Hey Obama

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Sachaztan]

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

[nikomas]

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.

[deadbolt]

[DarkSoldierX]

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

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.

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.

Not all tyrannical dictators are batshit crazy.

[nikomas]

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.

[DarkSoldierX]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[clonetroopers]

I think Hitler idea's still live on in government...

[Groundfire]

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.

[Groundfire]

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.

[Sachaztan]

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.

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

[DarkSoldierX]

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.

[CrazyWR]

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.

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...

[Sachaztan]

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.

[acker]

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.

[Groundfire]

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 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.

[Masacree]

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

[Masacree]

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

[Groundfire]

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.

[GrayWolf]

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".

[Sachaztan]

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

I hope you know that the onion is a satirical website