helped and didn't do so, and for what i can see, read and find a considerable amount of people feel that way. Srry but i don't have more time to keep writing, i need to be up tomorrow morning. But i'll do my best to answer tomorrow morning b4 going to college if you want to keep arguing about my view of things ^^ Also srry for any swapped word, for some reason my brain swaps words for others or writes them backwards and i have to check if i didn't mess up badly in the grammar and stuff, but sometimes i miss some.
Nice story, but you forgot one thing: they're going to hate us if we go in there as well.
It's a lose-lose for the U.S. these days when it comes to foreign "relations." Really the only options for preserving U.S. interests in the Middle East are to either make the retarded terrorists keep killing each other in sectarian violence, or pray to God/Allah/Odin that they'll stop being fundamentalist barbarians. Everything else only further enrages the Middle East and Europe.
|
|
|
I am not advocating for anyone to go into Syria to assist either side, but I think some things about chemical weapons need a little clearing up.
Thereisnosaurus covered the indiscriminate nature of chemical weapons, so I'll just go into more depth on why they're horrid. Imagine a Lego block, a small one. Now imagine that being pure nerve gas. That is how much some of the crudest nerve gas takes to kill someone through skin contact, roughly 1cm^3, inhalation takes an even smaller amount. That means that a 2 liter soda bottle full of nerve gas can kill upwards of 2000 people.
The fact that it kills through skin in such small doses means that a gas mask alone will not protect anyone from it, you need a full chemical suit and a gas mask to be protected. There is little that one can do when exposed to nerve gas. Taking an antidote may seem like a good way to solve this, but antidotes for nerve agents are actually poisonous and not only will incapacitate people who have been exposed to nerve gas, they may even kill people who haven't been, meaning that there's a huge risk involved with taking the antidote.
All of this is in contrast to how you can hide from a conventional bomb or bullet by hiding behind something that's large enough.
Chemical weapons also kill in unimaginably horrid ways. From Wikipedia:
As their name suggests, nerve agents attack the nervous system of the human body. All such agents function the same way: by inhibiting the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, which is responsible for the breakdown of acetylcholine (ACh) in the synapse. ACh gives the signal for muscles to contract, preventing them from relaxing.
Initial symptoms following exposure to nerve agents (like sarin) are a runny nose, tightness in the chest, and constriction of the pupils. Soon after, the victim will then have difficulty breathing and will experience nausea and drooling. As the victim continues to lose control of his or her bodily functions, he or she will involuntarily salivate, lacrimate, urinate, defecate, and experience gastrointestinal pain and vomiting. Blisters and burning of the eyes and/or lungs may also occur. This phase is followed by initially myoclonic jerks followed by status epilepticus. Death then comes via complete respiratory depression, most likely via the excessive peripheral activity at the neuromuscular junction of the diaphragm.
The effects of nerve agents are very long lasting and increase with successive exposures. Survivors of nerve agent poisoning almost invariably suffer chronic neurological damage. This neurological damage can also lead to continuing psychiatric effects.
When a normally functioning motor nerve is stimulated, it releases the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, which transmits the impulse to a muscle or organ. Once the impulse is sent, the enzyme acetylcholinesterase immediately breaks down the acetylcholine in order to allow the muscle or organ to relax.
Nerve agents disrupt the nervous system by inhibiting the function of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase via forming a covalent bond where acetylcholine would break down (undergoes hydrolysis). Acetylcholine thus builds up and continues to act so that any nerve impulses are continually transmitted and muscle contractions do not stop.This same action also occurs at the gland and organ levels, resulting in uncontrolled drooling, tearing of the eyes (lacrimation) and excess production of mucus from the nose (rhinorrhea).
The important part here is muscle contraction and how it never stops. People exposed to nerve gas contract their muscles so much, so hard that they crush themselves to death, all the while being completely conscious of what is happening and feeling everything. It's not like a bomb or bullet where you die in a matter of seconds or survive it and have varying degrees of temporary or permanent effects that really depend on where the bullet/bomb hit your body. These injuries are not guaranteed to be life ending or permanent like nerve gas is, not guaranteed to be long and drawn out, and are also possible to be shielded from with enough cover.
That's what makes chemical weapons be classified as weapons of mass destruction with other things such as weaponized diseases or nukes, they kill anyone that is even remotely close to them, don't care if they're trying to hide, and kill them in an extremely horrific way+ Show Spoiler +I know this might not apply to nukes if you get one dropped right next to you, but they have massive effects on people who are hit by fallout from them
TL;DR
Don't go anywhere near nerve gas.
|
|
|
Interesting map. Looks like the rebels are doing well geographically, but from what I understand, the government holds the major population centres as well as natural resources, not to mention much of the coastline, right? Also, the opposition strongholds in the south seem to be cut off from those in the north. I wonder if they coordinate by crossing the border into Jordan and Iraq? Of perhaps the opposition groups in the south have little connection to those groups in the north?
|
The way it's been presented to me, the US either watches jihadists overtake the FSA, or they spend boatloads of money to assist the Syrians in a long, long war, where every nutter and his brother will travel from all over the world to fight "the American puppets".
I'm confused as to why so much attention is being paid to these weird notions of "influence", or ideas that Assad or Russia have anything to do with this conflict anymore. Assad will lose his head, and then the country will be a smoking ruin until it receives massive amounts of outside support for reconstruction. Why are there all these arguments over semantics / republicans / conspiracy theories?
|
On September 12 2013 04:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 04:06 LegalLord wrote:On September 12 2013 03:21 xDaunt wrote:
The point that you clearly are missing is that Obama could have done a much, much better job handling this affair than he did. What would be the best way to solve this? All parties involved are impossible to collectively please, and there was no way Obama could predict the reaction of the country (the country doesn't want war but CW is a good reason). To me, it seems like he was put into a very awkward position, and if there was a better solution, I'm not seeing it. But if there is an obvious best way to have dealt with this, please do share. Saying that "Obama was put into a very awkward position" is one way to put it. The better, and more accurate statement, is to say that "Obama put himself in a very awkward position." Like I said previously, Obama's original blunder that put him in the "awkward position" is that he drew the red line regarding the use of chemical weapons with no intention of enforcing it. He then compounded that error by failing to send a clear message on what the consequences of Syria's actual use of chemical weapons would be. Given all of the leaks and posturing before the media, Obama might as well have held a focus group on he subject for everyone to see. All of this demonstrated extraordinary weakness and lack of resolve. So what should Obama have done? First, he never should have drawn the red line. However, even having drawn the red line, he could have handled the situation better. The first thing that he needed to do was have a dedicated press offensive over the past year to make the case for intervention if chemical weapons were used. That way, he wouldn't have been caught flat-footed in the court of public opinion. After chemical weapons were used, Obama needed to issue a statement saying that he was waiting for confirmation that they were used and who used it before take any other actions. He should also have made it clear that military action was on the table if Assad gave the order. Once he received sufficient intelligence to confirm that Assad used the weapons, he would then have two options: either launch a preliminary, punitive strike and make and ultimatum afterwards with the threat of continued strikes, or make the ultimatum and work for a diplomatic solution (such as demanding chemical disarmament) to avoid war and military intervention. Obama's root problem is that his message has been incoherent and inconsistent. Clarity matters in foreign politics.
This feels like some hindsight bias. All the things that you say he should have done, there is no way he could have known he would have to do them.
Russia, Israel, Europe, and Arabia are predictable - national interest are not very erratic, and we all know what each of these countries want. The American people are not predictable. There was no way to know how strongly they would be opposed to intervention.
You say he should have started a press offensive. Horrible idea - the US would never have listened to that "warmongering" talk after the whole trouble with the past few wars. Maybe he shouldn't have even considered attacking Syria given that knowledge? Well who would have thought that Americans are so opposed to attacking in response to chemical weapons? No one would have objected if the weapon in question was a nuclear bomb, and chemical weapons aren't far from that on the list of war crime weapons. Perhaps he could have done a better job of explaining why CWs are so bad, but he made a decent point: "This is not my 'red line.' The world decided that there are certain weapons which should not be used, even in war." No obvious problems with that line of thought.
Things only started to get strange after that. A good majority of that had nothing to do with Obama. Sure, a few bad choices were made in the heat of the moment, but in a situation like this it gets hard to predict the proper course of action, if there even is one. So I'm not seeing where Obama made a big mistake, except in hindsight.
|
On September 12 2013 12:09 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2013 04:06 LegalLord wrote:On September 12 2013 03:21 xDaunt wrote:
The point that you clearly are missing is that Obama could have done a much, much better job handling this affair than he did. What would be the best way to solve this? All parties involved are impossible to collectively please, and there was no way Obama could predict the reaction of the country (the country doesn't want war but CW is a good reason). To me, it seems like he was put into a very awkward position, and if there was a better solution, I'm not seeing it. But if there is an obvious best way to have dealt with this, please do share. Saying that "Obama was put into a very awkward position" is one way to put it. The better, and more accurate statement, is to say that "Obama put himself in a very awkward position." Like I said previously, Obama's original blunder that put him in the "awkward position" is that he drew the red line regarding the use of chemical weapons with no intention of enforcing it. He then compounded that error by failing to send a clear message on what the consequences of Syria's actual use of chemical weapons would be. Given all of the leaks and posturing before the media, Obama might as well have held a focus group on he subject for everyone to see. All of this demonstrated extraordinary weakness and lack of resolve. So what should Obama have done? First, he never should have drawn the red line. However, even having drawn the red line, he could have handled the situation better. The first thing that he needed to do was have a dedicated press offensive over the past year to make the case for intervention if chemical weapons were used. That way, he wouldn't have been caught flat-footed in the court of public opinion. After chemical weapons were used, Obama needed to issue a statement saying that he was waiting for confirmation that they were used and who used it before take any other actions. He should also have made it clear that military action was on the table if Assad gave the order. Once he received sufficient intelligence to confirm that Assad used the weapons, he would then have two options: either launch a preliminary, punitive strike and make and ultimatum afterwards with the threat of continued strikes, or make the ultimatum and work for a diplomatic solution (such as demanding chemical disarmament) to avoid war and military intervention. Obama's root problem is that his message has been incoherent and inconsistent. Clarity matters in foreign politics. This feels like some hindsight bias. All the things that you say he should have done, there is no way he could have known he would have to do them. Russia, Israel, Europe, and Arabia are predictable - national interest are not very erratic, and we all know what each of these countries want. The American people are not predictable. There was no way to know how strongly they would be opposed to intervention. You say he should have started a press offensive. Horrible idea - the US would never have listened to that "warmongering" talk after the whole trouble with the past few wars. Maybe he shouldn't have even considered attacking Syria given that knowledge? Well who would have thought that Americans are so opposed to attacking in response to chemical weapons? No one would have objected if the weapon in question was a nuclear bomb, and chemical weapons aren't far from that on the list of war crime weapons. Perhaps he could have done a better job of explaining why CWs are so bad, but he made a decent point: "This is not my 'red line.' The world decided that there are certain weapons which should not be used, even in war." No obvious problems with that line of thought. Things only started to get strange after that. A good majority of that had nothing to do with Obama. Sure, a few bad choices were made in the heat of the moment, but in a situation like this it gets hard to predict the proper course of action, if there even is one. So I'm not seeing where Obama made a big mistake, except in hindsight.
It is absolutely silly to chalk up the drawing of the red line as a mistake that could only be seen after the fact. Any competent leader knows that it is unwise to make idle threats.
|
On September 12 2013 12:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 12:09 LegalLord wrote:On September 12 2013 04:17 xDaunt wrote:On September 12 2013 04:06 LegalLord wrote:On September 12 2013 03:21 xDaunt wrote:
The point that you clearly are missing is that Obama could have done a much, much better job handling this affair than he did. What would be the best way to solve this? All parties involved are impossible to collectively please, and there was no way Obama could predict the reaction of the country (the country doesn't want war but CW is a good reason). To me, it seems like he was put into a very awkward position, and if there was a better solution, I'm not seeing it. But if there is an obvious best way to have dealt with this, please do share. Saying that "Obama was put into a very awkward position" is one way to put it. The better, and more accurate statement, is to say that "Obama put himself in a very awkward position." Like I said previously, Obama's original blunder that put him in the "awkward position" is that he drew the red line regarding the use of chemical weapons with no intention of enforcing it. He then compounded that error by failing to send a clear message on what the consequences of Syria's actual use of chemical weapons would be. Given all of the leaks and posturing before the media, Obama might as well have held a focus group on he subject for everyone to see. All of this demonstrated extraordinary weakness and lack of resolve. So what should Obama have done? First, he never should have drawn the red line. However, even having drawn the red line, he could have handled the situation better. The first thing that he needed to do was have a dedicated press offensive over the past year to make the case for intervention if chemical weapons were used. That way, he wouldn't have been caught flat-footed in the court of public opinion. After chemical weapons were used, Obama needed to issue a statement saying that he was waiting for confirmation that they were used and who used it before take any other actions. He should also have made it clear that military action was on the table if Assad gave the order. Once he received sufficient intelligence to confirm that Assad used the weapons, he would then have two options: either launch a preliminary, punitive strike and make and ultimatum afterwards with the threat of continued strikes, or make the ultimatum and work for a diplomatic solution (such as demanding chemical disarmament) to avoid war and military intervention. Obama's root problem is that his message has been incoherent and inconsistent. Clarity matters in foreign politics. This feels like some hindsight bias. All the things that you say he should have done, there is no way he could have known he would have to do them. Russia, Israel, Europe, and Arabia are predictable - national interest are not very erratic, and we all know what each of these countries want. The American people are not predictable. There was no way to know how strongly they would be opposed to intervention. You say he should have started a press offensive. Horrible idea - the US would never have listened to that "warmongering" talk after the whole trouble with the past few wars. Maybe he shouldn't have even considered attacking Syria given that knowledge? Well who would have thought that Americans are so opposed to attacking in response to chemical weapons? No one would have objected if the weapon in question was a nuclear bomb, and chemical weapons aren't far from that on the list of war crime weapons. Perhaps he could have done a better job of explaining why CWs are so bad, but he made a decent point: "This is not my 'red line.' The world decided that there are certain weapons which should not be used, even in war." No obvious problems with that line of thought. Things only started to get strange after that. A good majority of that had nothing to do with Obama. Sure, a few bad choices were made in the heat of the moment, but in a situation like this it gets hard to predict the proper course of action, if there even is one. So I'm not seeing where Obama made a big mistake, except in hindsight. It is absolutely silly to chalk up the drawing of the red line as a mistake that could only be seen after the fact. Any competent leader knows that it is unwise to make idle threats.
You do have a point there.
|
Russian Federation16 Posts
|
This happens with pretty much every issue.
Look back through even the past 20 issues.
|
On September 12 2013 12:06 Warlock40 wrote:
Interesting map. Looks like the rebels are doing well geographically, but from what I understand, the government holds the major population centres as well as natural resources, not to mention much of the coastline, right? Also, the opposition strongholds in the south seem to be cut off from those in the north. I wonder if they coordinate by crossing the border into Jordan and Iraq? Of perhaps the opposition groups in the south have little connection to those groups in the north?
He holds most of the airports as well it seems.
Forgive my ignorance, could someone explain how the Kurds shown on the map fit into this?
|
On September 12 2013 10:00 Leporello wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Right? The levels of hypocrisy regarding US interventions has always been absurdly high, but at this point, I don't think there's any room left for Obama to work with, thank Christ. We bomb and kill people in a country that the American people know next-to-nothing about, full of people we don't know, like it's going to make that country a better place? That shit has never worked, ever, ever, ever! And what right do we have to complain about this shit? Is getting gassed by your government worse than getting fire-bombed by a semi-robotic, un-manned aircraft sent from the other side of the world? There is no logic or rationale to it. We're either going to go to war with yet another Middle-East country (while ignoring all the gross atrocities occurring elsewhere in the world), or we're not. This idea of "we'll just bomb them" is the fucking worst -- it's just as bad an atrocity as anything any dictator has ever done. It disgusts me that any American would advocate for that. People act like it's MORE HUMANE than a ground invasion. It might be more humane to our soldiers, but to the people watching their country get blown up, it's probably even worse than a ground invasion as they're made to feel completely helpless as a faceless enemy decimates them. They're in a civil war, both sides have their share of blame when it comes to ruining their country and killing innocents -- what are we going to do except make things worse? It really is another Vietnam situation. A country is in turmoil, facing atrocities, and while we normally wouldn't give a shit, another country we like or don't like has some vested interest in the outcome, so all of a sudden we hear speeches about what awful things are happening and how we must go to war to somehow preserve human life. So we invade, go to war, and what then? What good are we going to accomplish in Syria, by adding even more weapons and explosives into this mix? Shut the **** up, Obama. Grow some balls, and stop being a M.I.C. puppet .
When our world says killing civilians one way is fine but another isn't, there is something very wrong with it.
I get why we think we need to stop the use of chemical weapons.
But what makes me cringe is that it looks as if we must immediately intervene if 200 people get gased but if 10 000 where getting hacked with machetes it wouldn't be a strong enough reason to intervene ?
Edit: Maybe Thereisnosaurus answered it though.
|
On September 12 2013 11:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:High res area of control map. + Show Spoiler +
Thanks! This is probably the only thing interested me from this thread.
Fighting a civic war like this must be hard, it must be a logistics nightmare, hardly any fronts, just blobs of contested areas.
Do the rebel fighters get paid at all?
|
On September 12 2013 11:02 Thereisnosaurus wrote:
@Leporello, I have a lot of respect for Tyson, so I'm kind of disappointed he's tweeting shit like this. The bomb one isn't so bad, but the comparison to lethal injection is retarded. The reason we abhor chemical weapons is
1) they are entirely indiscriminate and incredibly difficult to limit in their effect- you use chemical munitions somewhere and people will randomly die based on where the wind is blowing, the elevation etc. While conventional munitions are also somewhat indiscriminate, they're a lot easier to control in terms of risk- munitions have a carefully measured effective blast radius and so when used the user can gauge who they're going to slaughter with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Chemical munitions just kill everything in a vague 'nearby' with high and often lingering reliability. The lethal injection is the absolute opposite of this. The UN objects to the indiscriminate killing of humans, not the use of chemicals.
2) other than a moderate area in the zone of nuclear fallout, chemical weapons exposure is perhaps the most inhumane method of killing other people. Conventional munitions that deal lethal damage will generally do so instantly in most cases- either pressure shock or trauma will end it fast. It may look ugly for the spectator and chance can create some particularly nasty deaths as well, but largely you either die instantly or after a short period of unconsciousness, or recover partially or fully in the end. Any amount of modern chemical weapons exposure will kill you while you are awake and painfully aware of it and with next to no chance of avoiding death. Unlike conventional munitions, the injured are the exception, the dead are the rule. I'm not doing this because I delight in gory details, I'm doing it to contrast to the lethal injection, which is specifically engineered to kill someone as quickly and humanely as possible. Whether it does we can't say, but that is the intent. The intent of chemical weapons is indiscriminate and terrible murder designed to kill everything they touch in the most unpleasant way imaginable specifically to incite the maximum terror in everything it doesn't. The UN objects to weapons which are designed to inflict misery and suffering rather than concrete military objectives, not the use of chemicals.
THAT is why we abhor chemical weapons. Not 'because they are chemicals'.
It saddens me to see an intelligent and wise man spouting utter bullshit.
yet how many innoncent people have died due to bomb raids in war on terror?
As far as I know, aerial strikes killed the most civilians.
Just because chemical weapons are nasty doesn't make bombing any better.
|
On September 12 2013 14:02 Vaporeon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2013 12:06 Warlock40 wrote:
Interesting map. Looks like the rebels are doing well geographically, but from what I understand, the government holds the major population centres as well as natural resources, not to mention much of the coastline, right? Also, the opposition strongholds in the south seem to be cut off from those in the north. I wonder if they coordinate by crossing the border into Jordan and Iraq? Of perhaps the opposition groups in the south have little connection to those groups in the north? He holds most of the airports as well it seems. Forgive my ignorance, could someone explain how the Kurds shown on the map fit into this?
They live in Syria, Iraq and Turkey and want independence. So they just grabbed thr opportunity.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurdistan_Workers'_Party
Most of the rebel territory is just desert... and Assad having the coast and his area being connected must be a big advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ybambAt.jpg)
