OT: looks like we fired on Libya…..

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=spdrun]

The defining line is whether it works solely on the nervous system.

No it isn’t — I recall reading about WW I, where mustard gas was used. It wasn’t neurotoxic, just produced deep, slow-healing skin (and internal) burns. Definitely considered a chemical weapon.[/quote]

Actually you are correct and finding the definition at a glance appears to be difficult however, your arguement for napalm and AO doesnt really hold.

CE

[SK in CV]

[quote=SD Realtor]So SK sounds like you advocate adding to the violence. Lots of reasons not to add to the sh-tstorm but I haven’t seen anyone post a good reason to add to it, including yourself.[/quote]

Absofuckinglutely not. When there are no good options, choose the one that doesn’t include dropping bombs.

[CDMA ENG]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=CDMA ENG][quote=SD Realtor]yep…yep… and yep…as horrid as Assad is, I cringe to think what happens if he falls. Utter and complete chaos. Unless you have a plan to 100% occupy that country and cleanse it of all the weaponry I would not touch it with a 10 foot pole.
[/quote]

Hezbolla and Al Quada are foaming at the mouth and trying to figure out how to set quick and deep roots.

CE[/quote]

The only thing that Hezbollah wants in Syria is weapons. They’ve staked their claim with the Assad government. It’s unlikely they’ll be integrally involved in any new power structure in Syria. And the current opposition in Syria is made up of dozens, maybe scores, maybe even hundreds of disparate groups. AQ aligned groups make up only a tiny portion. There are no good guys there. There are bad guys, badder guys, and victims.[/quote]

Sounds like Lebanon to me… Circa 80’s. In fact AQ and Hezbollah will probably be fighting each other within 15 seconds of victory. Even if Hezbollah did make their bed with Assad you don’t think they won’t be courting however is in power?

CE

[SD Realtor]

Sounds like we are in agreement.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CDMA ENG]

Sounds like Lebanon to me… Circa 80’s. In fact AQ and Hezbollah will probably be fighting each other within 15 seconds of victory. Even if Hezbollah did make their bed with Assad you don’t think they won’t be courting however is in power?

CE[/quote]

Hezbollah have their hands full in Lebanon. I doubt they’ll be directly involved. Iran may attempt to find another proxy in Syria, but as unpopular as Assad is, it’s not likely they’ll find one that maintain any significant support. When Assad falls, and eventually he will, for a whole lot of reasons, it will make the Egyptian transition look smooth.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=SD Realtor]So SK sounds like you advocate adding to the violence. Lots of reasons not to add to the sh-tstorm but I haven’t seen anyone post a good reason to add to it, including yourself.[/quote]

Absofuckinglutely not. When there are no good options, choose the one that doesn’t include dropping bombs.[/quote]

I don’t thnik that we’d be adding to the violence. We are already involved by arming the rebels. We can calibrate the totality of our involvement by adding a strike and removing some covert action, if necessary.

The important thing is the there should be an American led response to the use of chemical weapons — a punishing strike at the infrastructure of the leadership. It doesn’t mean that we would invade the country or get directly involved in their civil war.

There are no good options to resolve the conflict. Everyone knows that. That’s not the goal.

The goal is for America to lead against the use of chemical weapons.

[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
The goal is for America to lead against the use of chemical weapons.[/quote]

Why should America act alone in punishing somebody for using Chemical weapons. The ban on the use of chemical weapons was established by a multi-nation treaty. That multi-nation committee that made the ban should come to an agreement on the punishment and execution of that punishment. Why should America institute some sort of vigilantly justice without the support of the member nations that established that ban.

Those that support a limited strike seem to think launching a couple cruise missiles against some kind of palace is good punishment for Assad and more importantly it allows Obama to saved face. Obama being labeled weak because he made a bad bet by stating he had a red line is worse than the potential consequences that result in launching a few cruise missiles.

Honestly tell me you’d support a limited strike on Assad if Romney was president and had made the same statements as Obama. Sometimes the guy or girl you support politically does something dumb and you just have to come to the conclusion that they aren’t the person you think they are.

[SD Realtor]

Yes we have been adding to the violence. We are friggin idiots for arming the rebels as well. Do you have any idea what percentage of the weapons we are arming the rebels with falls into the wrong hands?

Do we even know what happens if the rebels overthrow the govt?

Do you have some guarantee that it will be better?

Do you have any idea of what happens to all of the existing chemical weapons if the rebels take over?

As pointed out there is no single rebel force. In fact there is plenty of infighting among various rebel groups.

Here is the point. We have very little control over there. We have greatly contributed to the instability by providing arms. Our involvement has led to plenty more loss of life.

I don’t advocate chemical weapon use but before anyone gets on a high horse and waves a flag about the tragedy of them, WAY WAY more lives have been lost due to conventional weapons. Drawing an arbitrary line because of those weapons will not…. do…. crap….

What it will do is make some of our allies like Saudi Arabia happy, and further galvanize enemies of the US in the middle east against us and against Isreal.

I love it… “The goal is for America to lead against the use of chemical weapons”

While America arms everyone else to the teeth….

Nice logic….

[Anonymous]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]FIH: So, the only country in history to have used atomic weapons is taking a moral stance against chemical weapons.

Cool. Let’s see how this plays out.[/quote]

So now the strikes that decisively ended a global conflict are ethically comparable to a dictator using chemical weapons in a civil uprising?

Wow.

How will Syria play out?

– We’ll fire a few dozen missiles or so, Assad will realize that he now literally has some skin in the game, and he’ll stop using the chemical weapons.

– The conflict will rage on with conventional weapons for some undetermined amount of time and US military actions won’t affect the outcome.

– The conservative media will talk about this relative blip in American history far longer than it will be relevant, attempting to frame “Syria” as one of Obama’s grand failures, ala Benghazi.

– The public will lose interest in a few months or sooner, save for the standing population of those obsessed with proving Obama is the greatest disaster in American history.

The use of chemical weapons does cross a line. Of course there are plenty of arguments as to why that line is pointless. The “rules” of war are riddled with contradictions, but there are still rules. (Read some Vonnegut if you want a fun perspective on the subject.)

We’ve managed to keep the chemical weapon genie mostly contained for over a century, and a low risk operation in Syria will go a long way to deter their use in the future.

A US strike will not determine the victor, but it will influence the means by which they achieve victory.

And that matters.

[SD Realtor]

Gotta respectfully disagree Harvey because I think you have constructed the absolute best case scenario. If it does play out that way, I will be greatly relieved.

[Anonymous]

SDR,

I agree that my prediction is an optimistic scenario.

But note that I’ve actually made a specific prediction.

Now I’ll leave the thread to our foreign policy and military “expert” – the guy who never actually makes any specific claim, never actually endorses any specific policy or policymaker, and who cannot even attempt to make any point without veering into an irrelevant rant against some politician on the left. A brilliant example:

[quote]You notice who is remarkably quiet on all this? Hillary Clinton. Wonder why that is? I thought Dubya’s foreign policy in the Middle East was too heavy handed, but he knew how to sound a message. This administration is starting to make Carter look actually competent.[/quote]

The ignorance and irony in the quote above is staggering.

[NotCranky]

I feel stronger now about the possibility that, behind the scenes, Russia and the U.S. are attempting to negotiate a mutually tolerable power structure in Syria. Assad may go out by (clandestine) agreement between the two powers. Not sure how all that would look if it happens. It seems much preferable to the current trends, so I hope it happens.

[SD Realtor]

Not bad Russ. That has some merit.

[SK in CV]

[quote=Blogstar]I feel stronger now about the possibility that, behind the scenes, Russia and the U.S. are attempting to negotiate a mutually tolerable power structure in Syria. Assad may go out by (clandestine) agreement between the two powers. Not sure how all that would look if it happens. It seems much preferable to the current trends, so I hope it happens.[/quote]

I agree it’s preferable, but I think it’s a pipe dream. That’s essentially what happened in Egypt, with the military taking the role of interim government. With the >100,000 strong FSA, and maybe just as many or more Al-Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham forces standing in opposition to the current Assad military, any agreement brokered by external parties is problematic. The Syrian population just doesn’t have the strong nationalism that is present in the Egyptian population. It is, unlike Egypt, nothing more than somewhat arbitrary lines on a map drawn less than 100 years ago and encompasses dozens of tribes and cultures. Absent those lines, there is no there, there.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=SD Realtor]
What it will do is make some of our allies like Saudi Arabia happy, and further galvanize enemies of the US in the middle east against us and against Isreal.
[/quote]

Why the fixation with Israel?

We need to worry about our own long term interest and let Israel worry about Israel. That’s how peace will be achieved in the region.

[Author]

Posts