Jump to content

Syria


Casper
 Share

US Military Action in Syria  

39 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the US military strike Syria?

    • Yes
      1
    • No
      38


Recommended Posts

Consider the source but......

 

« Breaking News »A Chinese landing craft with 1,000 marines for Syria – reports
DEBKAfile September 6, 2013, 12:31 PM (GMT+02:00)

Western naval sources reported Friday that a Chinese landing craft, the Jinggangshan, with a 1,000-strong marine battalion had reached the Red Sea en route for the Mediterranean off Syria.  According to DEBKAfile, Beijing has already deployed a number of warships opposite Syria in secret. If the latest report is confirmed, this will be the largest Chinese deployment in the Middle East in its naval history.

 


Not the most reliable source but interesting if true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we could stick Magz in a cannon, shoot him across the ocean, let him start talking his earth-shattering logic and watch all the baddies just shoot themselves in the face.

 

I have just solved this conflict without spending a bunch of money. Sure, the cannon will cost some coin, as will the gun powder, but I truly believe this is a plan we can all get behind.. united, indivisible and all that other happy horseshit.

I'm in...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect to destroying chemical weapons......burn 'em with fire.  

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/06/destroying-syrian-chemical-stockpiles-won-t-be-easy-may-kill-civilians.html

 

"The care America takes in eliminating its own chemical weapons reflects how dangerous the process is, even when it’s done in a safe and controlled environment. Since 1986, the protocol has been to incinerate the agent at temperatures above 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit or to neutralize it using hot water and a caustic compound. After the destructive phase, the next step involves extensive monitoring and testing of air, water, and soil to ensure no residual release."

 

"Thermobaric explosive weapons, like the BLU-119/B “CrashPad” are another option. Thermobaric explosives, essentially the most powerful non-nuclear devices in the U.S. arsenal, work by sucking in all the oxygen in the blast radius and using it to fuel an intense, high-velocity explosion reaching over 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit. In theory, such devices have the potential to suck in and incinerate chemical agents, however, no conclusive testing of such devices on live chemical agents has yet been conducted."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm betting any chemical caches in Syria have been moved into some dense residential areas by now.  Don't think the House is going to ok it either.  I heard on the news that some Representatives were saying they were getting phone calls at a 95% rate against attacking.  Odds are at 3-1 that the House tells Barry no.

 

I called Brown, Stivers and Boehner and told them not to attack and to repeal Obamacare, which has to be done by Oct 1 or its a done deal.

Edited by ohiomike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the syrian government killed syrian civilians with chemical weapons, then we have an obligation to respond to such a war crime...

 

Care to explain why "we" have the obligation to do this? The rest of the world honestly does not seem to care, so why should we? Russia is moving a powerful fleet into that area, this is not a good situation. Many people throughout history have been born into a very bad situation, nothing we can do to stop that or keep it from happening. A limited airstrike in Peal Harbor changed the course of history, and we all know what transpired from that. The whole "world ending" prediction from the Mayans has not happened yet, sure hope this isn't it. We need to step back and walk away this time, we are dancing with the Devil big time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of the vets I talk to, the ones who always come back with, 'turn the middle east to glass', or  'turn it into a parking lot', are saying we need to back off.  Guess its true, you need to know 'when to hold them and when to fold them'.

 

I remember the cuban missle crisis.  I was just a kid, but we started having these tests at school, the disaster horn would go off and we would go to a designated place, on the floor on our knees, hands over our heads.....as if that would help....lol........you could feel it in the air....fear.....people were scared shitless.  It was everywhere, adults talking about it everywhere, bomb shelters being built.  Good thing we had a Pres. and SOS that had a grip on reality and could think under pressure.  Years later we learned just how close we really were to World War.  Obama is not one of those kids of people evidently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the syrian government killed syrian civilians with chemical weapons, then we have an obligation to respond to such a war crime...

 

For someone who's such a stickler for facts, you certainly dropped the ball on this one.  If there's actionable, direct evidence that the Syrian state knowingly and willfully used chemical weapons on its people, that's a war crime that the UNSC has an obligation to respond to, both militarily (directly or through an intermediary via a Security Council resolution) and/or judicially by handing the case over to the ICC for prosecution.  For fuck's sake, it was the entire reason why the UN took over for the defunct League of Nations after WWII. 

 

Sans a Security Council resolution asking for direct military involvement from member states, at no point is it America's legal, ethical, or one could argue moral obligation to take unilateral action, and that goes double for taking action without objective, third-party verified evidence to at least half-assedly justify taking that unilateral action.  The UN inspection team (that everyone asked for, at least initially) to be that third-party verifier AREN'T EVEN FUCKING DONE, and won't be until AT LEAST THE END OF THE MONTH.  There's no goddamn reason for the rush, other than saving Obama's credibility in the international community and his dick-waving with Putin.

 

I'm starting to come around to the idea that he's engineering this vote to fail so he has a public escape route.  Either way, brinksmanship isn't the way to handle this.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What obligation? I have no obligation whatsoever to choose a career in government service. The private sector was a better fit for me and my life.

It allowed me to spend time helping to raise my nieces and nephew... (a much higher priority IMO than a "war" against an "idea")

 

If you think signing up makes you a better person, so be it... I don't agree with your assesment, but that's what's cool about this, we don't have to agree.

 

If you had real responsibilities at home that you ducked by going off to the service, that doesn't make you a better person IMO...that makes you bad at prioritizing.

 

 

My family member serving is just the example I was giving of what some people who currently have their own ass on the line think about the current situation... That is all.

 

:nono:

 

Please stop talking about the military, as if you have some sort of clue.  Just stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect to destroying chemical weapons......burn 'em with fire.  

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/06/destroying-syrian-chemical-stockpiles-won-t-be-easy-may-kill-civilians.html

 

"The care America takes in eliminating its own chemical weapons reflects how dangerous the process is, even when it’s done in a safe and controlled environment. Since 1986, the protocol has been to incinerate the agent at temperatures above 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit or to neutralize it using hot water and a caustic compound. After the destructive phase, the next step involves extensive monitoring and testing of air, water, and soil to ensure no residual release."

 

"Thermobaric explosive weapons, like the BLU-119/B “CrashPad” are another option. Thermobaric explosives, essentially the most powerful non-nuclear devices in the U.S. arsenal, work by sucking in all the oxygen in the blast radius and using it to fuel an intense, high-velocity explosion reaching over 4,000 degrees Fahrenheit. In theory, such devices have the potential to suck in and incinerate chemical agents, however, no conclusive testing of such devices on live chemical agents has yet been conducted."

 

I'm no munitions expert (paging ReconRat... :) ) but I'd think that using a large-scale thermobaric weapon such as this would be as much of a surgical strike as me trying to perform an appendectomy with a 20# sledgehammer.  Plus, you're still exploding things out and around, so what happens if the weapons are spread out beyond the destructive heat radius but enough within the pressure wave to cause disbursement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it's mostly a sledgehammer. But there are many different types now. Some are very specialized. The Russians have them as small as rocket propelled grenades, with a blast of only 30 meters diameter.

 

Most are meant for an enclosure, be it an entire valley in Viet Nam, or something man made like a tunnel, building or bunker.

 

If the Syrian Army moved them to a safe site like a bunker, it's pretty much a toast job. If you can find it, and if it isn't a fake.

 

But overall it's not an issue. The dangers of a goof up are so high that generally the chemical weapons wouldn't be targeted. Instead the trucks, tanks, artillery and launchers would be targeted. Along with any personnel trained in the use of, and other tactical targets like communications, command and control (C3). Ranking officers get real squeamish when they realize that they are considered targets. Runways, radar and electronic warning systems often get whacked first.

 

Don't forget that most of this stuff is binary mix weapons. It's inert till mixed and used. And in the case of sarin, once mixed it has a very short shelf life.

 

edit: btw, people don't realize just how serious the Cuban Missile Crisis actually was. It scared the crap out of a lot of people. Military personnel at the top of that list. The USA moved just about every military asset we had to the Gulf Coast and prepared for an intense war in Cuba and the Gulf and Atlantic. I distinctly remember the bombers at Rickenbacker deploying to Florida and Texas etc. and then more aircraft. And then more. A constant stream. Along with trains and highways full of military equipment going South. It was a "no shit" moment. The current situation is not comparable. Not yet it isn't, anyway.

Edited by ReconRat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is Syria actually doing lately? Hiding in bunkers?

Yes, probably so. If they have any sense. I'll guess a third of the population left the country a long time ago. And another 25%-30% has left Syria in the last week or so.Why? Not just the USA, that's the kicker. Lots of people/countries in the Middle East want a piece of Syria. Too many enemies and not enough friends. Ones that count anyway. Combined with Iran starting to tap dance on what their response would be (most likely next to nothing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read some dumb comment somewhere, that said we can't attack Syria, because they would attack our embassy in Syria...

 

"Effective February 6, 2012, the U.S. Embassy has suspended operations and is not open for normal consular services."

 

They would be attacking an empty building...

 

Also would be why we emptied out the Lebanon embassy today. Next closest embassy, that can be reached.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magley says "I have obligations at home so I can't enlist but we as a county have an obligation to fight against those gassing kids" It's always easier to choose when you aren't directly affected huh.

How old is your cousin? Usually those all hell bent on fighting are newer troops who haven't deployed to a combat zone and those senior officials that want to add a war to their resume. I don't know of any of my buddies, I have quite a few friends in the active and army reserves as well as the Ohio national guard, that are for attacking Syria. Our military is tired. Our military families are tired. I know guys that have done 7 years in combat tours and been in for 10-12 years. Let them rest. It's time we stop policing the world and take care of our own problems. If we have to fight a direct threat to our country, it should be done quick and precise and then we withdraw and let them fix what they fucked up. Yes, any damage done by our military was caused by them forcing our hand to war.

ROE and Geneva Convention only apply to a few countries here and there. Us, the UK, Australia , etc. Do you think the countries over there, including Syria, give a damn about rules that will give them less of a chance? No. They know we will follow (mostly) the laws set forth and by them not, they get the upper hand, in their eyes.

I want to know who the one person is that voted for an attack on Syria...

Edited by chevysoldier
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

IF this thread, were in a forum with national, or international exposure, You'd see a huge number of outspoken against it and some brilliant arguments why its absurd- outside the "its syrians killing syrians and we're going to stop syrians from killing syrians" (which...really f'ing sums it up as well as any news agency has)

Some forums that actually have folks posting from arab countries, russia etc...NO ONE wants this, and our fearless leader, and now putin are up to something other than saving children and imposing goodness on rebels... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...