From a military point of view/arms evolution, gas has kind of always been shunned because it's seen as "unsporting" in the same way that submarines and snipers are/were. Where battleships and tanks are big, loud, phallic, armored, etc the more "insidious" line is/has been seen as repugnant to ideals of armed conflict/unscrupulous. Also gas is an indiscriminate killer that kills everyone.
War with Syria
- Thread starter AladainAF
- Start date
Arbitrary
Tranny Chaser
- 27,234
- 72,243
I have questions.
Why are we going to take sides in a civil war in a country that has not acted with aggression against us? Why is it the responsibility of the United States and other western powers to remove Assad from power? Am I really supposed to believe that the reason we are about to kill a whole bunch of people in Syria and blow up a whole mess of their infrastructure is because Assad is bad and bad people should be removed from power? Why did we draw a line in the sand anyway? Why are we willing to aid Al-Qaeda when they have been called the greatest threat to the United States by high ranking officials multiple times?
Eomer
Trakanon Raider
- 5,472
- 272
1. I'm not, and have stated as such. I can see the logic in rebels using them to incur an attack on the regime, and think that caution needs to be taken in getting involved in case that's actually what happened.
2. Dependent on what evidence of chemical weapons usage they're able to come up with. Anything from nothing to attacking strictly military targets, I suppose. No widespread bombing, shock and awe, no-fly zone, or actual invasion.
3. No fucking idea. Again, anything from nothing to Assad trying to gas Tel Aviv.
I'm by no means saying that the US should invade or effect regime change. Nor am I saying that there is any simple solutions here. It's a shit situation for everyone, and the outcome is almost impossible to predict.
Because one side has a history of violently suppressing and killing it's people, and may have used chemical weapons on innocent civilians.Arbitrary_sl said:
Where did I say that this should be the immediate goal of any action?
Again, where did I advocate for extensive or widespread bombing of civilian infrastructure and/or regime change?
Because the indiscriminate use of WMD's on civilians has always been a line in the sand, at least in modern times. It's not anything particularly new.
We shouldn't be willing to directly aid or arm them. They are not the only active group in the region. Had the conflict been resolved much quicker, it's possible they wouldn't even have been a major factor. Unfortunately it dragged out long enough for them to get thousands of fighters in to the country. I'm not saying that direct military intervention should have come earlier, I'm just stating the simple fact that the rebels were not nearly as radicalized initially as they are now.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 75,846
- 150,593
Basically Eomer wants us to go there and do "something" so he can feel better about himself as a Westerner.
Canada can gas up their own Sopwith Camels and fly over there if they want to white knight Syrian rebels so badly.
Canada can gas up their own Sopwith Camels and fly over there if they want to white knight Syrian rebels so badly.
TrollfaceDeux
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 19,577
- 3,743
i've read a bunch of editorials that demanded our Prime Ministers to "do something" about Syria instead of just words.
Wut.
Wut.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 75,846
- 150,593
Does Canada even have a blue water navy to get to Syria? Or do they have to hitch a ride with the Americans?
Leave foreign affairs to the real superpowers, Canada.
Tuco
I got Tuco'd!
- 45,487
- 73,576
I don't agree that he wants us to do something so he can feel better about himself (at least not consciously). I do think that Eomer is using ambiguouity as a guard against poorly thought ideas.
There's just no forseeable upside for any countries if we help the rebels in Syria.
Canada is still the proud father land of the world's longest shot sniper.
And my grandma
Famm
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 11,041
- 794
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 75,846
- 150,593
Lejina
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
- 4,522
- 11,625
Canada would be sending F18 squadrons plus supporting personnel and a CBRN clean-up crew all neatly stuffed inside some Globemaster III. Maybe a Frigate or two for shit and giggles. No fucking way we'd send combat troops beyond a small force protection for ground assets or any blue navy ships worth mentioning beyond in what would constitute the content of a bad joke.
Arbitrary
Tranny Chaser
- 27,234
- 72,243
Remember this Barry guy? Whatever happened to him?
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...ateQA/ObamaQA/
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...ateQA/ObamaQA/
not to be a statist, but that's not applicable. The US is bound by the UN almost as tightly as it is by our own constitution.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO
- 75,846
- 150,593
Famm
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 11,041
- 794
Famm
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 11,041
- 794
Is that true? That doesn't sound true. I don't know, I could be wrong.....that can't be true. Can it?
Anyway, it doesn't matter since it sounds like Russia and China are going to block any resolution by the UN.