On August 28 2013 04:45 FallenStar wrote: But if Turkey attacks Syria, how would NATO and Russia react? Would they let them do it? I'm not sure why would they.
Who's going to stop them? The international community can't even unify behind stopping a chemical weapons attack. If Turkey said "fuck it" and went in unilaterally for "humanitarian reasons" (as in not outright conquest), I seriously doubt anyone would do anything about it. In fact, I'd expect NATO to provide some support.
This whole chemical weapon deal really complicated the war I think. Otherwise we could just simply have let Assad slowly win and then say that 1) It's an internal conflict so we had no business there and 2) we provided some weapons to the rebels. The problem now is that Obama shoot himself in the foot when he said that usage of chemical weapons was a red line that, if crossed, would get heavy retaliation. Because now they have to get involved in some way or their credibility will be at stake. And they can't really let Assad win the war now, although they also don't want the rebels to win.
The way I see it is that the USA will probably fire a couple missiles on some military bases and that will be it.
On August 28 2013 03:55 Catch]22 wrote: Syria isn't different from Iraq, Afghanistan or Vietnam? Tell that to the 100k dead from civil war. How many thousands more must die before you stop your bland mindless hate against america, and inexplicable love for russia?
It has nothing to do with mindless hate against America but rather with the fact that the conflict is a mess. Neither the rebels nor Assad are able to form a government that would measure up to Western (democratic) standards. There is no point in military intervention if you cannot stabilise the country. The US and the EU should limit themselves to what is needed the most right now: humanitarian aid for the millions that fled the violence.
Also, the main thing that gets the US a lot of flack is the fact that it feels it has the right and duty to stick its nose into other nations' businesses while considering themselves morally superior to pretty much the rest of the world.
"Undeniable proof" was what Bush said before the Iraq debacle was launched.
they still sent in investigators and they found no wmds. so he changed their story to FOR DEMOCRACY. the difference is that we knew there were chemical weapons before, and we know now they have been used?
But we don't know by who, and there is a long way before people can trust US intel in that regard.
"Undeniable proof" was what Bush said before the Iraq debacle was launched.
they still sent in investigators and they found no wmds. so he changed their story to FOR DEMOCRACY. the difference is that we knew there were chemical weapons before, and we know now they have been used?
But we don't know by who, and there is a long way before people can trust US intel in that regard.
You know who when the person ( assad ) wouldn't let people in to inspect it until 4 days later and after heavy shelling.
Assad's time to save face about using chemical agents was dissolved approximately when doctors without borders reported this mess, and Assad failed to allow inspections then.
Anyone who is a reasonable person would see this as shady and very suspicious of someone who is guilty.
This is beyond (western) politics it is a humanitarian issue.
What does he gain by doing so? Nothing, he just loses.
That and the fact that the US has a history of "seeking involvement" in the middle east makes me skeptical that our/US intentions are honorable in this case.
"Undeniable proof" was what Bush said before the Iraq debacle was launched.
they still sent in investigators and they found no wmds. so he changed their story to FOR DEMOCRACY. the difference is that we knew there were chemical weapons before, and we know now they have been used?
But we don't know by who, and there is a long way before people can trust US intel in that regard.
The US does not want to be involved with the conflict, since we don’t really have a lot of great options for partners in the conflict. But the US has always threatened a response to any country that deployed chemical weapons. We are going to give involved just enough to fulfill that promise of a response and then back off and let the issue resolve itself.
On August 28 2013 05:20 DragoonPK wrote: The American story just doesn't make sense. I fear another Iraq situation, only much, much worse.
We are not going to invade in any way. We can’t even afford to do so and our military and population would not stand for it. I cannot describe to you how unpopular any military operation is right now, even this one. America is pretty tired of war and having troops overseas at this point.
Syria/Assad must fall because they are an ally of Iran. I'm affraid for the future of possible WW3 or some similar shit caused by USA and while they are away from but Europe and Asia will suffer.
I'm absolutely sure this chemical attack is done from the terrorists/USA. Did we have any casualties other than civilians that are mostly children? Where are the "freedom fighters" bodies on the news that are dead from chemical gas if Assad carried this attack ?
"Undeniable proof" was what Bush said before the Iraq debacle was launched.
they still sent in investigators and they found no wmds. so he changed their story to FOR DEMOCRACY. the difference is that we knew there were chemical weapons before, and we know now they have been used?
But we don't know by who, and there is a long way before people can trust US intel in that regard.
The US does not want to be involved with the conflict, since we don’t really have a lot of great options for partners in the conflict. But the US has always threatened a response to any country that deployed chemical weapons. We are going to give involved just enough to fulfill that promise of a response and then back off and let the issue resolve itself.
On August 28 2013 05:20 DragoonPK wrote: The American story just doesn't make sense. I fear another Iraq situation, only much, much worse.
We are not going to invade in any way. We can’t even afford to do so and our military and population would not stand for it. I cannot describe to you how unpopular any military operation is right now, even this one. America is pretty tired of war and having troops overseas at this point.
You write about "America" as if it were a single entity with a single consciousness.
Most American people are tired of war.
The Military Industrial Complex is not. AIPAC is not. The Neo-cons are not.
Look at the trajectory of US Military since 2001..... do you see any reluctance? No, they are full steam ahead. Drones, rampant spying, no fly zones, coups, full blown wars..... the works!
"Undeniable proof" was what Bush said before the Iraq debacle was launched.
they still sent in investigators and they found no wmds. so he changed their story to FOR DEMOCRACY. the difference is that we knew there were chemical weapons before, and we know now they have been used?
But we don't know by who, and there is a long way before people can trust US intel in that regard.
no, listen. kerry says they have undeniable proof. how can you deny what is undeniable?
just like in may, but forget that time, since it was probably the rebels that time according to the un investigators. anyways they back peddled from that, i heard it on the radio this morning.
clearly the results of this investigation is already worth zilch because of the delay when assad was denying them access and bombing ghouta to bits, except that he wasn't bombing ghouta or denying them access, but forget that too.
stop being skeptic, get with the program! don't make kerry start juggling vials of sarin, netanyahu draw giant bombs on a whiteboard or nayirah do a follow up act.
and most importantly stop saying ussr is so god damned great, you dumb bolshevik.
On August 28 2013 04:48 Fildun wrote: This whole chemical weapon deal really complicated the war I think. Otherwise we could just simply have let Assad slowly win and then say that 1) It's an internal conflict so we had no business there and 2) we provided some weapons to the rebels. The problem now is that Obama shoot himself in the foot when he said that usage of chemical weapons was a red line that, if crossed, would get heavy retaliation. Because now they have to get involved in some way or their credibility will be at stake. And they can't really let Assad win the war now, although they also don't want the rebels to win.
The way I see it is that the USA will probably fire a couple missiles on some military bases and that will be it.
An interesting question would be: if the western countries (be it through the US alone or through NATO) intervene by firing a couple of missles and that freezes the situation on the ground without actually giving the rebels victory, would they (the west) be willing to eventually accept a negotiated solution that inevitably includes partitioning of the syrian territory?
The whole chemical weapon debate is nonsense to me. If I'm completely wrong tell me but I don't see how killing people with bombs, machetes or a shot to the face (or blindfolded against a wall) is somehow acceptable. Also what do people think bombs are made of if not chemicals ? Wood ? Also according to some, Iraq is full of chemicals affecting the population due to dirty weapons used by the US. We would stand quiet if one side was only executing people using "accepted methods of killing" ? Either we really want to help them for a good reason, and stopping killings, no matter the weapons, can be a good reason. Or we just don't feel this is our problem or responsability and then don't. But either way this whole debate is either just an excuse or pure nonsense to me.
On August 28 2013 04:45 FallenStar wrote: But if Turkey attacks Syria, how would NATO and Russia react? Would they let them do it? I'm not sure why would they. Also, I just looked it up and they actually have 495000 deployable forces, not 402000. Pretty scary.
Turkey is a NATO member. Generally what they do, the rest of members will partake in, and vice versa.
On August 28 2013 04:48 Fildun wrote: This whole chemical weapon deal really complicated the war I think. Otherwise we could just simply have let Assad slowly win and then say that 1) It's an internal conflict so we had no business there and 2) we provided some weapons to the rebels. The problem now is that Obama shoot himself in the foot when he said that usage of chemical weapons was a red line that, if crossed, would get heavy retaliation. Because now they have to get involved in some way or their credibility will be at stake. And they can't really let Assad win the war now, although they also don't want the rebels to win.
The way I see it is that the USA will probably fire a couple missiles on some military bases and that will be it.
An interesting question would be: if the western countries (be it through the US alone or through NATO) intervene by firing a couple of missles and that freezes the situation on the ground without actually giving the rebels victory, would they (the west) be willing to eventually accept a negotiated solution that inevitably includes partitioning of the syrian territory?
My honest, cynical opinion would be that they would just let them continue fighting. I don't think anybody gains anything from splitting up the country. I mean, you still have Assad and you still have the rebels in that case. Besides that, if a country is already as small as Syria dividing it in two wouldn't really matter in terms of territory. Also if the border would be made in the middle Assad would lose all military bases on one side of the line and then UN/US could investigate those and I don't think he wants that.
Basically what I'm saying is that neither the rebels or Assad wants anything less than complete victory and that the US thinks it can control one country better than two.
On August 28 2013 04:45 FallenStar wrote: But if Turkey attacks Syria, how would NATO and Russia react? Would they let them do it? I'm not sure why would they.
Who's going to stop them? The international community can't even unify behind stopping a chemical weapons attack. If Turkey said "fuck it" and went in unilaterally for "humanitarian reasons" (as in not outright conquest), I seriously doubt anyone would do anything about it. In fact, I'd expect NATO to provide some support.
Ok, let's consider it seriously for a moment, just for the sake of discussion. Imagine Turkey says fuck da police and attacks Syria. They'll obviously win. And then? Do they annex it (I doubt it, but dunno)? Do they create a puppet goverment?
Also, Syrians will most probably don't want to have a puppet govermnent under the guidance of Turkey, wouldn't they rebel against it, therefore worsening the situation, and making it harder for the Turkish? What would they do to handle it?
Lastly, there's Iran. I don't know about global politics much, but I think is safe to assume Iran and Turkey aren't allies. So how would they react?
On August 28 2013 04:45 FallenStar wrote: But if Turkey attacks Syria, how would NATO and Russia react? Would they let them do it? I'm not sure why would they. Also, I just looked it up and they actually have 495000 deployable forces, not 402000. Pretty scary.
Turkey is a NATO member. Generally what they do, the rest of members will partake in, and vice versa.
NATO is a defensive alliance, so Turkey has every right to go fight wars on its own and NATO doesnt have to automatically join in.
On August 28 2013 05:43 rezoacken wrote: The whole chemical weapon debate is nonsense to me. If I'm completely wrong tell me but I don't see how killing people with bombs, machetes or a shot to the face (or blindfolded against a wall) is somehow acceptable. Also what do people think bombs are made of if not chemicals ? Wood ? Also according to some, Iraq is full of deadly chemicals affecting the population due to dirty weapons used by the US. We would stand quiet if one side was only executing people using "accepted methods of killing" ? Either we really want to help them for a good reason, and stopping killings, no matter the weapons, can be a good reason. Or we just don't feel this is our problem or responsability and watch them kill each other.
Just a propaganda tool. Its more horrifying for the victims, hence more effective as propaganda to go to war.
If you start to look at from the standpoint that THEY KNOW they are propagandizing, you see what type of psychopaths we must be dealing with.
How can the US have proof its the Assad regime that did this attack? How can they be on such aggressive footing while its still unclear?
It sure seems unclear to me, but the stance our government has taken seems quite definitive.
EPT
