What the fuck re: Syria

[spoonitnow]

Someone explain to me why we're attacking Syria on the basis of the government using chemical weapons when the rebels openly admitted they were the ones who mishandled them?

[BankItDrew]

Because your fellow countrymen are too god damned lazy to argue against its own government.

[jackvance]

Someone explain to me why we're attacking Syria on the basis of the government using chemical weapons when the rebels openly admitted they were the ones who mishandled them?

That's a pretty naive thing to say man.

[wufwugy]

Spoon is either trolling or dumb

@BID. On the contrary, most people are mad about this. They're wrong, but also mad and trying to stop the US government from doing the right thing

[boost]

Credible sources for the rebels claiming responsibility for the attacks?

[wufwugy]

Regardless of the lack of any evidence showing it was done by something other than the Syrian government, if it was, shit would have hit the fan already. Russia would be going bananas over Assad being framed. Instead, they've been slowly backing away for a while. They too don't support the use of chemical weapons, even though they support Assad

[rong]

Credible sources for the rebels claiming responsibility for the attacks?

I read a few articles where people make reference to this but none of them stated sources at all.

[wufwugy]

I'm going to lose a lot of faith in US citizenry if public opinion about this stays the same. This is one of the most clear cut issues we've had in a long time, and every single argument against it is just a giant straw man. No there won't be any ground troops, no your conventional weapons analogies do not apply, no your Iraq analogies don't apply, no your misunderstanding of what the President said does not apply. God

Letting a sovereign government get away with chemical warfare is bad bad bad bad bad bad.

[Penneywize]

Yeah, you have a point Wuf, but it seems your country just doesn't have the appetite for another middle east excursion, no matter how limited. You're absolutely right about the arguments against it being a "straw man". Though I imagine some legitimate concerns exist with respect to the rebels and who is backing them / on their side etc. You don't want to inadvertently help another one of your enemies.

[a500lbgorilla]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

[a500lbgorilla]

This is why you want professionals making decisions, us amateurs just aren't exposed to the right info.

[wufwugy]

Yeah, you have a point Wuf, but it seems your country just doesn't have the appetite for another middle east excursion, no matter how limited. You're absolutely right about the arguments against it being a "straw man". Though I imagine some legitimate concerns exist with respect to the rebels and who is backing them / on their side etc. You don't want to inadvertently help another one of your enemies.

That's a consideration but still not essential. This is about Assad using chemical warfare, and that's sorta the end of it. Due to his actions, he's basically the worst terrorist alive, heading up a terrorist state. If you don't want to use that terminology, it's fine, but my point is that it's about the chemical warfare, and that reality makes Assad more dangerous than any of the rebels. So worrying about the rebels shouldn't be a part of the calculus on whether or not to take out Assad, but in the calculus of how to get it done, the aftermath, etc. Regardless, the best way to establish the moderate rebels is through this process. It's not like the military isn't trying to identify and aid the moderates.

The US citizenry certainly seems to not have the appetite for another "excursion". I blame it on Bush fucking everything up and the ignorant youth who never paid attention in school when it was explained how bad chemical weapons were in previous wars and why there is long-standing international law against their use. That shit is technically a WMD (chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear), but Bush's lies made everybody pretend that "WMD" doesn't mean anything anymore

[wufwugy]

This is why you want professionals making decisions, us amateurs just aren't exposed to the right info.

The problem with democracy is that the people in power are smarter and more well-informed than the voters. The problem with every other form of government is that people in power take more power when they can and thus create aristocracies for themselves and swaths of poor for everybody else

[jackvance]

I haven't been following the political situation in Syria, why does Russia support Assad?

[a500lbgorilla]

The problem with democracy is that the people in power are smarter and more well-informed than the voters.

I don't think this is a bad thing. I also think my example says that you should be highly skeptical of spoon's opening claims. It's easy to fabricate testimonials. Hopefully, a wide variety of people in charge, exposed to the appropriate info, will be better able to vet these sorts of things than you or I.

I respect the process and can't yet think of a better one.

[wufwugy]

What about this: the writing is on the wall; regardless of outside intervention, Assad will eventually lose. He doesn't have control of the country or the people. So what happens when the rebels win, all the bad factions of them still just as bad, and they get their hands on the chemical weapons? What happens when al Nursa has poison gas and knows that nobody will do anything about them using it?

[a500lbgorilla]

I haven't been following the political situation in Syria, why does Russia support Assad?

Honestly, I think it's about everyone trying to show they're still a superpower.

And by extension, the world's oil trade goes by way of the middle east, and the worlds oil consumption underlies all of the advanced economies of the world, so everyone wants to have some foothold in that region to assure their voice in the order of things.

[a500lbgorilla]

What about this: the writing is on the wall; regardless of outside intervention, Assad will eventually lose. He doesn't have control of the country or the people. So what happens when the rebels win, all the bad factions of them still just as bad, and they get their hands on the chemical weapons? What happens when al Nursa has poison gas and knows that nobody will do anything about them using it?

I'm hoping it goes like this: After the fall, Israel runs black-ops bombing runs on all the weapons depots and this chapter of the history of WMDs is shut.

[wufwugy]

I haven't been following the political situation in Syria, why does Russia support Assad?

Lots of money in arms sales to Assad, ideological agreement about dictatorships and how they improve stability and stuff, a partner in the Arab region, a buffer that helps keep the West from pressuring Iran (another significant ally of theirs), probably some oil contracts (but not much). An additional reason, that would be ficken huge if it was true, is that Syria is Russia's access to the Mediterranean. For the entire last century, obtaining Mediterranean access has been one of Russia's primary motives in foreign policy. However, I don't know if it's true that they need Syria for that. I can't find info on it and a map makes it look like it's not true

Russia doesn't support chemical warfare, however, and may even turn on Assad if Saudi Arabia gives them a good enough oil contract. That could actually be a great thing in bringing Russia closer to the West's interests. The Cold War may be over, but the division between East and West has a long way to go

[wufwugy]

I'm hoping it goes like this: After the fall, Israel runs black-ops bombing runs on all the weapons depots and this chapter of the history of WMDs is shut.

God it would be so bad if it came to that. The fallout of US on the national stage would probably be worse than what the Iraq War did. People forget that US has guaranteed security for some Arab oil-producing regimes since WW2, and those regimes now rely on it. US not handling this situation would be like your friends abandoning you in a brawl after they said "we got your back, yo" a bunch of times

[jackvance]

God it would be so bad if it came to that. The fallout of US on the national stage would probably be worse than what the Iraq War did. People forget that US has guaranteed security for some Arab oil-producing regimes since WW2, and those regimes now rely on it. US not handling this situation would be like your friends abandoning you in a brawl after they said "we got your back, yo" a bunch of times

While I can agree with the most of what you say in this thread, this is pretty hogwash.

[wufwugy]

While I can agree with the most of what you say in this thread, this is pretty hogwash.

Not at all. The makeup of the region to this point is largely dependent on US involvement. Evacuation would destabilize the hell out of it. The lines were drawn by the West out of the fallen Ottoman empire with no regard for regional sensibilities. Israel was created by the West with no regard for any Arabs. It would be nothing but a clusterfuck to leave them and pretend like history didn't happen. Shit would hit the fan if Israel didn't have the backing of the US and started bombing Syria. Hell, the Gulf War would have been a disaster too if it was up to regional actors exclusively to respond to Hussein's invasion of Kuwait

[wufwugy]

Furthermore, I'd make the argument that without hegemony of a superpower during the nuclear age, the world will end. Extract US presence globally without quickly (miraculously) replacing it with another superpower, and you no longer have enforcement of non-proliferation. Instead, what you have is an arms race, but not between US and Russia. No, this time it goes to almost every single state on the planet, starting with Iran in response to Israel, Saudi Arabia in response to Iran, Egypt in response to no more treaty with Israel, Japan and South Korea in response to North Korea and China. Then it just pushes out from there. It's a relatively unstable world that nobody has a handle on and would be far worse than the Cold War. Considering the Cold War came inches away from turning hot, lack of US hegemony is what doomsday looks like

[BennyLaRue]

I know a chick from Syria. Huge tits.

[boost]

I know a chick from Syria. Huge tits.

Unless you've got x-ray vision, I think you mean, "beautiful eyes."

lolwomen'srights

[spoonitnow]

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_0...y-Saudis-1203/

and

http://intellihub.com/2013/09/01/syr...ming-accident/

[oskar]

http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_09_05/...y-system-4243/

Credible news source is credible!

Well rather: news source with an agenda has an agenda... doesn't have the same ring to it.
- and Intellihub, what is this? The Perez Hilton of conspiracy?

[wufwugy]

but it quotes reddit!!!

[oskar]

How do its ads for free energy and mass graves go through my adblock?

[wufwugy]

probably because adblock purposely supports non-invasive ads

[boost]

Ok, spoon is officially trolling. The VoR article is claiming that since chemicals used in synthesizing sarin also have other much less nefarious uses, that the U.S. is making all this up. It's like spoon isn't even trying anymore.

[eberetta1]

Someone asked me the other day if someone was trying to overthrow our U.S. government on U.S. soil, would it be ok to use chemical weapons to maintain the law and order.

[kiwiMark]

seems a bit overkill for just one dude

[wufwugy]

you magnificent bastard

[wufwugy]

Someone asked me the other day if someone was trying to overthrow our U.S. government on U.S. soil, would it be ok to use chemical weapons to maintain the law and order.

no. next.

[Luco]

There's a lot to sift through here. I don't know who to believe yet.

[jackvance]

The outcome will decide who was right. History is (re)written by the winners!

[oskar]

That's a good sound bite, but if you think about the last 100 years or so, when did that ever apply? Or when do you suspect it. You could make an exception to south korea I guess, but then is SK really winning anything?
Thinking about it: Did the US really win vietnam but then rewrite it as a loss? That's a conspiracy I could get on board with.

[boost]

Well, since WWII there haven't really been any clear major military victories. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan (for both Russia and ourselves), etc.. they were, and mostly still are, all clusterfucks.

[oskar]

SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT THE HOLOCAUST WASN'T REAL?!

[eugmac]

So I can't find any other sources other than the Telegraph that says this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...rns-Putin.html

Satellite war vs Russia? That's serious business.

[jackvance]

"I'm not drawing an analogy to World War II other than to say that when London was getting bombed, it was profoundly unpopular, both in Congress and around the country to help the British. Doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do."

He has started to play rough already!

[wufwugy]

Damn Barry really wants UK support on this:

"I'm not drawing an analogy to World War II other than to say that when London was getting bombed, it was profoundly unpopular, both in Congress and around the country to help the British. Doesn't mean it wasn't the right thing to do."

Some srsbsns words. Britain doesn't fancy being called a bunch of dandies. Makes sense too since UK is super important for dealings with anything related to Europe, Russia, and the Middle East. I can't imagine UK not coming around. Its two closest allies on military issues (US and France) are on board. Even for all the talk of UK being buddy-buddy with US, they've been buddy-buddy with France on this stuff for a century

If this is what Putin said, he's not planning on any sort of military intervention against US:

“Will we help Syria? We will,” he said. “We are already helping, we send arms.”
He added: “We cooperate in the economics sphere, we hope to expand our cooperation in the humanitarian sphere, which includes sending humanitarian aid to support those people - the civilians - who have found themselves in a very dire situation in this country.”

This is basically "we do what we can, you know that."

[wufwugy]

Ah it's a Russian naval base in Syria. That makes sense since they have access to the Mediterranean, but other closest base is in the Black Sea and their ships have to go through Bosporus and the Dardanelles to get to the Mediterranean

I imagine a regime change will have nooooooo problem with letting Russia keep that base

[jackvance]

I thought the UK was already on board? At least I saw some articles that they came with more proof Assad had used chemical weapons.

[wufwugy]

I think the central administration is, but it was a few days ago that parliament voted against it

[wufwugy]

great article on the motivations for the related powers

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/06/thes...y_war_partner/

[rong]

I thought the UK was already on board? At least I saw some articles that they came with more proof Assad had used chemical weapons.

The PM wants it but the leader of the opposition spotted an opportunity and took it. So our PM is just huffing and puffing now with no military power but determined to look involved.

[a500lbgorilla]

Hey, spoon. Look at how the central banks planned the 2008 financial crisis. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/larry...-end-game-memo

[a500lbgorilla]

http://intellihub.com/2013/09/01/syr...ming-accident/

Alright, time to internet sleuth!

Links to http://www.examiner.com/article/syri...weapons-attack

Links to http://www.mintpressnews.com/witness...eapons/168135/

Which is the root article naming the source as http://www.cookthink.com/reference/1028/What_is_arugula

wait no.

https://twitter.com/Yahya_amd

And I'm outta tricks.

[jackvance]

great article on the motivations for the related powers

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/06/thes...y_war_partner/

Great article indeed! Two remarks

Perhaps the most effective fighting force within Syria has been the Jabhat al-Nusra front, an Al-Qaeda linked group.

Am I alone in finding "Al-Qaeda" and "links to Al-Qaeda" nothing more than buzzwords at this point? I mean do they still exist? Who are they, where are they? Are we sure that "Al-Qaeda" is still the same thing as it was under Osama bin Laden?

Israel’s preferred outcome of the conflict is to have no solution at all—to have both sides, neither of whom Israel particularly likes, fight and bleed each other dry.

Very true. Israel is a weird thing actually, while at the same time an interesting (for lack of a better word) force in the neverending power struggle in the arab world. But their whole existence is such a fickle balance, crazy.

[wufwugy]

You're right about al Qaeda. It's no longer an organization, is now more like an idea, and is relevant in those buzzwordy ways.

[boost]

My understanding is that it is many things now. In sub-Saharan Africa, some militants have taken on the name because it inspires fear-- it's a legitimate brand name for people to fear. And then in parts of the sub-continent, there are still pockets of intact Al Qaeda, although it is much more dispersed. Then there are insurgents in some places and rebels in others who, unlike the sub-Saharan's I mentioned, actually buy into the creed, and act on it, yet have no true ties to the hierarchy.

[spoonitnow]

You're welcome!

[eberetta1]

How about we go to war if we can pay cash for it. This is just another debt for our grandchildren to pay. If we did not produce the chemical weapons in the first place that we sold to them, we would not be taking their toy away like a parent...

[boost]

How about we go to war if we can pay cash for it. This is just another debt for our grandchildren to pay. If we did not produce the chemical weapons in the first place that we sold to them, we would not be taking their toy away like a parent...

They have the chemical weapons and are using them-- from who, how, why, and when they got them is pretty much irrelevant in regards to deciding whether or not to take action. And from what I gather, the shelling/airstrikes are already paid for. We have the equipment, and the manpower is already on payroll. Any possible extras are covered in the pentagons "break glass in case of war" fund. We wouldn't be invading, we'd be shelling from our warships, carrying out airstrikes, and likely training vetted rebels. There is no nation building.

All conflicts are not the same. This is not Iraq or Afghanistan.

[wufwugy]

How about we go to war if we can pay cash for it. This is just another debt for our grandchildren to pay. If we did not produce the chemical weapons in the first place that we sold to them, we would not be taking their toy away like a parent...

Nope. Where do people get this stuff? Oh yeah, out of asses

It makes sense, however, that people would think this. They're making idiotic comparisons between conventional and chemical weapons because, well, they don't know anything about chemical weapons. Once you do know something about chemical weapons, you know there is absolutely no way in fuck US would sell any to Syria. But that's beside the fact that there is zero evidence to suggest it in the first place.

[wufwugy]

Reading over this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_a...ss_destruction

This is seriously the most clear cut issue there ever was. The Assad regime's behavior is that of a rogue state that has been systematically furthering its WMD capabilities and using them. With the last attack, we now have solid enough evidence and confirmation to take Assad out. This is what we want. People pack into theaters to watch their favorite characters take down regimes that behave like this, but not when it's the US government. No siree, they're always bad.

[boost]

I agree a reasonable line has been crossed-- a line everyone who matters has agreed should not ever be crossed again. My only issue is, what about the other lines. Why does NK get to imprison whole families for life and three future generations for whatever nonsensical reason they give? I understand that for the sake of being able to actually take action and build coalitions, you have to have cut and dry lines which sometimes seem strangely placed and arbitrary, but wtf? Is what Assad doing really worse than what has been happening in NK for decades and decades?

I'm not really saying this is a reason not to drop some bombs on Assad's interests, but, you know.. wtf bro?

[wufwugy]

I agree a reasonable line has been crossed-- a line everyone who matters has agreed should not ever be crossed again. My only issue is, what about the other lines. Why does NK get to imprison whole families for life and three future generations for whatever nonsensical reason they give? I understand that for the sake of being able to actually take action and build coalitions, you have to have cut and dry lines which sometimes seem strangely placed and arbitrary, but wtf? Is what Assad doing really worse than what has been happening in NK for decades and decades?

I'm not really saying this is a reason not to drop some bombs on Assad's interests, but, you know.. wtf bro?

Because North Korea has the world's largest artillery force and most of them are aimed at Seoul. There is no level of military ops that we could take that would save the millions of South Korean lives that would be taken seconds after the order to attack is given. Because of the threat on Seoul, NK has reached the point where military action against them doesn't work. It can only change from the inside out now, and any furtherance of its WMD capabilities would make matters far worse. The point is that we want to stop states before they become like NK.

If the idiots on Reddit ruled the world, we'd all be dead

[boost]

Ah, ok, very well put.

What's the comment about Redditors in reference to?

[Renton]

Honestly I think we could solve most of the world's problems by carpet bombing these backward ass countries with information. If our armies were forcing the Syrian and PRK regime soldiers to watch youtube videos of Sagan and Feynman, these regimes would dissolve pretty quickly.

[spoonitnow]

They have the chemical weapons and are using them-- from who, how, why, and when they got them is pretty much irrelevant in regards to deciding whether or not to take action. And from what I gather, the shelling/airstrikes are already paid for. We have the equipment, and the manpower is already on payroll. Any possible extras are covered in the pentagons "break glass in case of war" fund. We wouldn't be invading, we'd be shelling from our warships, carrying out airstrikes, and likely training vetted rebels. There is no nation building.

All conflicts are not the same. This is not Iraq or Afghanistan.

lol we'll see about this

[jackvance]

This carpet bombing with information is already happening. It's through the internet. It just takes time. I see it in the same way as science often progresses: "one funeral at a time". When older people with outdated ideas die, the younger better informed generation remains. They should be on the right course over there but it will take time.

[Renton]

This carpet bombing with information is already happening. It's through the internet. It just takes time. I see it in the same way as science often progresses: "one funeral at a time". When older people with outdated ideas die, the younger better informed generation remains. They should be on the right course over there but it will take time.

I think you're partly right, but you cannot deny the culture of anti-intellectualism that is pervasive and deeply rooted throughout african, middle-eastern, and asian societies. It's gonna take a LONG time.

[eugmac]

I was watching a BBC documentary about Saudi Arabia and it also touched on how Saudi women, thanks to the internet, are informing themselves and even one woman on the film said she aspires to become one of the first women to enter politics. The film made it clear though how incredibly long the way appears to be until she would ever come close to realizing her goal. The current governor (a prince, given that it's a theocratic monarchy) of the Ha'il province featured in the film and he kept emphasising that forcing the population to embrace western ideals like democracy would never work, because the (ignorant) masses don't want change, and pointed to Iran as a example of a failed attempt of westernizing a nation.

[a500lbgorilla]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ria-96372.html

Yeah, I like how my vote landed. I also like how this makes both Putin and Obama seem - human and all that. I also like how the process is moving forward - well exposed for America and becoming more well exposed for Russia.

PS lol at this

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ry?id=20176424

Heavy edits on that back and forth, donchathink?

[wufwugy]

The developing world is moving faster than people think, and far faster than ever in history. I'm not afraid of a cult of anti-intellectualism in the rest of the world, I'm afraid of it in the modern world, namely America. Primitivism is a thing everywhere, but in the US it takes the form of outright rejection of answers. Creationism is a great example. Those in the modern world who believe it tend to do so not because of ignorance but willful ignorance. The developing world tends to have the opposite approach. They cling to their traditions as much as anybody, but they also believe in learning. The Chinese, for example, are the opposite of what Santorum was getting at when he called people who want everybody to go to college "snobs".

Iran isn't exactly un-modern. It has a way to go, but it will get there as long as there is no invasion from the West. Its youth are more tech savvy and socially progressive that people think, and its government isn't squashing it like people think. Its main problem is misogyny, but I think that's also America's main problem. But like us, Iran doesn't believe it has misogynistic ways. America is further along in stamping it out, but nowhere near the clearing.

An invasion of Iran from the West would galvanize the entire nation and send it back into the stone age

[spoonitnow]

Now that I've gotten you fuckers started...

My opinion on the situation with Syria is that public reaction to it really shows how much we're sick of bullshit wars. About 80 percent of people were in favor of going in Afghanistan (911 etc), about 60 percent of people were wanting to go into Iraq, and now only about 35-36 percent of people are in favor of doing something in Syria with a majority being opposed to it. (Figures according to Gallup)

If Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't have been dragging on for fucking ever, then I'm pretty sure people would be all for doing something in Syria (though it's more justified than Iraq or Afghanistan imo). It's turned into one of those "the little boy who cried wolf" situations, and now nobody believes that there's a good reason for doing shit to anybody because they're just tired of it. The second holocaust could break out, and at this point people would probably be like ugh fuck it.

[jackvance]

I think you're partly right, but you cannot deny the culture of anti-intellectualism that is pervasive and deeply rooted throughout african, middle-eastern, and asian societies. It's gonna take a LONG time.

Faster than you might think. The anti-intellectuals are still in power that is why it isn't so readily apparent.

[wufwugy]

Now that I've gotten you fuckers started...

My opinion on the situation with Syria is that public reaction to it really shows how much we're sick of bullshit wars. About 80 percent of people were in favor of going in Afghanistan (911 etc), about 60 percent of people were wanting to go into Iraq, and now only about 35-36 percent of people are in favor of doing something in Syria with a majority being opposed to it. (Figures according to Gallup)

If Iraq and Afghanistan wouldn't have been dragging on for fucking ever, then I'm pretty sure people would be all for doing something in Syria (though it's more justified than Iraq or Afghanistan imo). It's turned into one of those "the little boy who cried wolf" situations, and now nobody believes that there's a good reason for doing shit to anybody because they're just tired of it. The second holocaust could break out, and at this point people would probably be like ugh fuck it.

That was my initial response. A problem I'm having with it now is that Libya happened since then.

It could be that people just don't understand chemical weapons. Maybe that's why the continual appeal to conventional weapons. It could be that people subconsciously are against action in the Middle East, which explains why Libya wasn't as big a deal since it's not ME. It could be that Assad has been killing people a long time and people take it for granted. Libya was a new and fast thing with a huge looming threat. It could be that because there isn't oil involved, the normal outlets haven't been that vocal in support, so the popular beliefs don't reflect. It could be that Syria is often thought of in relation to Iran, and people are already against military action against Iran from previous political battles. It could be Obama isn't up for reelection, so his normal defenders are not doing so.

I suspect that after the media blitz, opinions will get more in favor

[oskar]

Well my opinion is that none of those people have anything to base their opinion on and that all of those people should shut the fuck up. When they do popular opinion polls they should have people point out Syria on a map as the final question. I'd love to see that statistic. Maybe we can have a graph that shows which opinion holders were how far off.
It's a good thing it's obama's 2nd term. He can afford political suicide.

[jackvance]

If you had news and documentaries flooding TV about what damage chemical weapons do, with shocking visual footage, I'm pretty sure the majority in the US would vote for the attacks. People are pretty fickle that way.

[spoonitnow]

If you had news and documentaries flooding TV about what damage chemical weapons do, with shocking visual footage, I'm pretty sure the majority in the US would vote for the attacks. People are pretty fickle that way.

The Obama people have been pretty much doing just that lol

[rong]

I'm confused.

I just heard some yanks on the radio saying they feel humiliated over putin jumping on the chem weapon handover plan as it makes america look weak and putin look a hero.

Are they fucking retarded?

Surely this is a fantastic outcome. USA has maintained q credible threat against the use of chem weapons, you may avoid going to war, we may remove (some) chem weapons from circulation and if this does happen and you still wanna bomb Syria you have at least reduced the amount of chem weapons that could be used as a result.

Am I the only one thinking this could all be part of Obama's cunning plan?