PDA

View Full Version : Verified - Chemical Weapons Used in Syrian Conflict


Pages : [1] 2

rgbrock1
25th Apr 2013, 15:35
U.S. Defense Secretary Hegel has announced a short while ago that it has been verified the chemical weapons have been used by the Syrian regime against the "rebels" in that country.

O'Bummer called it a game changer.

We'll see what happens now, if anything.

500N
25th Apr 2013, 16:11
Not a good direction to be heading.

tony draper
25th Apr 2013, 16:18
Other wars are ending and we cant have our legions sitting about at home can we,leads to trouble,they might get ideas.

rgbrock1
25th Apr 2013, 16:19
Nope, it's not 500N:

Then again, Mr. Hussein used the same on the Kurds back in the 90's and the West did f**k all about it.

OTOH: we do know that AQ is firmly embedded with the Syrian "rebels". In a big way.

500N
25th Apr 2013, 16:24
rgb

"Then again, Mr. Hussein used the same on the Kurds back in the 90's and the West did f**k all about it."

Just another example of the hypocrisy by Western Gov'ts.


I think O'Bummer stuck his head in a noose as didn't he say quite a while
ago that if Hussein used Chemical Weapons he would have to do something
about it as it is not acceptable ?

So now if he doesn't act .................

pigboat
25th Apr 2013, 16:34
So now if he doesn't act .................
Not to worry. The line in the sand was obliterated by a sandstorm. He'll draw another. :p

rgbrock1
25th Apr 2013, 16:40
I understand both 500N and pigboats sentiments. On first thought I'm wondering what he'll do about it, if anything.

On second thought perhaps it's a good idea to do nothing. Why?
Because we do now that there are many AQ-affiliated groups involved with the so-called rebels. IF the Syrian regime was overthrown do we really want/need yet another place for AQ to spread its venom?

Damned if you do and damned if you don't i suppose.

ExRAFRadar
25th Apr 2013, 18:14
So if your dont want to get involved dont go round saying thing like "Game Changer"

Personally I think Obama is as lame as they come.

All style and no substance. Or as we say in here, Nice Car, nothing in the fridge.

So far up the Far East Ar*e he does not even care what he or his administration say about Europe/Middle East Geo Politics.

Till it's an oil issue of course.

500N
25th Apr 2013, 18:23
Ex

Exactly


RGB

He's only " Damned if you do and damned if you don't i suppose."
because he opened his mouth in the first place and has stuck the
US nose in other places already - Libya.

cavortingcheetah
25th Apr 2013, 18:31
Why,purely hypothetically speaking of course, should it be a matter for any other country if the Syrians choose to use another way to kill each other within their own borders?

rgbrock1
25th Apr 2013, 18:33
My point exactly. And we see how it turned out in Libya.

O'Bummer makes a lot of hollow pronouncements. Which makes sense as he's a very hollow man.

According to these same reports, the agent used in Syria was Sarin. Which is nothing more than an insecticide for use on humans. It's a nerve agent and the effects of its use are a horror: basically the person asphyxiates to death as the muscles used in breathing are paralyzed. Sort of like a big can of Raid insecticide. Ghastly.

What will be done about it? Nothing.

What should be done about it? I don't know about military involvement BUT if the reports of the use of Sarin gas prove accurate, the Syrian regime needs to stand for war crimes. Period. Bring 'em to the Hague.

rgbrock1
25th Apr 2013, 18:35
Why,purely hypothetically speaking of course, should it be a matter for any other country if the Syrians choose to use another way to kill each other within their own borders?Um, because we're all supposed to be human beings. And one human being should not sit idly by whilst another is eradicated like an insect.

fitliker
25th Apr 2013, 18:46
Evidence of Sarin being used,is not evidence of Who used it.
"Who" in this game could change everthing.

cavortingcheetah
25th Apr 2013, 18:47
one human being should not sit idly by whilst another is eradicated like an insect
Surely human behaviour throughout millennia of warfare illustrates that sitting idly by whilst another is eradicated is exactly what other humans do best under the circumstances, save of course certain elements in 1939. The eradication has been continuing for a long time. A new method of destruction has been introduced, that is all. Why should that act as a catalyst for intrusion when flame throwers and high explosive shells did not?

Perhaps the Sarin is being tested by Al Qaeda before being used somewhere west of Suez?

rgbrock1
25th Apr 2013, 18:51
"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell

Having thought about this a bit more I offer this unsolicited comment. IF Sarin gas was used on Syrian civilians and IF this usage can be unequivocally traced to the Syrian regime then I believe a: the Syrian regime must be held accountable for these war crimes and b: a Western military intervention should be seriously contemplated. The use of chemical weapons on a nation's own people cannot be tolerated by any civil-minded nation.

500N
25th Apr 2013, 18:54
As has been said, it's just another method of killing each other.


"the Syrian regime needs to stand for war crimes. Period.
Bring 'em to the Hague."

RGB
Coming from a Yank, is that supposed to be humour considering
you as a US soldiers can't be since your Gov't won't sign it. It works
both ways :O

fitliker
25th Apr 2013, 18:54
Bin Ladens brother owns a biotech company in Baltimore.
Not very far from Fort Detrich.
Maybe if the guys with the alphabet soup letters on their backs talk to each other they might just prevent the Zombie apocolypse.
Sarin would be a kindness compared to some of the virus's in that place.

cavortingcheetah
25th Apr 2013, 18:58
On the basis that Assad is not a supporter of al Qaeda and that the rebels, by all account, are well represented in that department, then the rebels are the evil and good men should not stand idly by when al Qaeda can be beaten and destroyed but should rather rush enthusiastically to aid in that task?

rgbrock1
25th Apr 2013, 19:07
That, cavorting, is the conundrum. (Unless, of course, we kick both their asses.)

cavortingcheetah
25th Apr 2013, 19:18
Annihilate your enemy and befriend his until the time comes, as it will, to eradicate him in his turn, thus preserving the balance of nature and the even handed greatness of western democracy?.

rgbrock1
25th Apr 2013, 19:23
No befriending necessary, cavorting. Simply kick both of their asses concurrently. Easier that way.

con-pilot
25th Apr 2013, 19:34
and the even handed greatness of western democracy?.

Yeah, that Western Democracy stuff is soooo over rated. Better to go back to the tribal life, when men were men and sheep were nervous.

rgbrock1
25th Apr 2013, 19:38
con wrote:

Better to go back to the tribal life, when men were men and sheep were nervous.

I thought that was Texas, con? No? Oh well.

vulcanised
25th Apr 2013, 19:42
All style and no substance


Shirley, Mr Ex, you meant all show? That man don't got no style.

lomapaseo
25th Apr 2013, 19:50
It's only a game changer if they continue the use,

If it takes this long to confirm then it will take ten times as long to decide what to do about it.

Why can't we use sniffer dogs with tracking devices? as they get snuffed we can pin point the weapon use and against what side.

If the dogs randomly die and are eaten that will not be considered a positive finding.

ENFP
25th Apr 2013, 19:53
Nope, it's not 500N:

Then again, Mr. Hussein used the same on the Kurds back in the 90's and the West did f**k all about it.

OTOH: we do know that AQ is firmly embedded with the Syrian "rebels". In a big way.

Perhaps rgb that is because the West were complicit in that they sold Mr H the technology. Why do certain nations in the West sell chemical weapons technology? Not sure, but you don't expect someone to buy a toy and not play with it. So who sold technology to the Syrians?

brickhistory
25th Apr 2013, 20:03
Barry said in August of this year that "Syria using chemical weapons would be a red line."

He ignored when the French and British confirmed chemical weapons use last week.

Now his SECDEF has confirmed it.

And Barry will draw another line.

Iran and North Korea will be watching and contemplating that action.

In fact, China and Russia will as well.

Sleep tight, allies. Remember, most of you wanted him in office by a wide margin.

Twice.

As to intervening in Syria - nope. Not our fight. No vital national interests involved. We do not have a "duty to protect." (How'd that work out for and in Libya?)

con-pilot
25th Apr 2013, 20:06
So who sold technology to the Syrians?

Look to the north, way north, just passed the Black Sea. For another hint, it used to start with an 'U' followed by an 'S' and another 'S'.

500N
25th Apr 2013, 20:08
brickhistory

Thank you, that was the quote I was thinking of.


Re ignoring the French / British, I was surprised he didn't say anything
but that was probably because he wanted it to sound "like America had
found it out".

He is so full of Hot air and BS it's not funny.

airship
25th Apr 2013, 20:13
I wouldn't worry too much about it all (especially considering the mostly very feeble efforts by Western countries most recently in supporting the rebels in Syria, especially with regard to some of the rebels and their affiliations to "terrorist" groups etc.)

But if the current US President or administration really needs "concrete 3rd party evidence / support from a reliable ally" before "unleashing their worst", I could recommend that they contact ex. UK PM Tony Blair ASAP. I'm sure that he might be able to accommodate such initiatives in his busy calendar (never being of much use as "special envoy" for peace in the ME), whilst making a very lucrative living making speeches etc. at US universities and other International establishments "with more money than sense".

It worked for GWB...?! :ok: :(

ENFP
25th Apr 2013, 20:15
Look to the north, way north, just passed the Black Sea. For another hint, it used to start with an 'U' followed by an 'S' and another 'S'.

Con
I know, so who do we spank, the one using the toy, or the one that sold them the toy? Being the one that sold them the toy is a permanent member of the security council! Doh ! but so are the ones that sold it to Saddam! :(

con-pilot
25th Apr 2013, 20:21
I know, so who do we spank, the one using the toy, or the one that sold them the toy?

Neither. Not our business. Obama with that 'a line drawn in the sand' comment, just makes him all that more foolish. We still really don't know which side is playing, in your words, with the toy or just where this toy really came from.

When we will find out is anybody's guess.

500N
25th Apr 2013, 20:31
cON

"Obama with that 'a line drawn in the sand' comment, just makes him all that more foolish."

Agree.

IMHO, he set himself up to fail.

If he does nothing, fail.
If he does something and it doesn't work, fail,
If he tries to do something and it doesn't come off, fail.

One Outsider
25th Apr 2013, 20:38
I see people say that it has been verified or confirmed that chemical weapons have been used but is that actually true?

What has been said by Hagel is that intelligence agencies have assessed with "varying degrees of confidence" that the weapons have been used. That is some way from saying it is verified or confirmed and actually means that there is no proof.

con-pilot
25th Apr 2013, 21:02
What has been said by Hagel is that intelligence agencies have assessed with "varying degrees of confidence" that the weapons have been used. That is some way from saying it is verified or confirmed and actually means that there is no proof.

Hagel has to protect his boss's six, until Obama figures out what to do.

brickhistory
25th Apr 2013, 21:11
I see people say that it has been verified or confirmed that chemical weapons
have been used but is that actually true?


British and French teams have taken soil samples and confirmed sarin.

Even the Syrian government said chemical weapons were used but that the rebels used them.

Barry, however, wants to wait until the UN team, currently in Cyprus and denied entrance to Syria by its government, makes a determination.

In other words, he is looking desparately for a way to walk back his "red line" because he's not going to do f' all about it.

And undermined deterrence around the world.

If adversaries know he's bluffing, they will press to test.

Y'all have fun with that.

PukinDog
25th Apr 2013, 21:41
Barry, however, wants to wait until the UN team, currently in Cyprus and denied entrance to Syria by its government, makes a determination.

Denied entry? This sounds like a job for none other than Hans Blix, he who Baathist dictators cower before.

racedo
25th Apr 2013, 21:49
What has been said by Hagel is that intelligence agencies have assessed with "varying degrees of confidence" that the weapons have been used. That is some way from saying it is verified or confirmed and actually means that there is no proof.

Cough Cough

Someone mention Yellow Cake....

Cough Cough

bcgallacher
25th Apr 2013, 21:59
Does anyone really care what atrocities the citizens of the Middle East visit upon each other? As long as they are killing each other they are not bothering us.I spent many years in that part of the world and came to the conclusion that the values that they have are medieval at best.

West Coast
25th Apr 2013, 22:02
racedo
This is the Euro President and a Nobel winner to boot, he wouldn't act without Euro consensus. He knows where his bread is buttered.

West Coast
25th Apr 2013, 22:06
Bcgallacher

Wonder the outcome if the rest of the world said Hitler was a Euro problem to be left strictly to the Euro's. The playing field would look a lot different today if many nations sat that one out as well.

hellsbrink
26th Apr 2013, 03:58
Well, Hitler would have been left as a "European Problem" if he didn't escalate things by invading Russia and declaring war on the US....

West Coast
26th Apr 2013, 04:13
Many went to Europes aid before he went global.

11Fan
26th Apr 2013, 05:00
Sources inside the White House confirm that a harshly worded letter of condemnation is being drafted and will be sent on Official White House Letterhead to Syria.

As they have yet to figure out precisely who released the chemical weapon, it will be addressed "To whom it may concern."

500N
26th Apr 2013, 05:33
"Sources inside the White House confirm that a harshly worded letter of condemnation is being drafted and will be sent on Official White House Letterhead to Syria."

And you know what, everyone will say "Who gives a flying F"
and since we don't have a "tosser" icon, you'll have to imagine it.

The White House must be delusional if they think anyone is
going to take any notice of a letter, especially from Obama of
all Presidents.

BenThere
26th Apr 2013, 08:23
The current stasis is one of an evil regime (Assad) fighting an evil resistance (Al Qaeda). It's a win-win.

While I feel for the innocents caught in the cross-fire, they too facilitated the current state by their support of either side. I would defend only the pro-American faction - oh, wait, there isn't one.

We should let this conflict play itself out. When Jihadis fight Ba'athists, it's all good. No need for Western intervention whatsoever, other than to keep them fighting each other.

dead_pan
26th Apr 2013, 08:34
What to do? Make the red line much thicker so it takes them longer to cross it.

DADDY-OH!
26th Apr 2013, 08:42
Let them all kill each other then their God can sort them out. Including the estimated 500 European 'Jihadists' especially the 100 'Breeetish' Jihadists. That should save the UK Treasury £500K in Welfare Benefit payments.

bcgallacher
26th Apr 2013, 09:06
West Coast - would you be happy if your government sent your son there with a gun 'to restore peace and bring stability' as has been done in the wonderfully peaceful and stable countries of Iraq,Afghanistan and Libya?The Middle East is a vicious and corrupt area - if they did not have Israel as a focus it would be even more violent.

rgbrock1
26th Apr 2013, 12:27
ENFP wrote:

So who sold technology to the Syrians?

The capital is Moscow.

West Coast
26th Apr 2013, 15:49
Bcgallacher

My son is 9, but I get your point. Please find where I've advocated or inferred putting boots on the ground in support of the rebel groups. I'm not opposed in principle to aiding the opposition to a greater degree, nor would I have issue with drones doing their thing. Now read closely, as I said I wouldn't support boots on the ground in support of the rebels, I would however support in concept sending appropriate personel in to secure and remove/destroy chemical weapons so we don't see them used in London or New York.

Lonewolf_50
26th Apr 2013, 16:25
Why are the Isarelis all in a huff over Syrians using sarin on each other? US news sites indicate the Israelis are trying to put pressure on Pres Obama to "do something" about it.

What, exactly, is to be done? :confused:

China and Russia hold the key UNSC vetoes, and they don't seem to be too upset about all this.

rgbrock1
26th Apr 2013, 16:27
Lonewolf:

It's obvious that the Israelis want us to stick a few (thousand) boots on the ground.

Initially I thought it might be a good idea but after thinking about it for awhile I no longer think so.

Perhaps the Chinese and Russians have it right: let them kill each other.

AtomKraft
26th Apr 2013, 17:19
Am I the only one thinking: If this was aircraft bombs or chemical filled arty shells, there should be hunderds, if not thousands dead.

You don't fire a couple of Sarin filled 155s, you fire scores or hundreds of the things.

Equally, with air-dropped bombs, this report seems to reflect the injuries caused by one rather small one.

Methinks caution, is the order of the day here.

Chemicals are included in the 'WMD' category, because they CAN inflict mass destruction. But not one at a time like a nuke.

You need a decent amount of chemical to do 'mass' destruction.

tony draper
26th Apr 2013, 17:25
I would have thought the rebels would have much more motivation to pop one off than the Government forces,and it has had the exact effect they would have wanted.
Been saying for years,its time the West had a decade or two of minding our own business,let them get on with it.

Milo Minderbinder
26th Apr 2013, 17:27
you have to be very very careful you know who actually released it (assuming it did actually happen)
its not all that difficult to make assuming the correct safety gear is available (witness the Aum Shin Rikyo idiots attacks) and may well have been made in a small lot by someone wanting to implicate the other side

another way of looking at it is, if the Syrians do use their chemical arsenal on their own people, then theres less to be used against us when what remains falls into the hands of the terrorists (sorry I mean freedom fighters)

Blockade the country, stop anyone shipping in new arms and then let them fight it out to a conclusion. Then disarm whatever is left. Send it back to the Bedouin stone age it deserves

rgbrock1
26th Apr 2013, 17:42
AtomKraft:

I'll assume by 155's you mean 155mm howitzers? (Of which I am very familiar with - M109 - as I was a gun bunny turned infantryman back in the day.)

A howitzer battery of 6 x 155 guns with one (1) fire mission using chemical rounds would f**k up a lot of people in a very short period of time.

Thread drift:

M110 8" gun (x8) fire mission: 1 round hotel echo. Fire for effect. (Makes my d**k hard it does!!!)

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1400/583904650_27bdbd3191_b.jpg

AtomKraft
26th Apr 2013, 18:02
Ahhhh brock.

The King of Battle.

Nice pic.

Thing is, chemical weapons-as you know- can as you put it 'f&*k up a lot of people quickly.

Thus the WMD monicker.

Someone mixing up a little poison in his shed ain't a Chemical WMD.

A section of guns pumping out umpteen chemical rounds per minute for a while...now that IS WMD.

My point is, a couple of guys a-frothing does not look like the effects of 'WMD'. (not that I wish to trivialise their very real suffering).

It's all a question of SCALE

rgbrock1
26th Apr 2013, 18:10
Yes, AtomKraft, the King of Battle indeed. (Murderous on the ear drums, as well, if not wearing ear protection!)

Yes, it is a matter of scale. Which is one of the reasons why I believe the Syrian regime isn't responsible for the chemical release. Might be more a case of Al Qaeda "testing" things.

Here's one more for ya. M109a1 firing.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2261/1643008534_3229d9f6ce.jpg

AtomKraft
26th Apr 2013, 18:51
Woof! :ok:

Fox3WheresMyBanana
26th Apr 2013, 21:01
"Sir, we've a report of a gas attack on the French near Langemark. Shall I send in the Canadians to re-enforce?"

"No, let's give them a "vigorous investigation". That'll show the Boche we mean business!"

Deepest Norfolk
26th Apr 2013, 21:22
I hope it gets verified to a better standard than Saddam's WMD!

dead_pan
26th Apr 2013, 21:24
It already has - they've actually found something.

Andu
26th Apr 2013, 22:36
Australian intel. agency reports up to 300 Australians, mostly of Lebanese descent, are fighting in Syria with the rebel forces. It would be political suicide for anyone to say so, but my guess would be that damn near everyone in Canberra, from both sides of politics as well as the security services, would not be at all unhappy if President Assad's forces were found to be guilty of one "terrible, heinous, truly shocking" war crime involving the use of chemical weapons that just happened to clean up every one of those 300 "Aussie freedom fighters".

brickhistory
26th Apr 2013, 23:57
The King of Battle.


Wimp...may I present the God of Hellfire and Damnation.

or

Rock, paper, scissors, 155, nuke...

http://www.darkgovernment.com/images/nuke-blast.jpg

Which would also calm things down elsewhere in that region...

AtomKraft
27th Apr 2013, 00:18
Brick.

Way to go.

Lets blow someone up!

Anyone! :hmm:

PukinDog
27th Apr 2013, 00:37
It's seems to me that nuking the known and suspected stockpiles of sarin gas weapons would be the most effective way to ensure their non-use and their destruction all at the same time.

Captain Dart
27th Apr 2013, 00:45
Australian intel. agency reports up to 300 Australians, mostly of Lebanese descent, are fighting in Syria with the rebel forces. It would be political suicide for anyone to say so, but my guess would be that damn near everyone in Canberra, from both sides of politics as well as the security services, would not be at all unhappy if President Assad's forces were found to be guilty of one "terrible, heinous, truly shocking" war crime involving the use of chemical weapons that just happened to clean up every one of those 300 "Aussie freedom fighters".


Andu, you should have put the word 'Australians' in inverted commas. These people are about as truly Australian as my bum is Nepalese.

VFD
27th Apr 2013, 01:18
Obama with that 'a line drawn in the sand' comment, just makes him all that more foolish
This will be one of those "shovel ready projects" moving that line in the sand.


VFD

Dushan
27th Apr 2013, 03:12
VFD, except apparently not nearly as fast.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/27/world/middleeast/white-house-in-no-rush-on-syria-action.html?_r=0

mickjoebill
27th Apr 2013, 05:52
I hope it gets verified to a better standard than Saddam's WMD!

The pressure cooker bomb is defined as a "weapon of mass destruction"

What constitutes chemical weapon?


Mickjoebill

Effluent Man
27th Apr 2013, 06:10
If it's full of curry?

Lonewolf_50
27th Apr 2013, 13:11
Atom:
You seem to have missed the point of the picture of a nuke. You said:

Brick. Way to go. Lets blow someone up! Anyone!

The correct usage, given that nukes are the topic, is:

"Let's blow someone up! Everyone!" :8:}

Effluent: I giggled into my coffee. :ok: Nicely done.

con-pilot
27th Apr 2013, 17:17
You jokers just don't learn

Yes, much better to invade areas in the Middle East, create countries where there are not, change countries that are already there, install puppet governments that answer only to the UK and France.

Thus guaranteeing strife and turmoil for nearly a hundred years in those regions. Then when it all goes tit's up, blame someone else.

Remember, when in doubt, blame the French or Bush. :p

brickhistory
27th Apr 2013, 18:31
Your version sounds more definate to the ears of all your fellow right wing nutters who only ever want to go blow sh1t up

Err, who, exactly here is wanting the US, let alone anyone else, in getting involved in Syria.

Seems most want to leave them to it.

And for Barry to just shut up about "red lines" and then not following through.

As such empty threats seriously undermines deterrence against those that count.

Better to say nothing but He simply can't do that.

Interflug
27th Apr 2013, 19:01
Evidence of Sarin being used,is not evidence of Who used it.
"Who" in this game could change everthing.
exactement... The usual suspects are eager to "go". A little Sarin used in the right way can be a very profitable investment. Particularly if the POTUS and commander in chief is on record that for him the use of chemical weapons would be the crossing of the red line...

jamesdevice
27th Apr 2013, 20:06
things can get very complicated when you're trying to state just who released a toxin or gas.....
remember my previous comments about the Iran-Iraq war when I pointed out the Iranians were purchasing trial lots of mustard gas precursors - just at the same time as they shipped a few people to the UK for treatment following alleged Iraqi gas attacks. I was convinced then the Iranians were gassing their own to gain sympathy, and I still believe it. You may have a similar case here with the "rebels" gassing their own. I've no evidence to suggest this happened, just flagging a warning that facts can be hard to interpret
Every time I've mentioned this before I've been banned and received threatening PMs of the "we know who you are" variety, so don't be surprised if I get knocked off the grid for a while.

G-AWZK
27th Apr 2013, 20:17
Yes, much better to invade areas in the Middle East, create countries where there are not, change countries that are already there, install puppet governments that answer only to the UK and France.

Thus guaranteeing strife and turmoil for nearly a hundred years in those regions. Then when it all goes tit's up, blame someone else.

Well, maybe if we hadn't been stabbed in the back by the US during the Suez crisis the USSR would never have got a foothold in the Middle East. The US got what they wanted, don't go blaming us for your fcuk ups.

Don't bother answering with your usual injured naivety con pilot, it just doesn't wash anymore.

brickhistory
27th Apr 2013, 20:24
Well, maybe if we hadn't been stabbed in the back by the US during the Suez crisis the USSR would never have got a foothold in the Middle East. The US got what they wanted, don't go blaming us for your fcuk ups.

Well, one retort would be "sorry, mate, shoulda tried harder to remain relevant in world affairs" but that would be cruel.

A better one is that nation's act in their own self-interest. Eden and Co. thought theirs rested on a half-assed plan with incredibly poor OPSEC and minimal logistics, never mind relying on the French(!).

Ike thought that otherwise. You could have ignored him and the US, but as you didn't for some very good financial reasons, the blame lies with who?

Don't bother answering with your usual injured naivety con pilot, it just doesn't wash anymore.

How about some reality then.

You couldn't and didn't carry it out successfully. No crying in the big leagues allowed...

con-pilot
27th Apr 2013, 20:26
Well, maybe if we hadn't been stabbed in the back by the US during the Suez crisis

Aw, must be hell losing an empire. Poor guy, one can no longer say, 'the sun never set on the British Empire'.

And to think, just after we bailed you out from losing the war in Europe, we wouldn't help you keep your empire. Must have not been your day. :E

Oh, just forgot about this bit;

Don't bother answering with your usual injured naivety con pilot, it just doesn't wash anymore.

Pretty well proof positive that you've lost the argument when you revert to personal insults. As I have in no way ever insulted you. :=

G-AWZK
27th Apr 2013, 20:35
You want the reality? You are seeing the reality played out right now.

There was nothing inevitable about Muslim fundamentalist and Arab nationalist victories in places like Iran, Iraq and Libya in the 1960s and 1970s.
Britain had regularly put down such revolts, such as those of Arabi and the Khalifa, ever since Gladstone's original invasion of Egypt in 1882.
Yet after 1956 she was in a far weaker position to protect Arab rulers from revolution. The coup in Baghdad on 14 July 1958 saw the murders of both King Faisal II and Prime Minister Nuri-es-Said within two years of their advice to Eden to "hit Nasser hard and quickly".

The subsequent history of Iraq, and especially her recent history, would have been very different if Nasser had been toppled.

You won't understand or accept that the US scored a spectacular own goal.

con-pilot
27th Apr 2013, 20:41
Britain had regularly put down such revolts, such as those of Arabi and the Khalifa, ever since Gladstone's original invasion of Egypt in 1882.


Damn straight, keep those little brown people in their place by God. Rule Britannia and all that what, what.

Can't let the buggers rule themselves you know.

brickhistory
27th Apr 2013, 20:42
The subsequent history of Iraq, and especially her recent history, would have been very different if Nasser had been toppled.


Say, what country drew an arbitrary line on a piece of paper and declared "Here is Iraq!"

As to "putting down" those pesky uprisings, A) eventually, you lost and were forced out so some self-examination is called for and B) why were they revolting against you in the first place?

Finally, the UK knuckled under to US pressure. Your government at the time had a choice aside from the one about actually informing the US prior to launching the poorly planned, lousily supported, and awkwardly executed Operation Musketeer. It choose not to even inform Washington in order to show the 'independence of action' of Britain and France.

How'd that work out for ya?

It would seem your problem would be with that British government but it is always easier to blame others for one's own failings rather than take responsibility.

You won't understand or accept that the US scored a spectacular own goal.

You might be surprised by what I think about the US decision, but your cheap, 'know it all' diatribe prevents reasoned discussions.

Happy to get down in it and get muddy or discuss it factually, depends on the other side.

vulcanised
27th Apr 2013, 21:33
Damn straight, keep those little brown people in their place by God. Rule Britannia and all that what, what.

Can't let the buggers rule themselves you know.


Disappointed to see that from you, con.

racedo
27th Apr 2013, 22:17
Well, maybe if we hadn't been stabbed in the back by the US during the Suez crisis the USSR would never have got a foothold in the Middle East.

Funny about WW2 being fought to liberate people from tyranny and then expecting you can have an empire where you can practice it.

Andu
27th Apr 2013, 22:42
Attempting to bring the time line 60 years forward and somewhere near the thread topic, I believe that if Barry puts US troops on the ground in Syria it will gladden the hearts of both sides of the conflict, for it will give the angry young Arab men on both sides the chance to tick off an item close to, if not at the top of, damn near every young Arab's bucket list - kill an American soldier.

The rebels will welcome the US for as long as it's to their advantage - i.e., for as long as Uncle Sam provides them with newer and better weapons, but they will turn on the US at the first opportunity.

As nasty as Assad and his regime undoubtedly is, for the West, it's a far, far more palatable option than what's certainly going to replace it thanks to the Obama Administration's (what I call) "Jimmy Carter" policy in not dealing with not nice people. Anyone old enough to remember what an utter disaster Jimmy Carter was with his ridiculous foreign policy will see that Barak Obama, with his obviously empty threats and constantly moving "red lines" is following a distressingly similar path.

I speak as someone who lived in the Middle East for 20 years. The Arab respects one thing and one thing only - strength, and the strong man. Barak Obama is seen by Arabs as a joke, a man who can be ignored, and if he puts US troops on the ground in Syria the Arabs know that they'll be operating under such ridiculous rules of engagement that many of their young men will be able to tick off that item from the top of their bucket list with near impunity.

Until the US is willing to fight the Arabs with the same 101% application it placed upon fighting the Japanese in WW2, (which I know just isn't going to happen, unless it's in reaction to something like a nuke going off in Times Square), my advice is - stay away.

con-pilot
27th Apr 2013, 22:48
Disappointed to see that from you, con.


Just returning the favor to the poster I directed that remark to. It's not my fault he left himself wide open.

I just took advantage of it. Nuttin' personal you know. :p

con-pilot
27th Apr 2013, 22:52
Until the US is willing to fight the Arabs with the same 101% application it placed upon fighting the Japanese in WW2, (which I know just isn't going to happen, unless it's in reaction to something like a nuke going off in Times Square), my advice is - stay away.

Excellent advise. As you pointed out, for us to put boots on the ground in Syria would be a lose, lose situation. No matter the side.

Milo Minderbinder
27th Apr 2013, 23:03
one of the big factors surely has to be: who would Israel prefer to be in charge of Syria? A fascist Ba'athist state which constitutes a known quantitative threat, or the unknown hodge-podge of fundamentalist revolutionaries?

AtomKraft
28th Apr 2013, 00:02
The truth is that the British dropped the ball back in around 1917.

Back then It was a battle for territory between us and the Frogs. Syria, TransJordan, Palestine, Lebanon et al were all up for grabs- the oil too (the Royal Navy were changing from coal to oil, coincidentally)

It was eaksy-peaksy until the Brits came up with their game changing master plan to outwit the 'auld enemy' ie- Le Frog. (thats the French, for you Colonials ;)).

Unfortunately (and that word is used advisedly) we got our advantage by backing the Zionists.

Major boo-boo.

But hey- I've always though 'Peace' is somewhat over-rated. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Interflug
28th Apr 2013, 02:12
one of the big factors surely has to be: who would Israel prefer to be in charge of Syria? A fascist Ba'athist state which constitutes a known quantitative threat, or the unknown hodge-podge of fundamentalist revolutionaries?
The first thing the Military-Industrial-Complex needs is enemies. Damn Soviets just collapsed and let us down, we need enemies!!! Let's create some, so we can make money. Sounds simple? That's exactly what it is.

West Coast
28th Apr 2013, 03:47
ANDU

If the Assad regime is the better of two evils to the US as you suggest, you might want to wire the President and Sec of State and let them know that as they're hell bent on funding his overthrow.

Interflug
28th Apr 2013, 05:56
If the Assad regime is the better of two evils to the US as you suggest, you might want to wire the President and Sec of State and let them know that as they're hell bent on funding his overthrow.
slight correction:
they are hell bent over forward with something up their :mad:, with not much choice than to continue playing the dirty game.

Interflug
28th Apr 2013, 06:00
one of the big factors surely has to be: who would Israel prefer to be in charge of Syria? A fascist Ba'athist state which constitutes a known quantitative threat, or the unknown hodge-podge of fundamentalist revolutionaries?
Study the philosophy of Leo Strauss, the blueprint for US and Israeli foreign policy, which again are based on the dialectics philosophy of Hegel.

It's not about who is in charge or about achieving peace. It's about sustaining eternal conflict and war, and being the master who controls both sides and profits from the synthesis of the fight of the two antagonists of the day. The pattern is self evident through the last 100 years of history.
Israel needs the Islamists to justify it's belligerent policies, not the other way around.

The hegemonial power of the US with it's humongous military machine is based on worldwide conflict. Peace diminishes the hegemon's power.

Andu
28th Apr 2013, 06:33
ANDU

If the Assad regime is the better of two evils to the US as you suggest, you might want to wire the President and Sec of State and let them know that as they're hell bent on funding his overthrow.West Coast, I accept that you're not so subtly saying to me: "WTF would you, you furriner, know? Our President and his highly qualified advisers must know what they're doing by backing the rebels".

Fact is, I admit to it; I'm saying that Assad, as horribly bad as he is, is the lesser of two evils. I can say to you with as much certainly as one can when discussing international relations or politics that the 'good' rebels, who Jimmy Carter Mk 2 finds acceptable - (if they exist, which I think is debatable) - will be overwhelmed by what I can only term REALLY BAD rebels, rebels who, when they become the Syrian government, will make the whole Western world look back on Assad, as horrible as he is, with wistful fondness.

Someone asked who the Israelis would prefer running Syria. I don't have any private line to that, but my guess would be that, even with him supporting and supplying Hezbullah, they would definitely prefer the devil they know.

500N
28th Apr 2013, 06:36
Interflug

I agree re the military / industrial complex.



I also think we, as in the west, seriously need to stay out
of Syria - and only get involved IF we need to surround and
guard some chemical weapons or preferably remove them.

Interflug
28th Apr 2013, 08:31
Time to remember Ike's gospel again on his way out of office, the only time when he was actually able to speak the truth. Unfortunately his warning could not change history's fatal course.
8y06NSBBRtY

Followed shortly by these prophetic words that as well failed to stop the course of times.
QeYgLLahHv8

AtomKraft
28th Apr 2013, 09:44
Interflug

Two cracking links there. Thanks! :ok:

lomapaseo
28th Apr 2013, 14:41
speaking of secret societies how about the secret PM rings between members on the intenet. That explains the baiting between imaginary groupings on various hot subjects.

The first hints of this are burried messages in posts "check you PM"

Dushan
28th Apr 2013, 15:15
Loma, haven't you heard of RWS?

airship
28th Apr 2013, 15:44
The great ex. US President and wartime leader Dwight D. Eisenhower may well have been one of the first to speak out about the dangers of the military-industrial complex...

I imagine his hope was that future US citizens (together with those from other democracies across the globe) would be better-educated and equipped to deal with any future threats from the so-called military-industrial complex.

Fortunetly (and most assuredly welcomely), he had long-since "departed" and was therefore unable to watch this outrageous example (http://www.snotr.com/video/675/A_blonde_and_a_3rd_grade_geography_question) of pure ignorance (even if she was a blonde) on the part of the current and younger generation/s of Americans. I'm not saying that your average European teenager would be able to place Delaware on a global map either: "Somewhere near Tupperware perhaps...?!" :sad:

Lonewolf_50
28th Apr 2013, 17:30
I believe that if Barry puts US troops on the ground in Syria it will gladden the hearts of both sides of the conflict, for it will give the angry young Arab men on both sides the chance to tick off an item close to, if not at the top of, damn near every young Arab's bucket list - kill an American soldier.
Agreed, but here's a point for you: a whole bunch of young Arabs got to try that in Iraq, and they died by the thousands, from all over the Mid East. While I was over there, the mix was from Syria, Libya, and IIRC Tunisia, according to our coalition intel, with the usual mix of Saudis tossed in.

Not every Arab who died in Iraq was Iraqi. A whole load of bucket list rookies showed up and were shocked to find that it wasn't as easy as they thought it was. If it happens again in Syria, the red harvest will just be a bumper crop. Some will get to achieve their aim, however, as the will often finds a way.
I speak as someone who lived in the Middle East for 20 years. The Arab respects one thing and one thing only - strength, and the strong man. Barak Obama is seen by Arabs as a joke, a man who can be ignored,
I am not sure he understands that yet. Too bad.

Until the US is willing to fight the Arabs with the same 101% application it placed upon fighting the Japanese in WW2, (which I know just isn't going to happen, unless it's in reaction to something like a nuke going off in Times Square), my advice is - stay away.
Sound advice. Barry unlikely to go for that ... so it goes.

Milo Minderbinder
28th Apr 2013, 17:37
but first identify your target - just which bunch of arabs are you boys going to slaughter?
maybe you should assume both sides are hostile and kill the lot. That'll avoid blue on blue....

Interflug
28th Apr 2013, 18:32
"fight the arabs"

I'm speechless. :ugh:

And that means you want to fight against the Syrian rebels (mostly arabs) and for Assad (an Alawit)?

When is your troop transport leaving? Good luck in your fight, courageous soldier.

Milo Minderbinder
28th Apr 2013, 18:36
yeah, maybe it should have been "fight the muslims"
After all some Arabs are Christians or practice one of the other minor religions. What do you do with the Druze for instance?

Lonewolf_50
28th Apr 2013, 23:33
Milo/Interflug, who are you responding to in your "fight the Arabs" sub theme?

:confused:

Milo Minderbinder
29th Apr 2013, 00:55
I'm trying to take the **** whoever said "Until the US is willing to fight the Arabs with the same 101%......"
And also Interflugs last comment, but I fear it'll fall on deaf ears.

Quite simple
People are advocating fighting the Syrian Arabs. Well the question has to be which bunch of Arabs. The government? The rebels? The Maronite Christians? The Druze (many of whom are buddies with Israel? It gets difficult.

Sciolistes
29th Apr 2013, 02:10
Whatever the US secretary of state has to say is probably twisted bullshit deigned to get the public on board for the next phase. Western governments are clearly at a loss of what to do with Syria so the wording s typically vague and wooly, clearly leaving room for being queitly dropped or escalated depending on how they can develop the scenario over the next few weeks.

Lonewolf_50
29th Apr 2013, 14:14
Milo, Andu has had some experience in the area, and I suspect his inference on "Arabs" is regarding those Arabs who are on a day to day basis hostile to the West. The Maronites are rarely in that company, though I won't say never. The Druze are on their own side, and I can't say I blame them.

His larger point is that if you don't fight with utter dedication to the outcome being what you want, as we did with the Japanese, then someone with a bit more "want to" or "willingness to give up just a bit more" is unlikely to be defeated, nor want to stop fighting.

As a fairly astute observer of war* once pointed out, the war (typically two sides in a contest) isn't over until one side decides to stop fighting.

The Japanese were pushed to where they chose to stop.

A load of folks who are on a day to day basis against America, and against the West, are not to that point, and doubtless won't be any time soon in part due to the lack of vigor in pursuing war aims ... (whatever those might be).

That, sir, struck me as his point.

On the other hand, I am not convinced the analogy fits as well as it was intended to. Japan, the Imperium, is more like the Caliphate, which has yet to be reestablished, so the "sides" don't match up in kind or motive very well. His point on what is respected is well made, and matches my much lighter (than his) experience base in the region.

PukinDog
29th Apr 2013, 14:26
Milo Minderbinder
What do you do with the Druze for instance?

They get reincarnated, so no worries either way.

PukinDog
2nd May 2013, 16:39
Intervention-talk comes from the worry that stockpiles might get scattered and wind up in hands of those with no qualms about using them against Israel. You know, the same Israel that possesses a number of small nukes? I'm guessing, but someone using chemicals and gas on Jews living in Israel might elicit a very harsh response that leaves nothing outside the realm of possiblity.

The only question you have to ask yourself is; do you care if that happens? I know what my answer is, so I'm not worried.

Lonewolf_50
2nd May 2013, 18:15
A good article a few days ago by retired General Hoar, USMC, on Jordan and the issue of Syria. On Foreignpolicy (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/04/29/a_friend_in_need_jordan_aid) . com

Well worth a read.

The Professor
2nd May 2013, 18:58
Interflug:

Leo Strauss has a lot to answer for regarding US foreign policy past and present.

Some of his former students are still holding the reigns in Washington.

Rather scary.

Matari
2nd May 2013, 19:42
What the world needs is more Leo Strauss, and less Sarte, Hobsbawm and Said.

Lonewolf_50
2nd May 2013, 19:58
Needs more Guinness, from where I sit. ;)

Matari
2nd May 2013, 20:28
I'll drink to that...

Andu
2nd May 2013, 22:19
There were some who said that the 'missing' Iraqi WMDs (if they existed) were shipped to Syria. It will be interesting in the extreme if there's any truth to that, for I'd be guessing that those weapons, if they exist, would not be as carefully cataloged as those in the official Syrian inventory, and so, as the political situation worsens, could change hands far more easily, perhaps without being noticed, than the official Syrian weapons.

Rwy in Sight
3rd May 2013, 07:38
Although I think the French have lost their diplomatic skills, a french diplomat said before GW I that the way in is easy the way out needs to be carefully thought and planned. And as the very recent history of the region shows (the Arab spring) the countries switch from stable military dictatorships to unstable (and potentially dangerous) religious ones without any improvements for the lives of people there.

I read this morning that the US send a C-17 with MRE and (Warrior Aid and Litter Kits) to Syria. A dangerous first step... given that now both sides have raised hope or are more desperate.


Rwy in Sight

Lonewolf_50
3rd May 2013, 12:46
A US C-17, landing in Syria? I guess they are trolling for MANPADS ... :confused:

West Coast
3rd May 2013, 14:27
RWY in sight

Can you please post a link to the impending C-17 arrival in Syria? Thanks

rgbrock1
3rd May 2013, 14:31
Gents,

A US Air Force C-17 did indeed deliver supplies to the members of the "Free Syrian Army."

However, the aircraft landed at an undisclosed location "across Syria's northern border."

U.S. delivers first aid shipment to Free Syrian Army | The Cable (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/05/01/us_delivers_first_aid_shipment_to_free_syrian_army)

Lonewolf_50
3rd May 2013, 14:56
RG:
Looks a bit like Operation Provide Comfort, twenty years ago. Hlal MRE's, yummy. Are we sure we are making friends with that epicure foodstuff? :E

Counterpoint: picking sides in a civil war. How does that usually work out for us, I wonder? :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

rgbrock1
3rd May 2013, 15:04
I'm sure once the members of the "Free Syrian Army" taste their first MRE, they'll want nothing further to do with us!!!!!

Picking sides in a civil war is never a good idea. (Although it did result in a stalemate on the Korean peninsula after 1953 and that AFTER we kicked the North Koreans' asses all the way to the Yalu River!)

I.R.PIRATE
3rd May 2013, 15:20
Seen this movie before....


Can't we just leave them to their own devices instead of creating our next quicksand enemy.

Stand by for condemnation and headaches.

I would rather opt for: damned if you don't, on this one.

rgbrock1
3rd May 2013, 15:31
I.R.PIRATE:

I agree: leave them to their own devices and to killing each other. It's known that Al Qaeda is embedded with the "Free Syrian Army" so if the regular Syrian Army wishes to dispose of AQ, that's fine by me. :ok:

Rwy in Sight
3rd May 2013, 16:02
I was swimming in the sea when you place your request but it seems you did get your answer.

Shall we take a vote on who is in favour of an intervention on which side to support?

Rwy in Sight

brickhistory
3rd May 2013, 16:21
The U.S. should stay out of it.

Y'all decide what your countries should do.

Barry, however (and remember, he won the Nobel Peace Prize), boxed himself in by his famous "red line."

Not only did he place his prestige at risk, but he endangered the U.S. and the rest of the nations that repose under the U.S. nuclear umbrella. Of the two conditions, I believe he cares only about the first.

Deterrence only works if you, you know, deter.

I.R.PIRATE
3rd May 2013, 16:22
I vote for supporting no side, and having zero involvement.

Israel is big and ugly enough to take care of itself from what threats lie within the Syrian theater.

Lonewolf_50
3rd May 2013, 16:22
I will move to solidarity with my nautical accomplice here, Mr Pirate, and vote for "let 'em play" since anything we do there would work best if we made some smart deals with the Russians, who have an interest. As of this writing, I don't think Mr Putin is actually at the table.

500N
3rd May 2013, 16:25
I had to laugh tonight at one of our news . media commentators
wehn discussing the latest on Syria and possible US support
for the rebels.

He said the US is in a bit of a bind as to whether to support
the rebels as some of them are who they have been fighting in
other countries over the last few years and hate the US almost
as much as they hate the Syrian President !


Obama and his red line - hot air, he won't do much to support
them.

I.R.PIRATE
3rd May 2013, 16:28
One of the greatest lies being pedaled around the world (especially from the fluffies on the left) for the last year or two since the Arab spring kicked off, is that these 'rebels' are some sort of collective knight in shining armor for the poor oppressed masses.

Make no mistake, these are not good guys. Trust them at your own peril.

rgbrock1
3rd May 2013, 16:32
Lonewolf wrote:

there would work best if we made some smart deals with the Russians, who have an interest

Yes, the Russians does have an interest. A rather large one at that: the only naval port they have on the Mediterranean.

rgbrock1
3rd May 2013, 16:35
I.R.PIRATE:

Yes. The Syrian "rebels", from my limited understanding, are made up of Syrians, Chechens, Al Qaeda, Pakistanis, Saudis and - in a huge bit of irony - Libyans.

West Coast
3rd May 2013, 16:37
Rwy in sight

Thanks, I'll watch the next moves with trepidation.

I.R.PIRATE
3rd May 2013, 16:45
These so called rebels are, in my mind like a traveling carnival of violence and intolerance. They are a band of misfits that can't exist peacefully anywhere. Once this cirque-macabre ends in Syria, they will pack up their little games and move to the next stop. Their collective journey has been going on for many years already, and I would bet top dollar that all, if not most, are even veterans of battles with US forces in other locales.

500N
3rd May 2013, 16:47
"they will pack up their little games and move to the next stop."

Not if they keep doing things like this they won't.

And plenty more where this came from.


Kharbet Ghazaleh- Daraa violent clashes between FSA and SAA - YouTube

hellsbrink
4th May 2013, 03:16
I see there are reports out there that are saying Israel has carried out a raid to bomb a chemical weapons site/store in Syria.

This is on top of the raid they carried out in January to wipe out a convoy heading to Lebanon.




I wonder what the more extremist members of the FSA will be thinking regarding the infidel Zionists "helping" them by destroying the sort of weapon that they claim Assad has used on those who do not support the Government.... :hmm:

Milo Minderbinder
4th May 2013, 10:49
unfortunately when you bomb chemicals stores, the laws of unintended consequences come into play

unless you can guarantee total incineration of the target, you may well create the release you were attempting to prevent

hellsbrink
4th May 2013, 11:05
So true, Milo, and that's why reports are still sketchy about what the actual target was.

As I posted earlier, reports were that the target was a chemical weapons site but now that seems to have changed to another convoy taking various weapons to Hezbollah.

Now, I don't know about you, but I'm surprised that the Syrian regime hasn't tried to turn this latest raid to their advantage by claiming that women/children/cute fluffy lambs/kittens were killed in the raid and that there had been a leak of some sort of chem/bio weapon because of the irresponsible act of the Zionist regime. After all, how would anyone prove otherwise? But, no, we don't even have Syria admitting that it even happened, so what was actually in that targeted convoy that they don't want to admit to?

PukinDog
4th May 2013, 13:50
Milo Minderbinder
unless you can guarantee total incineration of the target, you may well create the release you were attempting to prevent

Exactly. Gotta go nuclear, it's the only way to be sure.

El Grifo
4th May 2013, 15:49
Exactly. Gotta go nuclear, it's the only way to be sure.

And they worrying thing is, this guy means it.

What´s worse there are a lot of them about. :ugh:

galaxy flyer
4th May 2013, 16:04
Peace is our Profession, Nuclear Holocaust is our Job.

ElG

Sometimes, the Big Boom would be useful to "learn 'em a lesson".

GF

Milo Minderbinder
4th May 2013, 16:10
"As I posted earlier, reports were that the target was a chemical weapons site but now that seems to have changed to another convoy taking various weapons to Hezbollah."

Then that sounds similar to the January raid, that was also confused. But the consensus appeared to be then that two simultaneous raids occured: one on a Hizbollah weapons convoy, one on a chemical target nearby.
One used as a disguise for the another.

El Grifo
4th May 2013, 16:11
You cannot be serious galaxy.

Either you are on a wind up mission or you are not thinking this through.

You are seriously putting forward that idea that the detonation of a thermonuclear device would help solve the issue ??


Naw, it must be a wind up mission.

No reports mentioning anything other than missile convoy around here Milo. any links would be welcome.

Milo Minderbinder
4th May 2013, 16:14
I think he means only a small one......

brickhistory
4th May 2013, 16:15
Hmm, who has nukes and shares a border with Syria?

Anyone think they wouldn't use 1-12 if Syria - either side - decided to spread the pain in an attempt to bring the Muslim Middle East together?

And if a chemical attack were launched outside of Syria, I would have no problem with whatever nation - but we all know only one would be the target - unleashing literal fire and brimstone in retaliation.

And there'd be a lot of teeth-sucking by the surviving neighbors for several generations.

El Grifo
4th May 2013, 16:20
straight shooting peice from a straight shooting guy.

Why Would Syria Use Chemical Weapons Now? (http://news.sky.com/story/1084370/why-would-syria-use-chemical-weapons-now)

On a recent news bulletin, it was reported the the original claim regarding the use of chemical weapons originated from Israel and now unsurprisingly it is they who appear to have taken out the storage site.

No surprises there then !

AtomKraft
4th May 2013, 17:19
It seems to be hotting up in the M.E. these days and for my own part I think it's long overdue.

Frankly, I find the peoples of that area to be bloody loathesome, all of them.

There's a lot of tension between these Countries. There's a lot of pent up hatred, resentment and loathing around too.

The folk themselves have a great capacity for common cruelty- usually (thankfully) directed at each other.

Their regimes are often rotten and despotic with dreadful records on human rights, womens rights and torture, cruelty, dreadful prisons and state sponsered murder everyday occurrences.

The alliances between certain M.E. countries and the US (and some others)are a bloody disgrace which ultimately help keep the heat turned on and the pressure high.

I say a pox on the lot of them. Lets keep well away and let the bastards fight it out amongst themselves.
They've been doing precisely that since time began.

In no way should we involve ourselves. It has precisely fcuk all to do with us.

Interflug
4th May 2013, 17:42
It's going according to plan. All the once relatively stable secular regimes in the Middle East are falling for unstable Islamic ones.
Great, means Israel fortifies it's justification for belligerent expansive policies, and our military industrial complex will have created a viable enemy. "Militant Islam". That enemy could be good for a few decades, it's a big one, the investments into the few usual Islamic mercenaries are minimal, the revenues in comparison will be stellar. :ok:
Russia is weakened too, China will have to worry about it's oil/energy supply as well.

It couldn't go better.

brickhistory
4th May 2013, 17:47
I wonder which armed helicopter assault force will reach a certain uncannily knowing and wise pprune poster first?

Illuminati?

Bilderberg?

US oligarchy?

Putin?

The suspects are numerous. I think we should be told.

con-pilot
4th May 2013, 18:07
China will have to worry about it's oil/energy supply as well.


Don't worry about China's oil/natural gas/energy supply, as they are not. Well at least not publicly anyway. China has huge oil and natural gas reserves, I know because the company I used to fly for, found many of the oil/natural gas fields in China.

That doesn't take into account of China's offshore reserves. I suspect that they want to use as much of everybody's oil and natural gas as they can before tapping into their reserves.

Interflug
4th May 2013, 19:13
Well, then even more reason to produce a major hostile force in China's backyard. It's a win-win for the US geostrategic goals. Trouble for China. Eternal war for our military industrial complex.

El Grifo
4th May 2013, 19:14
Arming the so-called mixed bunch of fighters called "The Freedom Fighters" seems like a slightly odd solution.

History tells us what happened when the Mujihadden were armed aginst the Russians in the 'Stan.

Toppling powerful "dictators" also has its problems.

Just look at the human disaster that Iraq has become and how worse it is getting by the month.

April has produced the worst figures since 2008.

.:Middle East Online::Sectarian violence generates highest death toll in Iraq since June 2008:. (http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=58490)

vulcanised
4th May 2013, 19:48
All this is seriously overhyped.

If there was a real problem out there, that nice Mr Blair would be out there sorting it out, wouldn't he? http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif

747 jock
4th May 2013, 22:53
If there was a real problem out there, that nice Mr Blair would be out there sorting it out, wouldn't he?

Only if there was money in it for him.

galaxy flyer
4th May 2013, 23:00
ElGrifo

A bit of a wind-up, a bit of the truth. After a very militaristic few decades starting several bloody wars, I don't see the Germans or the Japanese up for another round after their total loss in '45. War is a powerful teacher.

GF

Dushan
5th May 2013, 01:13
You are seriously putting forward that idea that the detonation of a thermonuclear device would help solve the issue ??


.

Worked the last time it was used.

PukinDog
5th May 2013, 13:50
El Grifo
And they worrying thing is, this guy means it.

What´s worse there are a lot of them about.

If you have a better way to guarantee the total incineration of the targeted stockpiles, I'm all ears.

It's not like it would be the end of the world if a couple small nukes went off. You shouldn't worry so much.

Interflug
5th May 2013, 13:55
Worked the last time it was used.
including the holocaust (literally) of half a million civilians. Way to go!!! :ok:

PukinDog
5th May 2013, 14:16
Interflug
Including the holocaust (literally) of half a million civilians. Way to go!!! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gifImperial Japan was essentially one, big military industrial complex, so nuking them was the right thing to do. If Germany would have only held out a little while longer, they could have gotten a righteous dose of plutonium or uranium as well since they had a large, powerful MIC too.

hellsbrink
5th May 2013, 14:25
Sorry, Interflug, but I'm calling malebovinefaeces on that claim of "half a million civilians".


Even the most basic search on the internet gives a death toll from both atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at slightly less than a FIFTH of your claim, a total number of casualties (deaths and injured) of less than half of your claim, and since the total population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was estimated at anything from 450,000 to 610,000, and not everyone in these two cities died, at the time of the two nukes it is clear you are talking out of your backside.

PukinDog
5th May 2013, 14:36
Sorry, Interflug, but I'm calling malebovinefaeces on that claim of "half a million civilians".

He's probably getting the number mixed up with how many Japanese and Allied lives were saved by bringing the war to an end. Easily, nuking them saved at least 500,000 to 1 million lives. Probably more.

fitliker
5th May 2013, 14:38
Close the borders and let them work out their differences.

Interflug
5th May 2013, 18:31
He's probably getting the number mixed up with how many Japanese and Allied lives were saved by bringing the war to an end. Easily, nuking them saved at least 500,000 to 1 million lives. Probably more.
That's what they have told you. But the truth is that Japanese surrender was possible without an invasion. It would have taken a few more days only.
The bombs were dropped for two reasons primarily: To show the Russians what we had, a demonstration of strength.
And to shorten the war, not to save lives, but to prevent Russian advancements in the Asian/Japanese theater.

Interflug
5th May 2013, 18:34
Even the most basic search on the internet gives a death toll from both atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki at slightly less than a FIFTH of your claim, a total number of casualties (deaths and injured) of less than half of your claim, and since the total population of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was estimated at anything from 450,000 to 610,000, and not everyone in these two cities died, at the time of the two nukes it is clear you are talking out of your backside.
well, 340,000 mostly civilian victims until 1950 from the two bombs. If that's so much better for you that you feel comfortable to insult me, fine...


"Altogether, the two bombings killed an estimated 110,000 Japanese citizens and injured another 130,000. By 1950, another 230,000 Japanese had died from injuries or radiation. Though the two cities were nominally military targets, the overwhelming majority of the casualties were civilian."
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings Remembered | Infoplease.com (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hiroshima1.html)

BenThere
5th May 2013, 19:03
Japan played the civilian attack card in China, the Philippines and elsewhere. Why should Japan's civilians have been protected when Japan mercilessly annihilated civilians with impunity?

In addition, Japanese society was militarized and mobilized completely, to the point where housewives and schoolchildren were trained to fight the coming invaders with sharpened broomsticks.

The documents of the time reveal Truman's conclusion to drop the bombs was overwhelmingly based on the desire to avoid an invasion, informed by the bloody resistance of Okinawa.

The bomb saved more Japanese than it killed, and more importantly to us, tens or even hundreds of thousands of GIs who had fought more than enough by August, 1945.

Further, the bomb induced a total, rather than negotiated surrender, making the task of rebuilding Japan into a modern constitutional society all the more plausible. To their credit, Japan became the paragon of pluralistic and peace-loving nations at the end of the war, abetted by MacArthur's imposed constitution.

PukinDog
5th May 2013, 19:04
Interflug
That's what they have told you. But the truth is that Japanese surrender was possible without an invasion. It would have taken a few more days only.
The bombs were dropped for two reasons primarily: To show the Russians what we had, a demonstration of strength.
And to shorten the war, not to save lives, but to prevent Russian advancements in the Asian/Japanese theater.That's just what they have told you. But the truth is the Japanese actually surrendered in December 1944, but the military industrial complex dictated that the war continue and the surrender was kept secret. When FDR began to balk, he was quickly dispatched by MIC operatives and Truman became president, not only prolonging the war but also annihalating 500,000 Japanes who were on the verge of having a huge change of heart about fighting to the death. Truman also baited the North Koreans at the behest of the military industrial complex since they needed another war, and it went exactly as planned.

con-pilot
5th May 2013, 19:12
That's what they have told you. But the truth is that Japanese surrender was possible without an invasion. It would have taken a few more days only.
The bombs were dropped for two reasons primarily: To show the Russians what we had, a demonstration of strength.
And to shorten the war, not to save lives, but to prevent Russian advancements in the Asian/Japanese theater.

Not only are you so wrong, it approaches comedy, you must have never heard a conspiracy theory that you have not believed.

I think that the Chemtrailers' website would be a much better place for you, as you'll find many more people that think like you and believe as you.

So go there, you'll like it. :ok:

500N
5th May 2013, 19:16
Just bringing this thread back onto Syria.

I read that the "red line" quote from Obama was an off the cuff
remark in response to a question from the media and included
"the movement or use of large quantities of chemical weapons".

His aides were shocked that he said it as they had spent two days
sending messages to syria via Russia and Iran and this was supposed
to be his public warning where it didn't tie the US to anything specific.

Of course everyone forgot about the large quantities bit and
just remembered the red line quote.

No wonder Obama uses a teleprompter.

BenThere
5th May 2013, 19:25
The thing you have to remember is that President Obama is able to say whatever is expedient. If it proves inconvenient it can be parsed, spun, or even denied and his press guardians will ratify the resultant worm-wriggling.

Most folks won't even notice.

PukinDog
5th May 2013, 19:35
Most folks won't even notice.

Well, Obama voters and Soros disciples certainly won't. You can tell them anything and they lap it up like good little doggies.

500N
5th May 2013, 19:37
BenThere

Tend to agree with that.

brickhistory
5th May 2013, 20:05
Most folks won't even notice.


But the ones that matter regarding nukes, biological, or chemical weapons will.

In this case, Syria.

Relevant onlookers include Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China.

Not to mention those counting on the US to keep its word - Japan, South Korea, et al.

BenThere
5th May 2013, 20:14
Any nation dependent on the US nuclear umbrella defending them should be nervous. The promised defense was credible under a Reagan or Bush. I'd hate to be relying on it now. President will weigh the political aspects of standing up for an Australia or Japan. He won't even think about commitments. That's for chumps.

Did you see Hillary banging on about Benghazi being the result of an obscure video? She could be the next president. God help us (and you).

500N
5th May 2013, 20:32
BenThere

At least most things in Japan can be flown out, not so in Australia :O
Nice big fat spy bases have other uses :ok:

Teldorserious
5th May 2013, 20:49
Doesn't matter, no independent verification of chemical weapons. The same guys that told you that Sadamm had chemical weapons are telling you that Syria used them.

That said, it looks like Russia is a cub and not a bear, allowing Israel to bomb a buddy. What a game, all show.

500N
5th May 2013, 20:59
Teld

Russia has never done anything when Israel bombed Syria.
Did you expect them to do more this time ?

con-pilot
5th May 2013, 21:03
The same guys that told you that Sadamm had chemical weapons are telling you that Syria used them.



Which would be the British and the French governments, in fact Obama ignored the proof of the British and French for quite a time because he hasn't a clue what to do.

Just in case you have not heard, Bush is not the President any more. :p

Interflug
5th May 2013, 21:31
Your little tin drum is rusty.

Not only are you so wrong, it approaches comedy, you must have never heard a conspiracy theory that you have not believed.

I think that the Chemtrailers' website would be a much better place for you, as you'll find many more people that think like you and believe as you.

So go there, you'll like it.

Hiroshima bomb may have carried hidden agenda - science-in-society - 21 July 2005 - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7706-hiroshima-bomb-may-have-carried-hidden-agenda.html)

"New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that Truman's main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims. Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he says.

According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was "looking for peace". Truman was told by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the bomb.

"Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan," says Selden. Truman was also worried that he would be accused of wasting money on the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bombs, if the bomb was not used, he adds."

Understanding the Decision to Drop the Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki | Center for Strategic and International Studies (http://csis.org/blog/understanding-decision-drop-bomb-hiroshima-and-nagasaki)

Atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima ? History.com This Day in History ? 8/6/1945 (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/atomic-bomb-dropped-on-hiroshima)

BenThere
5th May 2013, 22:05
"Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan,"

The problem with that thesis is that Russia was exhausted by the push on the Western front, had few assets to bear on Japan, and the Cold War had not yet started. To suggest Russia was any influence at all on the atomic bomb decision is pure revisionist mischief.

Okinawa shaped the decision. There was no sympathy for the Japanese in the un-PC America of 1945. In fact, watching the mushroom clouds was immensely popular in America, a nation seeking revenge, proud of it troops, and wanting the age of total war to end.

Those bombs ended it. The troops came home and it was finally all over. American good had triumphed over European and Asian evil, as we saw it at the time.

500N
5th May 2013, 22:14
BenThere

I agree.

Cacophonix
5th May 2013, 22:42
Verified that bullshit will trump sense in times of adversity.

Don't trust anybody and stay alive...

Caco

Cacophonix
5th May 2013, 22:44
American good had triumphed over European and Asian evil, as we saw it at the time.

You really are an idi...a simple man...

caco

BenThere
5th May 2013, 22:50
You really are...a simple man...


Huge compliment. Thanks, Caco.

Matari
5th May 2013, 23:06
Caco, why the reflexive anti-US nonsense?

I think even you (provided the bottle is securely locked away) would agree that the Americans were on the side of good, and the fascist Europeans and Japanese were on the side of evil.

Why is that simple fact so difficult for a Anglophile ex-South African to admit? Especially (under your thesis) one who has enjoyed the last sixty years of prosperity and freedom, while under the crushing yoke of the evil Yanks?

Cacophonix
5th May 2013, 23:10
Not anti US at all. Just suspicious of the hooha brigade that's all.

Once burned never less than suspicious.

Caco

Matari
5th May 2013, 23:13
Once burned never less than suspicious.

We once fought the Japanese to death, now we are best of friends. Yet you can't get over a bit of geo-political decision-making that didn't go your way? Sheesh, find some knickers that don't bunch up so easily.

Cacophonix
5th May 2013, 23:21
Sheesh, find some knickers that don't bunch up so easily.

My gusset is just fine. Matari you know where I am coming from though.

You have to ask yourself when the US ceased to be an arbiter of freedom and became just another bunch of guys with weapons, like the Russians and the Chinese?

Caco

BenThere
5th May 2013, 23:24
You have to ask yourself when the US ceased to be an arbiter of freedom and became just another bunch of guys with weapons, like the Russians and the Chinese?



Was it when we put Democrats in power?

Cacophonix
5th May 2013, 23:27
Was it when we put Democrats in power?

Ben, my question goes beyond politics. I know you are basically a good man. Look into your own heart and answer that simple question.

Caco

Matari
5th May 2013, 23:35
So you are terribly concerned about proliferation of arms? Well here are per capita arms sales in 2011: http://www.svenskafreds.se/sites/default/files/at-percapita2011-eng.pdf

I eagerly await the anti-Swiss and anti-Swedish threads, and your contribution thereto.

Cacophonix
5th May 2013, 23:38
I eagerly await the anti-Swiss and anti-Swedish threads, and your
contribution thereto.

I am not a simpleton and neither are you. Your argument is amusing but sophistic (and you know it)!

Caco

Lonewolf_50
5th May 2013, 23:49
Rumor that the Syrian IAD network took out an Israeli aircraft. No follow up, so it may just be media noise.

BenThere
6th May 2013, 00:03
The whole basis of my stance is that the US steps up to its role as guarantor of world order only under conservative government, which is not there now.

The rest of the world seems to have wanted left wing US rule, and now they've had it since 2008, (2006 really, as that is when congress swung Democrat).

We are withdrawing from our role as superpower, ensuring freedom of the seas, bulwark of IMF, UN, et al. China can do that now. We can't, as we are broke and our challenge becomes avoiding collapse as opposed to our previous role as saviour of the world.

The mantle will only be picked up again under Republican rule, which the world doesn't seem to want, or the majority of Americans.

Be thankful that your life was lived largely under the American umbrella. I don't think the next 60 years will be as pretty.

500N
6th May 2013, 00:07
"The rest of the world seems to have wanted left wing US rule,"

Only the other soft lefty socialists do gooders wanted the US to go left,
not everybody.

Cacophonix
6th May 2013, 00:10
The American umbrella

What a patina of shit...


America has given me nothing... and I don't expect anything from there except some friendship from brothers that goes well beyond this silly little thread...

Caco

BenThere
6th May 2013, 00:11
I lament it, too, 500. But it is what it is.

500N
6th May 2013, 00:19
BenThere

Between the UN, EU, Australia's socialist bunch of idiots in Gov't
and lastly the US Gov't, I really do think that the time has come
that the meek will inherit the earth.

What ever happened to natural selection, Darwin's theory of evolution,
the strong grow old and numerous others ?????

Seems every two bit no good person gets all the breaks and the hard
workers get squashed.

BenThere
6th May 2013, 00:20
The American umbrella

What a patina of shit...


You didn't even realize you were under it, did you?

So what did we get from you to help pay for the umbrella? Besides criticizm.

Cacophonix
6th May 2013, 00:25
So what did we get from you to help pay for the umbrella? Besides ...

Come to SA. Say that and be prepared to be pissed on.

Caco

500N
6th May 2013, 00:27
BenThere

"So what did we get from you to help pay for the umbrella? Besides criticizm."

1. The UK provided it's part of the Umbrella
2. The UK provided bases for the US to launch from
3. The UK paid for it's equipment (planes, ships, bombs)
as part of the umbrella.

And yet at the UK's time of need - the Falklands - the US were wobbly
at the knees and wishy washy as to where they stood - as they are now.

I am sure that the US would not like it's allies to be "wobbly
at the knees and wishy washy" when the time came to stand
up in the future, or if they had been called on to stand up
in the past.

IMHO, the US has been far more wobbly at the knees in support
of it's allies post WWII than the UK and other countries.


And don't accuse me of Yank bashing, I am normally very Pro US
but one thing that does get up my nose is the "we are better than
everyone else, we know better, we have paid for everything so...."
attitude yet don't always acknowledge they have fcuked up :O
(on all those points I think that in the last 10 years things have
change a bit :ok:).

CityofFlight
6th May 2013, 00:34
Caco... I'm getting sick and tired of reading your misplaced anger.

The bigger question is what have YOU done for SA or any other country, besides pay taxes?

Cacophonix
6th May 2013, 00:39
The bigger question is what have YOU done for SA or any other country, besides pay taxes?

The presumption of knowledge and the arch stupidity of your question makes you unworthy of consideration.

You don't know me or where I come from or what I am. Let it stay there.


Caco

BenThere
6th May 2013, 00:45
Point taken. As re the Falklands though, the US tried to mediate with Galtieri, but when the shooting started we came down solidly on the UK side. I participated personally so I know it is so.

Also I'd like to make the point that US use of UK bases was in at least as much in the interest of UK as it was in the interest of US. Had Europe and the UK locked US out the Cold War would not have turned out the way it did. Don't think of it as a gift you gave to us, but as a gift we gave to you.

The other thing is that US is withdrawing from its previously presumed responsibility. You don't have to ally with us anymore. We're becoming just as clueless as you. Ally with China if you have any sense.

CityofFlight
6th May 2013, 00:47
Caco


...If that isn't a load a crock, I don't know what is. :rolleyes:
:D:D:D:D

brickhistory
6th May 2013, 00:49
I am not a simpleton and neither are you.


You don't give yourself nearly enough credit.

Matari
6th May 2013, 00:50
Come to SA. Say that and be prepared to be pissed on.

Unimaginable in my experience. South Africans are generally some of the warmest, most hospitable people I've met. Very few of them are locked in some perpetual, alcohol-fueled rage against the US for a complex geo-political event long ago on the hills overlooking Luanda.

Cacophonix
6th May 2013, 00:51
City

Tell me more! :p

Caco

Cacophonix
6th May 2013, 00:53
You don't give yourself nearly enough credit.

Ooh, they are all out and (wonders will never cease) being ironic! :rolleyes:

Caco

Matari
6th May 2013, 00:58
Ironically, you don't know the definition of ironic. That was sarcasm.

Matari
6th May 2013, 02:28
Pleasant dreams, Caco.

I will leave you with words to ponder from Winston Churchill, more than 50 years ago. Even a simpleton can understand the dilemmas we all face.

The Middle East is one of the hardest-hearted areas in the world. It has always been fought over, and peace has only reigned when a major power has established firm influence and shown that it will maintain its will. Your friends must be supported with every vigour and if necessary they must be avenged. Force, or perhaps force and bribery, are the only things that will be respected. It is very sad, but we had all better recognize it. At present our friendship is not valued, and our enmity is not feared.

hellsbrink
6th May 2013, 04:23
well, 340,000 mostly civilian victims until 1950 from the two bombs. If that's so much better for you that you feel comfortable to insult me, fine...


"Altogether, the two bombings killed an estimated 110,000 Japanese citizens and injured another 130,000. By 1950, another 230,000 Japanese had died from injuries or radiation. Though the two cities were nominally military targets, the overwhelming majority of the casualties were civilian."
The Hiroshima and Nagasaki Bombings Remembered | Infoplease.com

Any deaths after the initial period after the blasts cannot be certified as being linked to the bombs, so there is issue number one for you.

And, again, you are claiming that over 50% of the population of the two cities died as a result of the two atomic bombs, which is is a figure just pulled out of people's asses as the death rate in the two areas after the initial carnage from the bombs soon settled down to what was the "average" for the time in Japan. In other words, you cannot lump in every death in Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the events of 1945 as if they were caused by the effects of Fat Man and Little Boy.

And even your "revised" figure falls short of your initial claim of "half a million CIVILIANS", which was clearly nonsense as there would not have been 500,000 CIVILIANS in the region due to many in Hiroshima being part of the various army divisions based there. So, again, your claims, even the revised number, is absolute nonsense and I see no reason to treat it as anything else.

Oh, I wasn't insulting you. It was a statement of fact. And that has been backed up by you admitting you were talking out of your backside with your "half a million civilians" claim.

Have a nice day.

Interflug
6th May 2013, 06:46
Hellsbrink, so you are saying that killing 100,000 civilians for a little demonstration of strength to the Russkies would be fine with you and that because it is not easy to count the victims of the blasts that died years later to injuries and radiation they did not exist in the first place. Correct?

Interflug
6th May 2013, 06:52
@ 500N:
What ever happened to natural selection, Darwin's theory of evolution,
the strong grow old and numerous others ?????
Have you had a look at the US population lately? Are you familiar with the term "decadence"?
We go down brother in evolution, check out a book about "strong" Sparta's destiny while the deck chairs of the Titanic are rearranged for you.

500N
6th May 2013, 07:04
Interflug

Don't need to, I have been watching the DVD Series "The Wire".

And from all the reviews, it gives a pretty good account of life
in Baltimore and of course that can be spread across other parts
of the US.

500N
6th May 2013, 07:20
Wet

I would say yes, or have to suffer a huge number of casualties
if the US had had to invade all the islands.

They killed just as many Japs, just different one's and
limited the number of US deaths.

Jesus, Japan started it all.

Interflug
6th May 2013, 08:18
I would say yes, or have to suffer a huge number of casualties
if the US had had to invade all the islands.

They killed just as many Japs, just different one's and
limited the number of US deaths.
Again that's only half of the truth. The "the bombs saved a million American lives" story is just a distorted revisionist half truth version of history and oversimplification, not to say a lie.
Invasion was not necessary either way. The Japanese had already signaled their willingness to surrender through diplomatic channels. The bombs were dropped as well as the first act of the cold war, to impress Stalin. Also for limiting Russian advances - The Soviets had just entered Manchuria province and were about to gain territory and influence in the Pacific theater (Stalin had entered the war there officially on August 8th!!!)
And also for justifying the huge expense of project "Manhattan" domestically on the home front.

Read the memories of several eye witnesses at the Potsdam conference, how Truman told Stalin about the new bomb and how Stalin reacted.

hellsbrink
6th May 2013, 10:13
Hellsbrink, so you are saying that killing 100,000 civilians for a little demonstration of strength to the Russkies would be fine with you and that because it is not easy to count the victims of the blasts that died years later to injuries and radiation they did not exist in the first place. Correct?

No. If you actually read what I posted you would see I was saying you were talking nonsense regarding the number YOU said was "fact".

Your goalpost moving and attempt to put words in my mouth to try and make you look as if you didn't make a rather large mistake does not change that.

Ronald Reagan
6th May 2013, 10:59
UN accuses Syrian rebels of chemical weapons use - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10039672/UN-accuses-Syrian-rebels-of-chemical-weapons-use.html)

7x7
6th May 2013, 11:18
This is not the first time I've said this here, but if the Obama Administration supports the rebel forces in Syria and they topple the Assad regime, the West will rue the day. As bad as Assad may be, after he's gone, he will look like a tame pussy cat when compared with those who will replace him.

Ronald Reagan
6th May 2013, 11:19
As for Japan, anything that helped save American and other allied lives had to be done. To many innocent people died at the hands of Imperial Japan and often in a terrible way. My Great Uncle was killed during the fall of Singapore, we think in combat but we will never know for sure.
When one thinks of Japan pre 1945 and also much of the tension in the region today one needs to think of the following. I urge you to read the links:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banka_Island_massacre
At mid-morning the ship’s officer returned with about twenty Japanese soldiers. They ordered all the wounded men capable of walking to travel around a headland. The nurses heard a quick succession of shots before the Japanese soldiers came back, sat down in front of the women and cleaned their bayonets and rifles.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banka_Island_massacre#cite_note-Klemen-1) A Japanese officer ordered the remaining twenty two nurses and one civilian woman to walk into the surf.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banka_Island_massacre#cite_note-Klemen-1) A machine gun was set up on the beach and when the women were waist deep, they were machine-gunned. All but Sister Lt Vivian Bullwinkel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivian_Bullwinkel) were killed.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banka_Island_massacre#cite_note-Klemen-1)
Shot in the diaphragm, Bullwinkel was unconscious when she washed up on the beach and was left for dead. She evaded capture for ten days, but was eventually caught and imprisoned. She survived the war and gave evidence of the massacre at a war crimes trial in Tokyo in 1947.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banka_Island_massacre#cite_note-2)
To kill nurses in this way, its unspeakable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wake_Island#War_crimes
Rear Admiral Shigematsu Sakaibara (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shigematsu_Sakaibara) ordered the execution of the 98 captured American civilian workers remaining on the island, kept to perform forced labor. They were taken to the northern end of the island, blindfolded and executed with a machine gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parit_Sulong_Massacre
The wounded prisoners of war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war) were kicked and beaten with rifle butts by the Imperial Guards. At least some were tied up with wire in the middle of the road, machine-gunned, had petrol (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrol) poured over them, were set alight and (in the words of Russell Braddon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Braddon)) were "after their incineration — [were] systematically run over, back and forwards, by Japanese driven trucks."[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parit_Sulong_Massacre#cite_note-1) Anecdotal accounts by local people also reported POWs being tied together with wire and forced to stand on a bridge, before a Japanese soldier shot one, causing the rest to fall into the Simpang Kiri river and drown.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palawan#The_Palawan_Massacre
During World War II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), in order to prevent the rescue of prisoners of war (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war) by the advancing allies, on 14 December 1944, units of the Japanese Fourteenth Area Army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Fourteenth_Area_Army) (under the command of General Tomoyuki Yamashita (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomoyuki_Yamashita)) herded the remaining 150 prisoners of war at Puerto Princesa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Princesa) into three covered trenches which were then set on fire using barrels of gasoline. Prisoners who tried to escape the flames were shot down.[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palawan#cite_note-9) Others attempted to escape by climbing over a cliff that ran along one side of the trenches, but were later hunted down and killed. Only 11 men escaped the slaughter and between 133 and 141 were killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre
No wonder there is still much tension between China and Japan!!!
Especially when one hears things like this from the Japanese Prime Minister:-
Japan PM dismisses WWII war crimes trials as 'victors' justice' - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/9930041/Japan-PM-dismisses-WWII-war-crimes-trials-as-victors-justice.html)

Interflug
6th May 2013, 11:45
re "Imperial Japan": the misdeeds of one side are no justification for own misdeeds. The barbaric tribal "an eye for an eye" is not what the enlightened part of mankind should aspire to.
Based on your logic, millions of Germans should have been gassed rightfully after their surrender.

You can't justify one (war) crime with another.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
6th May 2013, 12:04
The end of WWII was not certain until it happened, either in Europe or the Pacific. Even if there had been a ceasefire instead of the Allied fire- / atomic bombings, the Germans/Japanese would have carried on their atrocities.

Advocating such bombings does not imply eye-for-an-eye.

The Geneva Conventions I-III were founded on the assumption that all signatories would very largely abide by them, and that parties were no longer bound by them when their opponents did not follow them (whether the opponents had ratified the treaty or not). Japan signed up to but did not ratify GCIII on the treatment of POWs. Thus any maltreatment of POWs by the Allies in WWII was not a war crime. Furthermore, area bombing by aircraft was never the subject of an international treaty before WWII. Whatever you may think of the bombings morally, they were not legally a war crime.

Load Toad
6th May 2013, 12:12
John McCaine has been whining to arm the FSA and impose no fly zones, send in drones, cruise missiles - transpires that the rebels are using the sarin - so what now Mr. McCaine - who do we arm & support now...?

Interflug
6th May 2013, 12:21
Fox3, you make good points. But I'm not arguing if those were war crimes or not. I'm arguing the one dimensional simplistic propaganda version of history, that the bombs were dropped only to prevent loss of US lives due to an invasion.
In hindsight today we (can) know better, that there were several factors at play for making the decision to drop the bombs on Japanese towns at that point in the war. Several of those I have mentioned above.

Your opinion, that if the other side brakes international law, you are allowed to brake it as well, is simply wrong.

Ronald Reagan
6th May 2013, 12:34
Interflug, I do feel somewhat for Japanese civilians killed or injured by the A-bombs but if they saved even one American life in terms of not having to invade the home islands then it was worth it. Enough allies and civilians had died in that war. As I grew up there were still a few former British POWs left alive who had been in the hands of the Japanese, what they went through, the things they saw were simply beyond words.

BenThere
6th May 2013, 12:44
The overriding point, though, is that once Geneva is violated by a signatory, the pertaining protections are lost and the violator's adversary is not bound. Just as when belligerents deploy missiles in a school or hospital, those facilities are no longer off limits to targeting.

Further, there was no international law, inside or outside Geneva, prohibiting the atomic attack on Japan.

The moral argument doesn't wash either. Why is moral equivalence only used against the US or West by the left? So you raped my mother, kidnapped my daughter and destroyed my life. But if I track down and shoot you I'm no better than you are? BULL.

jamesdevice
6th May 2013, 13:04
I believe I'm correct in saying the Japanese weren't signatories to the Geneva Conventions anyway, so no protection for them there.

Interflug
6th May 2013, 13:10
That's not bull. That's why the founding fathers intended to start something that is better than the barbarism of "an eye for an eye" you prescribe to, and created the rule of law and "due process".

If the lowest criminal element is allowed to be the common moral denominator, then the result is a downward spiral toward barbarism.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
6th May 2013, 13:19
Your opinion, that if the other side brakes international law, you are allowed to brake it as well, is simply wrong.

It's not my opinion. It is what GCIII stated.

Members of Al Qaeda do not count as protected persons under GCIV, and are thus need only be treated by signatory states under the Martens Clause (additional protocols, 1977)
Recalling that, in cases not covered by the law in force, the human person remains under the protection of the principles of humanity and the dictates of the public conscience
There has been no formal definition of what this means. Presumably the public conscience in a democratic state is represented by the elected government. Therefore, if a democratic government were to decide it was reasonable to castrate all members of Al Qaeda (to pick a polemic example), it would be OK under international law, especially if said government got re-elected after the decision.

..and it's breaks, not "brakes".

Interflug
6th May 2013, 13:28
"Public conscience and principles of humanity" certainly means being annihilated by a nuclear blast or rotting for ever without lawful trial in Guantanamo?

The application of the Al Qaeda clause is something the US has made up out of thin air.

Al Qaeda fighters/terrorists are simply criminals. That's it.

But that would not allow the MIC to rage global "war on terrorism". So they had to be a little "creative".
:}

Too bad no enemy acting for a national entity was available and willing at the time to play the "perpetual war for profit" game.

War Is A Racket, by Major General Smedley Butler, 1935 (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html)

Fox3WheresMyBanana
6th May 2013, 13:44
Interflug, you clearly have strong views on what is moral in war and what isn't. I'm not taking issue with those views, but just the legal statements. There was nothing prohibiting the atomic bombings under International Law at the time.

Calling the US administration's treatment of Al Qaeda members 'creative' and accusing them making up policy 'out of thin air' does not mean it's illegal. Their actions have not been ruled illegal in any international court. All cases of decisions where there is no legal precedent, like road laws for segways, can be accused of being conjured up 'out of thin air'.

rgbrock1
6th May 2013, 13:47
Fox3 wrote:

Interflug, you clearly have strong views on what is moral in war and what isn't

There are indeed morals and ethics in "fighting the good fight", yes indeed. Any fighting man, or woman, worth his salt knows that.

Interflug
6th May 2013, 14:24
Calling the US administration's treatment of Al Qaeda members 'creative' and accusing them making up policy 'out of thin air' does not mean it's illegal. Their actions have not been ruled illegal in any international court.
Fox, their actions are illegal. International law knows only two categories, combatants and civilians. "Unlawful combatants" does not exist. It's a fantasy terminology, invented by the US war mongers after 9/11, to justify the "War on terrorism" with full military means.

Terrorists are civilians and in that capacity they are criminals. Which defines how they have to be dealt with. With means of civil law and law enforcement. Not with military means.

That no international court has a ruling in that matter is simply due to the fact that no international court is accepted and ratified by the US. And where there is no court, there is no judicial ruling.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
6th May 2013, 14:53
</title> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/xsp/.ibmxspres/.mini/css/@Da&@Ib&2Tfxsp.css&2TfxspLTR.css.css"> <script type="text/javascript" src="/xsp/.ibmxspres/dojoroot-1.6.1/dojo/dojo.js" djConfig="locale: 'fr-ch'"></script> <script type= (http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=AE2D398352C5B028C12563CD002D6B5C&action=openDocument)

The above is the text of the Geneva Conventions, with commentaries by the Red Cross.

Whilst protected persons to whom the Conventions apply have 3 categories (civilian, combatant, armed forces medical personnel) (Article 4), it is quite clear under Article 2 that signatory states are not bound to observe the Convention in a conflict against an armed group that does not in practice accept the Convention after a reasonable length of time. That applies to Al Qaeda.

So, like it or not, the US can do whatever it likes under its own domestic laws with 'unlawful combatants'. Note the term 'unlawful combatants' does not appear in the treaties or conventions, which is a source of some confusion.

Lonewolf_50
6th May 2013, 15:01
Fox 3, you aren't dealing with someone who actually knows what he's talking about. As noted, he has strong feelings, not strong background in the topic.

In other news, Reuters report is that UN investigation appears to find that the most likely user of the sarin recently was one of the rebel forces, not sure which, but the investigators admit that their evidence isn't incontrovertible proof.

In other words, someone did, not sure whom.

7 x 7 had a good point: is it really impossible to deal with Assad?

rgbrock1
6th May 2013, 15:03
IF it turns out that it was indeed the rebels who used Sarin, start looking for an AQ connection.

Wasn't it a few years back that an AQ video showed the results of their handiwork, using Sarin, on some animals?

Interflug
6th May 2013, 15:14
So, like it or not, the US can do whatever it likes under its own domestic laws with 'unlawful combatants'.
The US can do so under it's own domestic laws domestically. Last time I checked, Afghanistan or Iraq are not exactly US territories. Neither are all the countries where the torture etc. was executed in the name of the US.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
6th May 2013, 15:21
LW50 - you may be right about Interflug, but it's a common misconception so I thought I'd try to clear it up. Let's give Interflug time to read the Conventions

No state has ever been under any obligation to intervene in the internal affairs of another. You pays yer money and makes yer choice. Leave it alone and it may become a threat. Put in a puppet and it may get far worse in time. Allow the citizens to choose and you may get even worse ("..a fate worse than a fate worse than death - that's pretty bad!").
There's always another Pol Pot in the wings.

Edit: Interflug. That's with those detained. It can do what it likes in the prosecution of the war on terror overseas, as long as the country where the actions take place doesn't object. In some cases, Afghanistan has objected officially to certain practices (So has the UK re renditions) and they have been stopped.

hellsbrink
6th May 2013, 16:17
Wasn't it a few years back that an AQ video showed the results of their handiwork, using Sarin, on some animals?

Thought that one was them playing with Ricin, although there was a report back in 2001 saying that something like 300 vials of Russian-made Sarin was found at an Al-Q camp in Afghanistan...

Lonewolf_50
6th May 2013, 16:42
A senior State Department official said Monday there is no indication that rebels fighting the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad have “the ability or the intent” to use chemical weapons. (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/06/18084859-us-official-syrian-rebels-lack-ability-or-intent-to-use-chemical-weapons?lite)

Said senior State Department official is a freaking moron. Where do we find these idiots?

First off, when you can measure "intent" you'll be the first. Secondly, the capability is dependent only upon getting one's hands on the stuff. Thirdly, the Syrian "rebels" are not a single organization, but a varying collection of those in opposition to Assad, which includes some extremists who'll pull most anything to win. Some would not want to mess with sarin, others might. American capacity for mind reading in the Mid East hasn't been too good for the past decade or so, why would anyone think it has improved recently? :ugh:

Dear State Department Moron:

Shut up, and go back to your never ending tea party.

Methinks the problem at Foggy Bottom is that it is run by idiots.

With no respect
Lonewolf_50

Sorry for the rant, but that's not the first time I've felt that way about our "esteemed colleagues" over in State. :mad:

Interflug
6th May 2013, 16:49
It can do what it likes in the prosecution of the war on terror overseas, as long as the country where the actions take place doesn't object.
Well, sure, as long as the country doesn't object. That's for jurisdiction outside of international law. As far as international law is concerned, objection or agreement of third parties becomes irrelevant, as long as the nations involved have ratified the respective laws.

You can also have sex with my wife. As long as I don't object of course.

hellsbrink
6th May 2013, 16:58
Wouldn't have the "intent" to let loose some chemical or biological weapons?

Let's see, there was all the stushie kicked off when various "high-ranking" people in assorted countries, people like Obama, Hague, etc, all said that using such weapons would be "crossing a red line".

Now, if you want to get the "West" involved like they were in Libya, wouldn't letting a small amount of, say, sarin loose in the right area to make it look like Assad's people had used something like, say, sarin be an attractive idea?


Either way, someone has blown a massive hole in their foot irrespective of which side allegedly deployed sarin. If it was the rebels, then they will find themselves with a few problems as I would expect many of the backers to stop backing them and, of course, there will be considerably less sympathy towards them as it will also bring into question the possibility of some other "atrocities" being carried out by the rebels and not Assad's people. It's the sort of thing I would expect to lead to some serious infighting as the ones who would not do such a thing try to annihilate those who have, and that will play directly into Assad's hands. I would say that the term "bloodbath" may hold a new meaning if the rebels do fall apart and turn on each other before Assad's people mop up what will be left.

This is going to get messier.......

El Grifo
6th May 2013, 17:13
The unasked question is what is the gameplan for after the mish-mash of freedom-fighters, rebels, terrorists, Al Qaeda topple Assad,as seems to be the great hope of the Western Governments.

Is there a gameplan, is there some sort of pre worked out situation or are we to expect the rapid tumble into chaos, similar to Iraq and the like and the rise of some sort of rogue state.

Is there a government in waiting somwhere ready in the wings somwhere ?

I never hear anyone anywhere ever discussing that situation .

El G.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
6th May 2013, 17:19
Do you know, my son, with what little understanding the world is ruled?


Pope Julius III

hellsbrink
6th May 2013, 17:26
The "gameplan" is to HOPE that the "good guys" rise from the inevitable chaos that will follow IF Assad is toppled and that there won't be a new type of Taliban in power like what happened in Afghanistan after the civil war after the Soviets left. There is no "government in waiting", if Assad is toppled there will probably be some serious infighting between the different rebel groups as each vie for the absolute power they want to have.

There is no other "plan", everyone can only stand back and hope it turns out the way we want it and not some hardline Islamist state which would destabilise the region further.

rgbrock1
6th May 2013, 17:31
hellsbrink wrote:

... not some hardline Islamist state which would destabilise the region further.

And possibly gain control of a pretty good-sized arsenal of chemical weapons.

El Grifo
6th May 2013, 17:34
That appears to be a very feeble hope indeed.

If that is actually the aspiration of those hoping for the demise of the Assad regime, then a quick glance backwards into history might tell them otherwise !

rgbrock1
6th May 2013, 17:39
El Grifo:

History has a way of ALWAYS repeating itself. For those who learn from it, and its patterns, so much the better.

For those who choose to ignore the lessons, and patterns, of history: do so at your own risk.

BenThere
6th May 2013, 17:40
I'm not so sure the descent of Islamic nations into anarchy is necessarily bad.

Terrorists lose state support as there is no longer a state.

In-fighting for power inevitably ensues, meaning our enemies are focused on fighting our enemies.

We retain the capability to crush any hostile power that emerges.

We can't send aid we can no longer afford to nations with no address.

Libya, Egypt, and soon, Syria - all failed states. I'm happy to let them all flounder, flail, and fail. That the US sent Egypt a squadron of free F-16s astounds and angers me.