SYRIA WAR MEGATHREAD - Mod Note First Post

Jonny7

.jacksparrow. wrote: »

Hold on, yes the people did but was this the majority of the country or a minority?

Assad was actually quite popular, relatively speaking, but it's always hard to guage.. I mean Kim Jung Un is a ****, but there are gigantic rallies in favor of the man - fear is an extraordinary tool.

Doesn't give them the right to start a war that is tearing their country apart and one thousand people have died.

They didn't start the war. Soldiers who refused orders to shoot on civilians were executed. They didn't take kindly to that - the military split, that's when the conflict turned into a two-way fight rather than a one-way slaughter.

If anyone doubts the capacity of soldiers to follow orders and kill their own people in large numbers - pick up any history book.

tiger55

Excellent video about the unfolding situation in Syria

http://stormcloudsgathering.com/the-syrian-war-what-youre-not-being-told

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkamZg68jpk

danniemcq

bumper234 wrote: »

10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn't Want You to Talk About


http://www.policymic.com/mobile/articles/62023/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesn-t-want-you-to-talk-about

That link give me reload issues

http://www.policymic.com/articles/62023/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesn-t-want-you-to-talk-about is a desktop friendly version.

Still not a great list, I mean at number 10 is a-bombs on Japan... I agree that its terrible but not something hidden or anything. Ditto with the napalm attacks. If they really wanted to send a message they would have used Dresden as an example as it is argued that it was never a legitimate act of war but killed more than the a-bombs on Japan.

Its more of a shock article of events that if you don't know history you won't know but if you are anyway interested in history and or military you will know.

bumper234

danniemcq wrote: »

That link give me reload issues

http://www.policymic.com/articles/62023/10-chemical-weapons-attacks-washington-doesn-t-want-you-to-talk-about is a desktop friendly version.

Still not a great list, I mean at number 10 is a-bombs on Japan... I agree that its terrible but not something hidden or anything. Ditto with the napalm attacks. If they really wanted to send a message they would have used Dresden as an example as it is argued that it was never a legitimate act of war but killed more than the a-bombs on Japan.

Its more of a shock article of events that if you don't know history you won't know but if you are anyway interested in history and or military you will know.

Having witnessed 1st hand what depleted uranium rounds do to the occupants of a tank i can honestly say America has no right to preach about the use of chemical weapons.

danniemcq

bumper234 wrote: »

Having witnessed 1st hand what depleted uranium rounds do to the occupants of a tank i can honestly say America has no right to preach about the use of chemical weapons.

This is the thing though, depleted uranium is more like a conventional weapon than a chemical weapon, its like a big bullet.

It all relies on Kinetic Energy to do its damage. Tungsten is just a dense as it (well nearly) but costs way more.

Normal uranium is not as hard as tungsten. But a classified technique allows it to be hardened. This is believed to involve alloying it with titanium and cooling it so that it forms a single large metallic crystal rather than a chaotic mass of tiny crystals. This structure is very strong and produces an improvement similar to the difference between a brittle pencil lead and a carbon-fibre tennis racquet. The final advantage of uranium is cost. Machined tungsten is expensive, but governments supply DU more or less free

I agree with you that it shouldn't be being used but I can see why it is used. There is nothing really better in a tank v tank battle.

Hopefully once again however the US will be under strain to stop and clean up the mess they have left in Iraq. The devastation it causes an area for decades to come is undeniable at this stage.

Look at my post earlier on expenditure, pretty sure they could invest in Tungsten.

I am pie

It's not a great list, but white phosphorous and vietnam chemical attacks are fairly stand alone. Regardless, a simple civilian casualty list would make Assad look smalltime. The amount of casualties is unverified, with some estimates suggesting 500 rather than 1500. The chain of command has not been established, who ordered this and why? Did it come from government or did some local ranking officer lose the plot.

It was a criminal attack, it should be handled by the Arab League or Russia who pull the strings here. Steaming in, blowing up potential dangerous chemical sites and launching missiles into civilian areas seem like an odd way to protect people.

Why is the US telling Russia this info is classified? Would they not prefer that the Russians managed Assad? They have the capability to reel him in and demonstrate interest in seeing the evidence, which the US won't handover.

If stopping terrorism globally is a policy objective it must recognised that this will have the opposite effect.

I am pie

danniemcq wrote: »

I agree with you that it shouldn't be being used but I can see why it is used. There is nothing really better in a tank v tank battle.

It's effectiveness, nor the effectiveness of Sarin, are not in doubt. Only the moral necessity of using it. Did the US need to use it to complete their military objectives in the region. I doubt it, they were never in danger of a military defeat by a conventional army.

Jonny7

I am pie wrote: »

It was a criminal attack, it should be handled by the Arab League or Russia who pull the strings here. Steaming in, blowing up potential dangerous chemical sites and launching missiles into civilian areas seem like an odd way to protect people.

Washington has stated that if they use strikes, they will NOT be touching any of the chemical weapon sites, they cannot take the risk of the potential damage, nor leaving them open to be taken by other parties.

There are no plans whatsoever to strike anything civilian, only military targets, like airfields, fixed wing aircraft, etc.

The Arab league tried, they left the country with empty promises, they fully back the US punitive strikes

The Russians have strong regional interests and several hundred million dollars worth of arms contracts, anything put before them from the UN on Syria they have been vetoed.

bumper234

Jonny7 wrote: »

Washington has stated that if they use strikes, they will NOT be touching any of the chemical weapon sites, they cannot take the risk of the potential damage, nor leaving them open to be taken by other parties.

There are no plans whatsoever to strike anything civilian, only military targets, like airfields, fixed wing aircraft, etc.

The Arab league tried, they left the country with empty promises, they fully back the US punitive strikes

The Russians have strong regional interests and several hundred million dollars worth of arms contracts, anything put before them from the UN on Syria they have been vetoed.

There were no plans to bomb the Chinese embassy or the hospital in Iraq but that happened.

Kinzig

What gas pipeline, the two proposed pipelines go nowhere near Syria, they go through Turkey

Have aread of this article, pretty much sums it all up..

So wait, they were friendly with Gadaffi, but suddenly engineered an.. uprising to get rid of him.. and now.. Libya sells them oil at the same price as before.

Their evil dastardly schemes just don't have the edge they used to.

The problem with Gadaffi was he he was going to introduce the currency of the dinar..read this and try and get away from all that propoganda your heads filled with and look at these things from a rational perspective:rolleyes:

I am pie

Jonny7 wrote: »

Washington has stated that if they use strikes, they will NOT be touching any of the chemical weapon sites, they cannot take the risk of the potential damage, nor leaving them open to be taken by other parties.

There are no plans whatsoever to strike anything civilian, only military targets, like airfields, fixed wing aircraft, etc.

The Arab league tried, they left the country with empty promises, they fully back the US punitive strikes

The Russians have strong regional interests and several hundred million dollars worth of arms contracts, anything put before them from the UN on Syria they have been vetoed.

I hardly expect they will publish a list of targets, i doubt they would tell us about any "incidents", it would be naive at best not too expect some human collateral damage.

The Arab League left and handed over to the US because they know they are only too happy to interfere and attack. Pressure should have been exerted on them to step up to the plate by the US.

The Russians have vetoed everything put before them as they don't accept it, they have asked for evidence. Why can't the US show them the evidence? What is so classified about it? True, the Russians have the influence, why not give them the impetus to sort out Assad by giving them the evidence.

Give it to the Russians and whoever else asks for it. Why is it classified?

dublinbhoy88

Jonny7 wrote: »

Washington has stated that if they use strikes, they will NOT be touching any of the chemical weapon sites, they cannot take the risk of the potential damage, nor leaving them open to be taken by other parties.

There are no plans whatsoever to strike anything civilian, only military targets, like airfields, fixed wing aircraft, etc.

The Arab league tried, they left the country with empty promises, they fully back the US punitive strikes

The Russians have strong regional interests and several hundred million dollars worth of arms contracts, anything put before them from the UN on Syria they have been vetoed.

they don't have attack civilians, their jihadist/al queda allies can do that for them

danniemcq

I am pie wrote: »

It's effectiveness, nor the effectiveness of Sarin, are not in doubt. Only the moral necessity of using it. Did the US need to use it to complete their military objectives in the region. I doubt it, they were never in danger of a military defeat by a conventional army.

Completely agree, I mean it was the Iraqi army, they knew exactly what they were up against, they probably sold them most of the stuff.

Like how they "knew" there was WMD in Iraq, they still had the receipt.

Jonny7

Kinzig wrote: »

Have aread of this article, pretty much sums it all up..

The problem with Gadaffi was he he was going to introduce the currency of the dinar..read this and try and get away from all that propoganda your heads filled with and look at these things from a rational perspective:rolleyes:

I miss the good old conspiracy theories, always with the blogs and Russian TV

Kinzig

Jonny7 wrote: »

I miss the good old conspiracy theories, always with the blogs and Russian TV

keep you selling your pro american drivel jonny...youll be happy when obama is dropping his love bombs all over the syrian people doing them a good turn:rolleyes:

Hagar the Nice.

Never really understood religion 'cept it's just a good excuse for killing'.

arybvtcw0eolkf

And the first chalk of Irish troops departed for service in Syria today.

I'd love to be there with them, and from the comfort and security of my own home I wish them God speed and a very safe tour of duty.

donegal__road

Jonny7 wrote: »

I miss the good old conspiracy theories, always with the blogs and Russian TV

its not a blog Jonny, its the Guardian newspaper's article.. didn't you read the URL?


by the way, speaking of Russian conspiracy theories..

Congress may vote ‘No’ on Syria attack

czx

donegal_road wrote: »

I dont follow what you mean.

If you mean that I feel sympathy for people who are in unfortunate circumstances, then yes you are correct.

no, i don't

czx

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

so Assad orders a chemical attack on the Syrian "jihadists' at the very time U.N. weapons inspectors were in the country, well for that Assad must go for being the worlds most stupid leader Mmm:rolleyes:

yes, he's clearly a tactical genius

force eleven

Congress is going to vote No. And then what? He'll attack anyway. Democracy in action eh? In principal, Obama is no better than the dictatorships he espouses getting rid of.

Of course, in reality, the humanitarian considerations are, as pointed out above, far less relevant to the US than the geo-political reasons for going in. The dead bodies are good for media spin and an excuse. As always.

Cheerful Spring

This is the most serious international crisis we have had since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962

Russia and America are genuinely playing with fire here. Russian warships and American warships in the same areas around Syria is not a good thing. They would be mad to fight each other. Putin is going to help Syria defend itself, when and if the strike goes ahead. What does that mean? Is the world going to witness a showdown between those two nuclear powers in the near future? I honestly do believe the people of Ireland, the majority of people living here, have given little or no thought to want is happening in Syria. Its a country on the other side of the world. Does it matter what is happening there?

Well the first impact of the strike for us will be at the petrol station. The price of petrol is going to skyrocket to almost unaffordable prices for lot of people living in Ireland. We are not talking months here- a couple of weeks at most when the US strike is likely to kick off.

corkgsxr

Unless iv missed something Russia is basically turning its back on Syria

Cheerful Spring

corkgsxr wrote: »

Unless iv missed something Russia is basically turning its back on Syria

No Putin said he'll arm Syria to the teeth if the strike goes ahead. And would put in a missile shield to protect Syria if the situation warrants it. Four Russian warships have set sail to Syria in the last two weeks. Some says there is military equipment for Syria on board. Putin is not pulling back from Syria at all.

Wacker The Attacker

Scrap Scrap Scrap.

Do you want your go Syria?

Royal Irish

The Chinese have warships off the coast of Syria also and the United Nations think they are delivering Assad a takeaway.

frozenfrozen

Everything will be okay... America won't kill everyone in the world because they like money and dead people don't pay taxes or watch American tv

Banjo String

Royal Irish wrote: »

The Chinese have warships off the coast of Syria also and the United Nations think they are delivering Assad a takeaway.

Lol.

Aaaaaand we're off!

Karl Stein

If the US invaded Syria the Russians and Chinese would do nothing other than rub their hands gleefully at the the overstretch self-immolation of the US empire.

Artful_Badger

No matter what happens in Syria America and Russia will never go to war. In 200 years time Russian and American leaders will still be swinging their dicks, selling their weapons, furthering their own interests and watching the poor cúnts in the middle crash and burn.