COH: Europe In Ruins

Hey, I know you (or one of our friends at the NSA) is listening to me right now, so I just wanted to say, could we pretty please with sugar on top not go to war again.

thx

Brb firing rockets at Damascus

bahaha poor soldiers. Nextstop. Syria.

ya gonna have to disagree with you on this one buddy

Let us recollect that peace or war will not always be left to our option; that however moderate or unambitious we may be, we cannot count upon the moderation, or hope to extinguish the ambition of others.

Reported to NSA and Putin.

Dear Obama.

Please bomb the shit out of Assad.

/Peaceloving Socialist Scandinavian.

Speaking of Syria, you know it's a complicated situation when Russia + Iran supports one side, and USA + Al Qaeda supports the other.

murica in a pointless war?

(http://t.qkme.me/3ox8ue.jpg#oh%20hell%20no%20meme%20310x254)

Sharia law here we come.

That chemical bombing is quite possibly one of the most effective false flag operations known to modern history. Especially when it gets 'Merica to join its current and future enemies to help them install a highly religious government.

You don't happen to be one of those that believes 9/11 was perpetrated by the US government?

Right.

Cui Buono. The Syrian government has absolutely nothing to gain in using tactics that will draw western superpowers into the conflict. They have about 3 separate cases in the last decade where the US gets involved, their government will crumble. Shit, Assad is even allowing UN inspectors to investigate the gas site. They'd do it too if they weren't constantly under sniper fire. Also, the last investigation into a Syrian Sarin attack yielded that it was a high probability that the FSA were the ones to use the gas. The point here is that no one at all knows what the fuck is going on and military intervention right now would be pre-mature by any measure.

Yes what is going on in Syria is absolutely terrible, but it bothers me that there are still people that will buy into the "Weapons of Mass destruction" Iraq 2.0 bullshit. They lie through their teeth and people are still buying into it.  

If you want to go fight for the FSA, then hop on a boat over there. The last thing the U.S. needs is another pointless, destabilizing, debt-financed conflict.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that we are going to leave Syria a depleted uranium smoking crater.

'murica again low on funds?
this WMD comedy again?

cmon, i heard obama is nobel 'peace' prize winner, lol

(http://img2.joyreactor.com/pics/comment/USA-fat-people-amurica-276022.jpeg)

troll threat?

Sooo Battlefield 5 will take place in Syria. Good to know.

they let them inspect the site...but only after 5 days had passed.  Everyone involved agrees the rapid degradation of chemical weapons means that it is highly unlikely anything will be found at this point.  Snipers were firing on them to prevent them from inspecting the site delaying them further.  Why would the rebels keep inspectors away from the site?  Thats asinine.

Addressing your first point, using chemical weapons in a war is not a rational decision.  Its an emotional decision made to inflict a special kind of pain on your enemies.  Assad is clearly an asshole, we can all agree on that.

Whether they used chemical weapons or not, I don't see how you can be opposed to removing someone like him from power.  Its not like the US needs to stay in the region for an extended length of time.  Simply providing air support and ammunition/weaponry for the rebels should be enough at this point. 

Finally, while clearly there weren't WMD's in Iraq, and we should not have gone in there because of that reason, the fact is that we did.  However, one would hope that we have learned from that experience.  You would expect there to be a much cleaner exit plan in place in any future conflicts in the Middle East.  If the US goes in, it will likely be a short period of time, not a full-out deployment.

I would finally like to say I think we left Iraq too soon, but I doubt that opinion will be shared by many...

Ironically a lot of Syria's stockpile came from Iraq.

This video is relevant to the discussion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o66FUc61MvU (https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o66FUc61MvU)

No, actually I believe islamic extremist did 9/11 on there own.

Now on the other hand, what does Assad have to gain by doing this the exact same week UN inspectors come? That makes zero sense at all. Assad has very little to gain from this, yet risk ALL of his power, and his life, by doing this. On the other hand FSA has EVERYTHING to gain, with little risk of retaliation from major powers. And to further show that Assad wouldn't do this i'd like to point out that Assad is not losing the war. He is far from desperate, and his men are taking small bits of territory here and there.


And then even if Assad DID do this, who the hell wants to waste millions funding air strikes only to have Islamic extremist replace the otherwise secular(in comparison) yet tyrannical government.

1: The war has been going on for quite some time. Plenty of opportunity for gas attacks long before this.
2: The traces of gas attacks vanish quickly
3: Inspectors can't be everywhere all at once, especially since it's a warzone.
3: Syria has one of the worlds largest stockpiles of chemical weapons. Do you think they store them for t3h lulz?
4: Assad is a brutal dictator. If a sociopath thinks he can get away with something he wants to do...

I'm not saying they did it, and if they did few know this for a fact rather than wishful thinking. I am saying it's a possibility and it's quite ridiculous to disregard the possibility

Like Sach said, why do you think Assad is a rational person? Clearly if he was he would understand that delaying the inspectors for 5 days would make it look like he did it, knowing how fast chems can deteriorate. If he didn't do the rebels did and you she would know it, would he not want to clear this up any way possible?

Responsible or not Assad is clearly an irrational idiot and I'd expect an irrational idiot to do something incredibly stupid, possibly exactly what he did.


By the way, all of this just makes the UN really seem useless, what with how long it takes to get shit done and how someone is probably just going to veto it anyway.

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me6to7W5rr1qcm625o1_500.jpg)

1. Your right, and why were there no gas attacks of this scale reported, even when Assad was losing the war. This only proves that Assad would not do it yet.
2. Ok, very true, and does this automaticaly put the blame on him?
3. The inspectors were miles away when the attack happened. Assad knew that. FSA knew that. We all knew UN inspectors were coming that week.
3.5. Your right they do, but just because they have them doesn't mean they used it. Just the fact that they have them in such large quantities makes it more likely FSA could have stolen some.
4. Hes a brutal dictator, valid point. Wanna know who he is fighting? Brutal Islamic extremist, with a few secular rebel groups here and there. I'm not saying hes not a shithead, but his enemies are also shitheads.

I dont disregard the possibility, I am merely accepting the far more likely situation.

Assads risk from using chem Weapons Ghouta- 10/10
Assads gain from using chem weapons on Ghouta- 1/10

FSA risk from using chem weapons in ghouta as a false flag operation - 3/10
FSA gain from using chem weapons in Ghouta as a false flag operation - 10/10

The perpetrator knew the risk and reward. Assad would not do something this stupendous when he is gaining momentum.
Not all tyrannical dictators are batshit crazy.

Maybe it's not an ironclad rule but it's a job that comes with extreme paranoia and control complexes would make any psychologist cry tears of joy, or terror, it's not a position you can do have and keep without those.

There have been arguments on both sides of this but fact is that Assad's regime has continually been escalating how much they are willing to push it over the war, it's important to not for example that this is not the first time gas attacks have been reported but this time it was on a scale of another magnitude. They've gotten away with anything they've wanted to do in the past and what they've gotten away with what amounts to terrorizing civilians into not helping the rebels be it by bombing, artillery or missile strikes. Point is that Assad actually had grounds for thinking the world would turn a blind eye, or at least not intervene militarily even if he was found out.

I think you're giving the fact that UN inspectors were in country to much weigh, quite a few attacks of this kind have been commited with UN inspectors on site. The goal of the regime is to eliminate rebels and their civilian support because a rebellion without their support is lost, saying that the gas attack had virtually no gain for Assad is stupid.

Imagine for a second here that the Regime was indeed behind the Gas attack and the rest of the world doesn't intervene? What will that tell the rebels and more importantly their civilians support? For one thing I'd imagine it'd be extremely demoralizing for the resistance and quite a gain for the regime if he gets away with it. With the support from China and Russia and the general reluctance for the western world to play police after how the last few tries ended up... Well...

If he is indeed sane and rational, he might simply have made a calculated gamble.

This is true, but assumptions aren't grounds for a multi million dollar intervention which will most likely result in the installation of another tyrannical regime that supports jihad. The rebel fighters have a very high Islamic state to secular state ratio. Not too long ago a secular rebel group was dismantled because they opposed their jihadist enemies of their enemies.

300+ civilians killed when they fight a 80,000 rebellion is not a attack that has any effect at all. They could easily get more kills through conventional bombs on civilian targets. This attack was small scale.
Sucks for the rebels, but you know what, who supports jihadist anyway?

I admit Assad could be using this to test if he can gear up for mass gas warfare. But the result would be without a doubt a military intervention from the UN. So again, I have my doubts.


I would like to remind everyone that Libya cost UN nations 1~2+ billion dollars. Maybe the reason why Nikomas wants military intervention is because his country would only pay 2% of it. While on the other hand the US and UK will likely pay the majority in money and lives lost, with Italy, France, and other strong military countries putting up a bit of their cash too.

(http://www.nrcc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/obama-2012.jpg)
I think Hitler idea's still live on in government...

Man, this is distressing.

Guarantee you that if the detrimental effects of going to war were not so removed, none of you would support an intervention.

If the money had to be taken out of your pocket, if you all had to hold the gun and lead the charge, this would all be an entirely different tune. But instead we send off 18 year old kids that can't legally drink and the bill is charged to your children and mine and hundreds of thousands to even millions could die from the direct combat, the destabilization, the food supply shortages, etc. Shit the deaths from DU shells expended in Iraq have already killed over 11,000 of our own soldiers just by firing it and that is only the government recorded statistic. The actual death tolls for the Iraqi civilians must be on a magnitude higher, with birth defects and exposure, it's like the new agent orange...

Just topple a government and destroy infrastructure, it doesn't happen that way often and when it does, you just leave a power vacuum for something worse to take it's place.

Then, if Russia, China and Iran get drawn in with their mutual defence agreements with Syria, we have a WHOLE new shitstorm.

It gets so easy to say "bomb them" when you are sitting in your air conditioned house derping away on the computer with no repercussions.

Also, this is not about 'bring democracy" to Syria, or that they are a legitimate threat to the U.S. and it's overseas interests. It's about drawing Iran into a fight and picking off it's allies.

There are many countries that commit worse human rights violations that also pose a far greater threat to U.S. interests than Syria. If we went to war based on these parameters, North Korea would be a smoking crater by now and we would have "liberated" that population.

Sadly, no. It's all about getting to Iran, who is actively threatening the petro-dollar by selling oil for gold to India, China, Turkey, etc. You don't mess with the dollar and not get invaded.

What about the possibility that both sides has used chemical weapons? Or one side using them and then blaming the other side?

Both possible, Russia said the FSA used Sarin gas a while back.

And I have been betting on the latter of what you said the whole time. With rebels blaming the government. It could defnitly be the government trying to blame the rebels, but its still a bit risky for that.

The rebels still have tons to gain from a false flag operation. A sucessful false flag ops from them would give them the momentum to defeat assad in a short amount of time.

The government could try to blame the rebels, but it wouldn't amount to the same international response which calls for military intervention.

Iran has already condemned the usage of chemical weapons by Assad.  They are pro-intervention.  They got hit by chemical weapons when they fought with Iraq, its a sensitive issue for them...

I think you are confusing what side Iran is on.

The situation is confusing enough as is. At the very least, I'd suggest waiting for the UN inspectors to make a report, and Obama's unilateral "evidence" disregarded.

Furthermore, having the USA lead a military response would probably be an excellent way to inflame more people in the Middle East, and pave the path for a less-stable peace in Syria. It would probably be better for some force less-associated with Iraq, Afghanistan, or Iran to handle most of the killing, with the US supplying money and materiel.

I would be interested in seeing a source for that. All I can find is that Iran condemns chemical weapons usage, not that they acknowledge who used them.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-weighing-his-syria-option,33641/

Hey, does somebody want to explain all of my "liberal" friends who claimed "they were against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan before we went in" but now want to bomb the shit out of Syria.

They post shit like: "Silence in the face of atrocity is not neutrality; silence in the face of atrocity is acquiescence." Samantha Power. Apparently not for the Iraqi's though!

WTF

Ssshhh, don't point out the hypocrisy of the system. It's ok cause we are going to just fire a few cruise missiles their way. It's not like it's a full on freedom invasion like Iraq was. We sure freed the fuck outta them.

At first I thought "this is sarcasm", but then I remembered "We're talking about USA".

I hope you know that the onion is a satirical website

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/we-should-have-been-traumatised-into-action-by-this-war-in-2011and-2012but-now-8789506.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/we-should-have-been-traumatised-into-action-by-this-war-in-2011and-2012but-now-8789506.html)

Great article about the situation

"We should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh."

- Nietzsche

It's not that liberals won't go to war, it's just that they only go to war for reasons they perceive as worthwhile, so animal cruelty, human rights, whether or not that leader made fun of someones skin tone, or women are not more equal than men. This really goes for both wings, the left and the right, they just have different bullshit reasons.

War is war, no matter the reason behind it. It is also a necessity in the current age to back up your mouth with actions on a political arena. If you don't want people using chemical weapons, and someone does use them, the UN sitting around and discussing it is meaningless. It is the ultimate expression of a nation's will to put it's money where it's mouth is.

Syria went sideways, it's a nasty mire of Islamic extremists, an evil dictatorship, and the people stuck in the middle that really want nothing more than to continue with their lives and be left alone. The faster it can be brought to heel the better.

Iraq still has problems, because that nation is fractured along ideological lines, and has foreign fighters flooding into the country, same with Afghanistan (lots of Chechan fighters there).

People are ready to fight wars. They are not ready to rebuild nations and peoples afterwards. That's the part that is sad. You can't change a culture of desperation and violence quickly, it requires generations.

(http://newsimg.ngfiles.com/263000/263886_1327178511203.jpg)

What a bullshit western intervention this would be. Assad has been bombing his people for over a year now, hundreds of thousands have died and we hardly gave a shit, yet somehow only now, when chemical weapons get used, we are totally outraged and want to intervene. What a crude arbitrary line to draw that is. Not to mention that the US of all nations really isn't the one that has any right to be outraged over violations of international law...

Intervention in Syria, with missiles or otherwise won't change a god damn thing, the only purpose it would serve is to make certain people feel better. It sure as help can't be for any realpolitikal reasons because these rebel forces are just as bad for the region as Assad.

I agree, it would be a waste of time, money and lives to go in, replace one shitty system with another, and then leave without accomplishing anything.

I'm of the notion to ignore the Middle East entirely, let it go to hell, and worry about the Pacific. It's not like Iran is a threat to the US, it's range is pretty limited to it's neighbors and southern Europe.

And Capitalistic arms manufactors go AWWWYEAAAAH at these news.

its like 4 pictures posted here by deadbolt but aint nobody gave a single fuck, yea this thread is to serious

Pardon one offence and you encourage the commission of many

- Publilius Syrus


Send in the Special Forces! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J1ctr877qs

Eh, I'd personally support a bombing campaign in Syria - much akin to the one done in Lybia. Soldiers on the ground intervention? Although it would probably make DICE/EA and Infinity Ward shit their pants in joy since they would get to re-skin and re-release their franchises (much like NBA 201x, FIFA 201x) it would not really be a good idea.

It is correct that a lot of the rebels are islamists and probably even more of them are nationalists. Although they would welcome the help when it would come, and be very friendly until Assad was overthrown - friendliness would soon turn sour if Western feet didn't leave Syrian soil as soon as Assad is dead/gone - and these rebel groups which are somewhat splintered now might come together to fight a new "common enemy" - and at that point the ones who show the West the most hate would be the ones leading the pack.

Overthrow Assad by giving the rebels just basic Air/Artillery Support and you earn at least some gratitude from the rebels. There would be no "legitimacy" for anyone to take charge over the others just because they're slightly bigger and hate a common enemy a bit more. It would be done with - they could focus on re-building and restoring order. Mayhaps they wouldn't send flowers to the West - after all, it's taken us long enough to even acknowledge that the rebels need help. But they won't be planting IED's alongside their roads to blow up Marine patrols either.

^

You two paint a very pretty picture for a grim situation. I really doubt the Islamist would die down, they want to build Syria with a religious leader as a secondary goal of the war, and theres no reason for them to give that dream up. Theres too many foreign fighters and brigade leaders in that area who look for more than just a ousted Assad.


And even if you were right, the US is far too war weary to enter in another billion dollar series of air strikes. Even if we entered some sort of economy bombing it would still be a hundreds of millions of dollars, for a outcome which we don't know is guaranteed. We have no real control over the outcome.

We saw how well stabilization can go after taking down tyranns, just look at egypt...

Im not sure if its true for syria but American people should stop bitching about cleaning up thier messes.

Chile was a pleasant place nice and free, so America put Pinochet in charge.  A few million people go missing and the Americans finally reestablish the democracy they destroyed.

Iraq a nice democracy,  but hey America thought they knew a better way.  Oh the rage when it turned out Papa Saddam wasn't so good.  What right did we have to go in there in force,  they should have a right to decide thier own government,  oh wait they had. ..

 Since ww2 and even before western interests have created and aggravated the middle east and elsewhere for our own interests causing much bloodshed. But when it comes timbre to man up and fix what was broke we like to forget or ignore the hand that stirred the pot.

spartan, I think you are under the assumption that the American government and it's foreign policy listens to and/or carries out the wishes of the american people.

It does not. It practically acts autonomously and separate now. We have to "Fight" with the president to even allow congress to have a vote on the issue. And even then, the man was elected to protect the status-quo, which he's doing nicely.

I think we have a legitimate right to bitch about what our government does in our name but without our consent.

Because they were fighting a cold war?


Iraq was never a democracy.

I dont care, the Syria's can bomb themselves into a smoking crater, the middle east would be better off for it.

One side is supported by Russian and Iran, the other by Al Qaeda, why in the world would we want either to win?

tbh, we should be supporting Assad, its the Muslim Brotherhood on the side of the rebels and we see how that worked out in Egypt, that went swimmingly.

As much as I support democrats in domestic policies, their foreign "don't touch until the they have 3rd degree burns" way of intervention is frustrating (speaking of Clinton and Obama).

They also seem to horribly support the wrong side, then again Regan, Bush I and Bush II weren't all that great either...

Someone tell me again, why must we be the World Police, isn't that what the UN is for?

to protect America's peen. Also national security. If a kid pops a fire cracker USA attacks said country because their national safety is at risk.

Though in all honesty western civilization could leave middle east alone and watch them slaughter and kill one another until one form of a power remains. The most powerful power of course and once they have rebalanced the economy and lives should there be contact again.

nah just bearsoul is too pro for u to handle, he hunted all ya vet lol, and dont lie that u let him to do it, too many feels now

have you seen a list of the atrocities the Assad regime has committed?

The atrocities committed are in line with any culture from the medieval era, albeit one with a modern tech base. Unfortunately  the more we intervene the more we stop them from reaching the point of a social revolution that could lead to a more peaceful state.

While I think it's a good idea to supply the secular rebels with weapons, munitions and supplies, invading Syria or bombing them is pretty retarded.

I think Assad should feel worried about the Civil strife present in America. All the gun and gang related deaths. The presence of 'Militia' groups within it's own borders. Assad should pass a resolution allowing him to perform military action inside the United States of America. Then ask France to back him.

If ever the US becomes a full-fledged dictatorship (it certainly looks like its heading there) and the people revolts I would still think that the secular rebels should be supported, no matter who does the supporting.

how does it look like the US is becoming a dictatorship?


and how does not intervening and allowing the currently medieval regime continue lead to a social revolution Spartan?

what r ya crying about damn americans, u guys r such a QQers

in Lithuania we almost have a dictatorship and dictator is a women lol, deal with it, woop woop for dictatorships cuz democracy sux

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Dc94iUErCIs/UEkCzWVv7QI/AAAAAAAAHN8/JSeHbHqp6jA/s400/Hello%252C%2BWorld.%2BHere%2BComes%2BThe%2BWelcome%2BWagon%2BOf%2BDemocracy..jpg)

patriot act, the most recent NDAA, the general development to a surveillance and police state + oligarchical political system that only gets worse.

Crazy a people can't truly have a revolution unless they are willing to rise up themselves. Its how we ended up with things like the seperation of church and state and the Magna Carta. Do you really think they would understand such things if we just forced it on them.

I've played enough Europa Universalis to know that if you force a religion or government on someone they're pretty inclined to roll with it Spartan. I don't even know where you come up with this nonsense.

The only thing that happens in USA is simple. Rich get richer and poor get poorer, it has been like this forever and it will forever remain to be so. All the laws that are made are to reinforce this system and nobody cares.

Those that know nothing of money are doomed to chase it forever.

Not saying that you're wrong, but you can use the same laws. Start an LLC and sell something/provide a service, take advantage of the tax system. Develop a marketable skill and use it, while cutting your expenses and the money just flows in tbh.

Its called actual history and research.

Pfft, coalition against France removed Napoleon from power and installed a new king. I didn't see his ass getting beheaded. Check and Mate.

are you not aware that there is a civil war going on in Syria?  Which resulted from people rising up?  We are simply the foreign intervention.  Its been seen in many revolutionary/civil wars.  Overthrowing established governments without foreign intervention is several orders of magnitude more difficult...

On top of this, overthrowing a government these days is a liiiiiiiitle bit harder than it used to be... Mostly because not to long ago just about the only thing the military could have that peasants could not would be ships, and ships are still relatively easy to use if stolen. Now military aircraft, gunships tanks and the like on the other hand...

Incidentally, that's why the gun-nut argument that you need guns to keep the government in check is funny... Those guns are going to stop cruise missiles how exactly? Kind of like it's in Syria right now, just... Well, yeah.

In order for a revolution to be born there has to be a person with a thick wallet that prevents them to bend over for a shit. That is how every revolution starts, someone starts to support it, financially then those with pretty words starts to round up the necessary manpower and rile them up. It doesn't matter if Government has toys because if the organization about to toss a big party is funded by a rich pig, they too will have toys. We might not talk about massive one million gunships but certainly we can get close. After all everything what a Army buys is manufactured by a company and then bought by the army. Little bribery and personal contacts can get same toys for anyone.