| Author | Message | ||
     Aesquire |
http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/08/26/glenn-on-syria -it-doesnt-make-any-sense/?utm_source=Daily&utm_me dium=email&utm_campaign=2013-08-26_249441&utm_cont ent=4532359&utm_term=_249441_249448 Why would Assad use poison gas? Who were the snipers that prevented the UN from investigating? Bombastic speeches about "red lines" that apparently were crossed months ago may be leading to a bombing/missile attack that will do no good, and just either strengthen Assad ( "I beat the US" ) or replace him with AQ. Ego or rationality? Hate to say it but it may be smarter not to react until we have proof. Like Obama has called for, but not any longer.... Full disclosure, I'm NOT a fan of Kerry. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1075263/p osts So, Is Kerry "playing on our fears"??? Syria says so, and AQ in Syria would be happy to murder people with poison gas to get us to react in their favor. After all, they've (AQ) already murdered a big part of the "real" rebels that were trying to free Syria, their country, from Assad. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-secur ity/transcript-secretary-of-state-john-kerrys-rema rks-on-alleged-syria-chemical-attack/2013/08/26/40 b0b4ea-0e8b-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html I'm willing to believe every player here is a liar. Doesn't that suck? Russia, a Syrian ally, does not want to give up their warm water port in Syria. Iran wants war and is a Syrian ally/pupper master. China is an ally of Iran, and together with Russia opposes, us. Oil already costs more, and no tankers have been sunk, yet. ( Iran's standard threat, which they have full capability to do. ) Opinions? | ||
| Aesquire |
oops, missed a link. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/27/syria-joh n-kerry_n_3821469.html | ||
| Aesquire |
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=600 | ||
| Sifo |
BO's strategy seems incomprehensible. He has carefully maneuvered us into a situation where we lose no mater what we do. He says he doesn't plan regime change. What is the end game then? They are talking about a few hours of bombing. What will that achieve? Beyond that, what are we doing going in there in the first place? I don't even want to think about the comparisons to Bush going into Iraq. Take everything that BO said about that and apply it to this situation. It's wrong on steroids! It's kind of like when BO complained about Bush's deficit spending. Of course, Bush went to Congress about invading Iraq. Is this going before Congress before we start bombing yet another country in the middle east? He has to use the powers of defending the country to do so legally. Of course that never made him blink when bombing Libya. The irony of BO being given the Nobel Peace Prize for his future actions just seems priceless at this point in time. When will they be asking for it back? Perhaps after we have WW III well under way? Sorry, I just don't have any answers on this at all. Well, just this on thing. Clearly BO is not a man with convictions and principles. | ||
| Trojan |
It isn't just OB that is sabre rattling guys. Our PM is the same, aas is the French (for a change!). The problem is that nobody seems to have any idea what 'limited' action means or what the aim is other than to show the world we are in charge! This problem is for Syria and its neighbours to resolve, not the US, Russia, UK or any other foreign superpower to throw their weight around and destabilise an already delicate region even more. Have we really learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan after all these years? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
'a limited' engagement.... with a Russian flotilla off the coast, This will go well.  / | ||
| Reepicheep |
Right or wrong (and I agree that it makes absolutely no sense for Assad to be using chemical weapons on civilians) the whole "stand a thousand miles away and send drones and lob cruise missles" sounds like passive aggressive chicken$^&^ stunts anyway. | ||
| Sifo |
I don't understand the idea that we will quietly sit by while a government slaughters it's citizens, as long as they use approved weapons. When they use a non-approved weapon we feel the need to step in with our own weapons to kill people of our choosing (we are not targeting Assad from what is being said). This is not unlike the arbitrary lists of guns that certain politicians decide must be banned based on certain cosmetic features. Where are the anti-war activists on this?  Where's the anti-war media? | ||
| Hootowl |
Unless we're taking out the people who authorized the use of these weapons, so that the decision carries a very personal and fatal consequence as a lesson to other assholes around the globe who may have similar notions, we should not go in there at all. I'm for regime change. I don't want to be involved in reconstruction, or building a transitional government. They can figure that out all by themselves. Let's just decapitate their leadership and leave. If the next crew is just as bad, they'll get the same treatment. Eventually, the brutal dictators of the world will get the message. | ||
| Hootowl |
"Where are the anti-war activists on this? Where's the anti-war media? " Firmly behind every decision the president makes. | ||
| Sifo |
I'm for regime change. I don't want to be involved in reconstruction, or building a transitional government. They can figure that out all by themselves. Let's just decapitate their leadership and leave. If the next crew is just as bad, they'll get the same treatment. Eventually, the brutal dictators of the world will get the message. At that point, what separates us from them? Only the fact that their leaders are killing their own citizens, and our leaders are killing other countries citizens (mostly anyway). Which is worse? How would we respond to another nation bombing the US because they don't like our internal problems? I really don't want enemies that have the desires to do to us, what I would want to do to a country that is bombing the US simply because they think we should be different. Or do we really have national interests in Syria's civil war? BO certainly isn't making the case for our national interests. The only national interest I can see is to keep the oil flowing. I would rather he approve the Keystone pipeline. | ||
| Trojan |
What we need to be asking is where these 'weapons' came from initially? Are we to believe that the Assad regime built their own chemical weapons, or did he buy/aquire them from one of the arms supplying superpowers just like Saddam Hussein did? USA, UK, Russia, China and France have ALL built (and probably sold/supplied) chemical and biological weapons over the past 60 years and would certainly use them if they had to, so assuming the moral high ground isn't exactly correct or convincing in my view. if this is some home made Sarin style toxin then that could be another matter and bombing by us would just be a protest rather than achieveing anything at all. All it will do is feed the anti west AQ propaganda that we are yet again targetting muslims, and we all know where that will lead. | ||
| Sifo |
BTW, I'm not convinced that doing this will help keep the oil flowing from the region, likely the opposite. Accepting that BO understands this would mean that he is working against our interests. Decide for yourselves. | ||
| Sifo |
What we need to be asking is where these 'weapons' came from initially? The military caravans that were going from Iraq into Syria just before the Iraq war? I don't think these sorts of weapons can be easily traced though. The problem as I've heard it explained is that the weapons are stored in numerous underground bunkers that make taking them out very difficult at best. If we did hit them, the release of toxins would be terrible for the surrounding populations. I understand that bad things happen to innocent people in war, but we need to proceed with caution on this. It would be great to start with "why" are we doing this in the first place? It seems to be because Assad called BO's bluff. | ||
| Gschuette |
I find myself nodding in agreement with Sifo's points. I'd like to add that I think it is also going to be used as an excuse to avoid the "taper" of QE and keep markets supported with fresh funny money. "Well we were going to stop diluting the currency but with the war raising tension we thought it best to keep markets overly liquid." - Something likely said in the future by Ben Bernanke. | ||
| Hootowl |
"If we did hit them, the release of toxins would be terrible for the surrounding populations." We have weapons that can destroy them without causing them to go into the air. It involves a lot of shrapnel initially to puncture the canisters, followed by white phosphorous to incinerate the chemicals. In case no one has noticed, AQ in Syria will probably get their hands on these weapons before too long, if they havn't already. We are an obvious target. There are legitimate national security concerns here, not just meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. | ||
| Macbuell |
Hey, it's ok to massacre women and children as long as you don't use chemical weapons. That's what this all says to me. What an F'n joke. | ||
| Sifo |
We have weapons that can destroy them without causing them to go into the air. It involves a lot of shrapnel initially to puncture the canisters, followed by white phosphorous to incinerate the chemicals. How effective will this be in the real world in an underground bunker? What percentage of canisters will get punctured? Certainly not 100%. What percent of the toxins will actually burn? Certainly not 100%. There are a lot of unknowns when you start bombing these sorts of materials in underground bunkers. In case no one has noticed, AQ in Syria will probably get their hands on these weapons before too long, if they havn't already. So attacking Syria's government and weakening them, will make it easier or harder for AQ to get their hands on these weapons? Are we counting on actually destroying all of these weapons? Do we actually know where all the weapons are stored? Consider the fact that by bombing all these countries in the middle east that haven't attacked the US, we are giving them ample reason to to attack us. The list of countries bombed by BO is quite long at this point. | ||
| Sifo |
In case no one has noticed, AQ in Syria will probably get their hands on these weapons before too long, if they havn't already. We are an obvious target. There are legitimate national security concerns here, not just meddling in the internal affairs of other nations. Just to address your entire statement, with the assumption that your are 100% correct... What would this have to do with the "red line" drawn by BO. That right there tells me that this isn't about concerns that these weapons will fall into the wrong hands. | ||
| Sifo |
Attack on Syria likely to trigger terrorists acts against U.S., Israel With the White House closer to launching a surgical military strike on Syria, questions swirl over the extent to which such an attack could trigger a wave of terrorism directed at the U.S. and Israel. Some analysts say that Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese militia fighting in support of embattled Syrian President Bashar Assad, likely would be inspired to ramp up operations in Iran’s “shadow war” with the U.S. and its allies. more... | ||
| Hootowl |
"What would this have to do with the "red line" drawn by BO." I've stopped trying to make sense of his actions and statements, so I can't even begin to answer that. The "red line" threat (not much of one, coming from him) is not a factor in this equation for me, nor is the fact (lie?) that Syria used chemical weapons on its own people. Syria used to be fairly stable, so the idea that AQ would be able to get their hands on these things was not worth worrying about. Dictators don't like competition for authority, and religion is exactly that. (Saddam was the same way until he realized he could use religious fanatics against us. The airplane trainers in Iraq AQ was using tipped us off to that. It was fairly logical that he might give them chemical weapons too.) Now it seems pretty f'ing apparent that some really bad people have a really good shot at taking over an installation that houses these things. I'd rather blow them up there and risk a release of unburned chemical weapons, than wait for them to show up on a subway in New York or London. Bah, Syria will simply truck them back to Iraq before we get there. Boy, wouldn't it be embarrassing if we invaded a country known to have chemical weapons, and didn't find any? I've seen this movie before. The longer we wait, the more those things will disappear. | ||
| Sifo |
Bah, Syria will simply truck them back to Iraq before we get there. Boy, wouldn't it be embarrassing if we invaded a country known to have chemical weapons, and didn't find any? I've seen this movie before. The longer we wait, the more those things will disappear. Well this time it looks like we really are rushing into war, so they won't really have much time to coordinate that sort of border crossing convoy. It would be nice to know what the attack is intended to accomplish. Of course, this makes it more difficult to declare it a victory. | ||
| Sifo |
I've stopped trying to make sense of his actions and statements, so I can't even begin to answer that. It could be as simple as taking our eye off of the numerous other scandals that just keep getting bigger and deeper every week that they remain in the news. | ||
| Hootowl |
This article greatly shaped my opinion on this subject, and I have repeated some of its points here. I've had some time to think it over, and I still find myself in agreement with the author. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873234 07104579036740023927518.html | ||
| Hootowl |
Interesting. "In the first stage, powdered titanium meets boron in a high-energy reaction. As the temperature climbs past 450F, the warhead fires out metal projectiles to rupture chemical storage vessels and release their contents, then scatters wicking material to soak up pooled chemicals. Finally the warhead would release lithium perchlorate. This reacts with the titanium diboride from the incendiary reaction, generating monatomic chlorine intended to neutralize any remaining chemical agents." http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar y/weapons/how-the-us-could-take-out-syrias-chemica l-weapons-14826307 | ||
| Sifo |
and I still find myself in agreement with the author. While I find much to agree with him on too, it seems that our feckless leader is in direct disagreement with him on the basic objective of military action. I'm really not clear on the storage facilities being used for these weapons. I've seen multiple sources talking about underground bunkers. This author is in direct conflict with that. The weapon being described wouldn't be effective against an underground bunker facility. I still don't understand the thought process of "it's OK for you to slaughter your citizens, as long as you do it with approved weapons". To borrow a phrase, but in a new context, "what difference does it make?".  | ||
| Reepicheep |
That wsj article was great. Thanks Hoot! | ||
| Hootowl |
"The weapon being described wouldn't be effective against an underground bunker facility." Chemical agents stored deep underground pose little risk in a direct attack, since there is a very small above ground effect, most of which contains debris from the fortification, and not the contents of the bunker. But, there are variants of these weapons that perform penetrations followed by the aforementioned suppression effects. | ||
| Hootowl |
"it seems that our feckless leader is in direct disagreement with him on the basic objective of military action." Yep. I'm not saying I agree with the pretense under which Obama claims he will take action. But I do think we need to take out these bastards wherever we find them. They mean us harm, and are actively promoting an agenda that will see it done. Not just Syria, several other bad actors as well. To quote South Park, (OK, paraphrase, I don't remember the exact quote) "It has been six years since Saddam Hussain was killed by a pack of wild boars, and the world is still glad to be rid of him." This was aired prior to his capture, trial, and execution. I feel the same way about the asshats in charge of Syria, North Korea, et al. | ||
| Hootowl |
And I agree, there is no difference between gassing a population and walking through a town shooting them, or killing them with mortars or a host of other conventional weapons. Dead is dead, and probably just as painfully. Our aversion to chemical weapons is largely a social construct brought about by our experiences in WWI. |
