General News Syria, Will US Retaliate?

Why are we so hung up on chemical weapons? They aren't more horrific than napalm, but we don't generally bitch about people getting lit on fire.

 

Don't forget that not too long ago the us Willingly assisted Iraq and Saddam by providing satellite intelligence of Iran fully knowing it will lead to one of historys worst chemical weapons attacks...

And it wasn't too long ago that the us used agent orange in Vietnam

These calls to bomb Syria have nothing to do with chemical weapons, its just a bullshit excuse

 

The UK isn't. The vote in the commons failed.

As the daily news said

THE BRITISH AREN'T COMING
THE BRITISH AREN'T COMING

 

I agree they aren't necessarily 'worse' than a substance like napalm but chemical weapons are horrific devices. During my time in the Air Force I was a 2W2 and also an NBC expert. Yes I realize it is somewhat hypocritical to say conventional warfare is ok but NBC attacks are not. Ok fair enough, but the likelihood of collateral damage with an NBC attack is frightening. I have studied plenty of chemical agents (not as much on the biological side...but chemical yes) and I can categorically say that a well placed set of bullets, while grotesque in their own right is preferable to say a VX or sarin release.

And yes people were SUPER upset about the uses of napalm. CCW protocol III prohibits it, and while the US has not agreed to PIII, the use of napalm in modern warfare has decreased to almost nil and even when it is used it's used in primary targets only and not in civilian and dense areas.

The problem with NBC weapons is the factors we don't account for. You can make you best attempt to hit your primary with VX...then that wind kicks up and you've just infected a tertiary population that was not part of the primary targets. Not to mention the reactions people have to NBC weapons are hideous at best and fatal in many cases.

Maybe I sound like a ghoul, and I regret the things I have done (look up 2W2X1 AFSC code if you are curious) but I would much rather take a fatal bullet than suffer VX, Sarin or any of those agents.

Foxface

 

This sounds like the 1998 strikes on Iraq (desert fox)...pointless.

 

Sounds almost as bad as exposure to radiation such as from a Radioactive fallout. I have read the autobiography of one of those Soviet helicopter pilots who dumbed Boron and Concrete on the Chernobyl reactor he was the only one who didn't die as a result (although has chronic illness) it sounds alot like what happened to those guys, considering how the weather can affect who gets hit so easily.

Sorry I think I am as bad, I am a human factors and risk researcher and Chernobyl is the textbook example (along with Challenger , yes I study plane and nuclear disasters for a living) plus I lived right next to a NPP in the UK and near another one that caught fire in the 1950s and spread radiation all over the place so we are all aware of the harm.

A lot of people are accusing the UK of being apathetic to it (since 80% are against intervention) but alot of us are worried about the allegiance of the rebels for instance, they are backed by alqaeda and chemical weapons in the hands of them is terrifying. Plus an intervention has a high risk of destabilising the conflict even more, I think it will cost even more lives, make Assad more likely to use Chemical weapons.

 

This is a fine line.

The U.S. cannot get into another war, but they should probably do something.

Obama's poll numbers are probably going to sink even more though because the majority of Americans don't want the United States to get involved in Syria.

 

people have forgotten 2003 so quickly.

 

just stop the fighting and let's start talking.

 

If only that could be so easy to do.
Unfortunately, negotiating seems to be impossible with the whole Syrian affair.
This will be another international intervention again like what happened in Libya

 

The saying goes "Speak softly and carry a big stick" but in this case, I say, "Scream as loudly as you possibly can to warn them and get the stick ready to go, because you're probably going to have to swing."

 

Talk of "chemical weapons" is just a ruse, like "weapons of mass destruction" used to justify war on Iraq, or the Gulf of Tonkin incident to justify war on Vietnam.

This is nothing but the usual Realpolitik from imperial powers. The U.S. and its junior partners in the West see a chance to topple one of the last dominoes in the Middle East that has yet to fall under U.S. imperial influence.



So this is basically a proxy war, with Cold War overtones, between the United States and the Russian Federation; if Assad's regime falls, Putin loses Russian access to vital strategic ports in the Mediterranean Sea. Syria is the Russians' only remaining foothold in the region, the only state not aligned with the U.S. So you can bet that the U.S. has been eying it for years, on the way to encircling the eventual big prize of Iran.

 

Rakkaus, if that's true, then this is just another oil expedition. Go to Wikipedia and look up "Economy of Syria," and this is what you'll read:

"Syria is the only significant crude oil producing country in the Eastern Mediterranean region, which includes Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza. According to the Oil and Gas Journal, Syria had 2,500,000,000 barrels (400,000,000 m3) of petroleum reserves as of 1 January 2010."

 

They are worse than Napalm.

They can be released without anyone noticing, they are absorbed through the epidermis so gas masks don't really do anything.

They are so silent,and create such utter harm and pain with no warning.

At least napalm you get the chance to put yourself out of harms way through taking shelter.

Chemical weapons when used en masse are very hard to avoid.

Bombs, bullets, fire can all be avoided with proper shelter, and by looking up in the sky or listening for the sound. Chemical weapons cannot.

I think if the U.S does do something it isn't for the wrong reasons, but isn't something they should be getting involved in. The Arab League has done nothing, the U.N basically has done nothing, therefore the general feelings is that nothing should be done.

If the U.S wants to help they'll send as much aid, and take as many refugees as possible.

I am not 100% educated on Syria or the conflict, but from what my understanding is, the current government does need to be stopped, however I really can't think of a solution that doesn't involve getting other countries involved and through military action.

To bomb Syria at this point would require some kind of full fledged commitment to stop Assad all together.

Arabs are going to have disdain for America for decades because of Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf War and removing one leader doesn't mean problems in the Middle East won't continue. But at least showing them the limits of violent actions that can be done will be set.

It's like slapping a kid in the wrist for doing something wrong. It won't fix the problem, but will let them know the world is watching and won't tolerate certain forms of violence.

So it is kind of a lose lose, you let Syria continue and sure enough more innocents will be killed but maybe the conflict will fizzle out, you interfere with Syria and sure enough more innocents will be killed but maybe the conflict will fizzle out OR the U.S becomes a target of more hate from the Middle East.

I personally would choose to do nothing until it escalates further and it is clear that more innocent people will continue to be killed for many years. But there is no way of gauging that. For now it would be best to wait, in order to not create higher tensions between the west and the arab world.

 

Oh yes, you got that right for sure: oil, and the tremendous profits to be gained from oil, are always a major motivating force for any Western intervention in the Middle East.

If the Middle East didn't have so much oil, nobody outside the region would give a damn about what happened there. There are plenty of brutal dictators out there in the world running cruel tyrannical governments that terrorize their own people. But they are accepted by Western governments as long as they serve the interests of multinational corporations.

Such economic factors weigh in heavily in shaping U.S. foreign policy. But of course the West has to manufacture pretexts like "weapons of mass destruction" or "chemical weapons" or "humanitarian reasons", to avoid looking like the shameless imperialists that they are.

 

I hope not, the US cannot afford to go into another war at this point in time, especially with all the conspiracies with a One World Government and what not happening and going around the internet like syrup on a pancake (hungry).

Anyway; I don't want another war either, that does not necessarily mean I wish for the Syrians to be brutalized by the Assad Regime; the last thing we need to do is put ourselves back in the middle east when we basically got the majority of the boys in green back home.

 

^ Raaukus
Does everyone actually believe stuff like this. I find it hard to believe an entire government that cycles through employees is all together in a full fledged conspiracy to extract oil for the Middle East.

I am sure a few find it in their best interest to be on good terms with oil producing nations, but they are not bullying middle eastern countires to get OIL that is ridiculous.

America gets involved in many international conflicts.

I am Bosnian, and know a lot about that country, so what did America have to gain from getting involved in Bosnia or Kosovo. Those countries weren't producing a significant amount of ANYTHING and they bombed the shit outta Sarajevo were my Dedo is from.

The fact the middle east has oil is only a benefit to stabilizing the area. I think U.S foreign government workers(I don't know what you call them in the U.S up here is the Minister of Foreign Affairs) is worried about that more than letting an area get outta control.

International Law and the U.N and NATO were made to stop wars like WWI and WWII from happening again. So getting involved in other countries with problems does help. Especially countries that do have sophisticated weaponry.

The reason we don't get involved in African problems is because they are poor countries with little opportunity, which means that there is no threat to the U.S from them if say they begin waging war because they don't have the infrastructure to ever attempt to take over western countries. As well, governments are lacking there so attacks found in the middle east are never as big in Africa(I am talking about Sub-saharan africa)

Middle Eastern countries do have the power to harm the west, therefore it is better for us to make sure that that cannot happen and that they cannot harm their own people because they can do it on a grander scale.

--

My main point,

People need to remember the Balkans wars and the fact that the U.S legit got involved only to help, and that it is only a coincidence that there are economic gains to get involved in middle eastern countries.

I don't exactly understand how people think invading a country gets your more oil, it doesn't necessarily improve a countries economy when you are blowing up there highways and potential workers.

You know Canada is the U.S 2nd biggest supplier of Energy, so why hasn't America comeup here and blown us up. Or hire people to fake a Canadian terrorist attack on the U.S.



People need to stop only listening to views that are all because of 9-11. The U.S Legit thought that Iraq was a threat, they attacked, they got nothing out of Iraq, they lost money. How people think this helped them get oil is beyond me,oil is more expensive than ever and I live in a country that is second in the world for oil reserves.

The U.S has businessmen that conduct business in the middle east, the government doesn't, they invaded these countries because they thought it was a good idea and beneficial for the people in those countries. That is the only reason why. They may be bad decisions, and didn't work out, but the U.S and the West certainly is not waging war on the middle east for oil, when it is already all in Saudi Arabia and Canada, A lot of oil is in the U.S too, and parts of Europe.

Sorry, but I want people to stop believing this economic agenda the government has that involves killing thousands of people. If this is true, why has no one in America done anything about it


*America went into a recession after their last two wars.... big help

 

I really hope we don't. There will always be war, and we can't expect to just kick down people's doors and tell them to quit killing each other before we start killing for them.

Our government really disgusts me sometimes.