Syria, What would you do

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by whoknows87, Sep 4, 2013.

  1. whoknows87 macrumors 6502a

    whoknows87

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2012
    Location:
    S.Florida
    #1
    Intervention now is a bit too late, I understand that using chemical weapons violates international law, and inhumane, but didn't the conflict claim plenty of lives pre crossing Obama Red line, why didn't anyone intervene prior if this is truly about ' avoiding causalities ', dirty politics

    Another thing is Asaad has been in power for a few years now, where did this rebellion come from and isn't it a threat to the country security and obviously the gov't, what leader/president/dictator would allow a bunch of rebels , armed militias to take down the gov't, if a group of people took up arms and decided to march to DC don't u think they should be crushed? Egypt did the same thing recently , protestors organized sit in's ( armed or not that's a different story) what did the gov't do? Crushed them and took some of it's own citizens lives....

    dirty dirty politics
     
  2. sand_man macrumors 6502a

    sand_man

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2011
    Location:
    Johannesburg, South Africa
    #2
    Don't wish to be drawn into this but will say with close to 6 million displaced refugees and almost 100 000 dead over a 2 year civil war does the international community still need a valid reason to take action?
     
  3. juanm macrumors 65816

    juanm

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    Fury 161
    #3
    Get everything ready to have a local balanced, moderate, replacement government ready. Make sure, even if it takes a long time to get close enough to him, that El Assad responds for his crimes, as well as his opponents (crimes are always commited by both sides).
    Leave the army in place to prevent the local armed forces from making a coup à la Egypt, and demilitarize the country as much as possible. Without weapons, eventually the bloodshed will dry and they will be forced to come to a peaceful solution.

    Not that any of that is feasible...
     
  4. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #4
    We still do not know if there was a chemical attack. Until we have confirmation of this, we should devote our efforts to humanitarian aid and monitoring events in Syria. If that includes violating Syria's airspace with drones and infiltrating their territory with covert operatives, then so be it. We should be pressuring those who are defending Assad's regime to start putting their money where their mouth is and start providing aid for the refugees.

    If the chemical attack was real, and the West cannot convince the UN Security Council that Assad's regime was responsible, then we should disengage and dump the responsibility for any subsequent genocide solely in the laps of Russia and the PRC. As for diplomacy, I'd also make more of the fact that Syria has not signed arms control agreements prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. Any negotiated settlement should include the Syrian government signing up to the relevant treaties banning the production and use of chemical weapons.

    If the West does decide to attack Syria, then a good start would be to crater their runways to disable fixed-wing aircraft, and then go after other military targets. I hope that our leaders would not be so stupid as to go after infrastructure like power stations etc.
     
  5. lannister80, Sep 5, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 5, 2013

    lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #5
    Yes, we do:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Ghouta_attacks

    Also this:

     
  6. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #6

    Kerry has stated that that they have proof that it was government forces responsible. Has this info been released?

    My ideal of limited strike would be to cripple whatever air power Syria has and hit their Sarin stockpiles if that is feasible.
     
  7. VulchR macrumors 68020

    VulchR

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Location:
    Scotland
    #7
    Not sure if serious.... We have not had a report back from UN inspectors. What we do have are videos and eyewitness accounts. However, these can be faked or exaggerated. Also, I doubt the Russians or the PRC will trust any samples analyzed separately by the US, France etc because again samples can be faked. Thus, while the picture is consistent with a chemical attack, we just do not know yet. We need that UN report.

    One of the questions I have is why atropine was effective in treating some patients, for reviews of the effects of nerve agents suggest there would be a very small time window for this treatment to work (see http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0149-7634(96)00050-4). Perhaps these patients were taken to medical treatment so quickly that the story is plausible, but it should be double-checked.

    Also, one thing that has not been mentioned as well is followup on the neurological damage of the alleged victims. Assessing the alleged victims' neurological health would provide evidence for an attack if it did indeed occur. Also, it would help in their treatment and rehabilitation. If people were really subjected to a nerve agent attack, then the survivors who were exposed most will probably need long term care. These patients would need to get to a medical facility that can help them, but nobody seems to be discussing this.
     
  8. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #8
    And why would you trust a UN report any more than a US report? There won't be any "proof" there either, other than the word of the UN. Doubters gonna doubt.

    There have been a ton of experts who have analyzed the many videos of the attack, all of whom agree it was a nerve agent attack. Tons of eye-witness reports. Highly doubtful it was faked, IMHO.

    Who cares what Russia and the PRC think/say? They can lie/fake just as well as the US/France. They could get positive samples and then come out and say they were negative for sarin.

    Curious, where did you see anything about atropine being used to treat survivors? Also, atropine only has a small effective window in people who got a lethal dose of sarin because the window is closed by DEATH in about 1 minute. If you didn't get a lethal dose, I would assume atropine would be a useful treatment outside that window?

    I think they have bigger worries at the moment, like not dying/getting shelled.
     
  9. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #9
    Hitting their chemical weapons stockpiles is too dangerous with missiles, the only way to do it would be to put special forces on the ground to capture or destroy them. Personally I think that we should use special forces to get rid of the chemical weapons, and then pull out and let the Syrians solve their problem. It's too late to choose sides, if we wanted to do that we should have helped the rebels at the beginning before terrorists hijacked the revolution.
     
  10. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #10
    The question isn't whether or not there has been chemical weapon us, but whether or not Assad used the weapons.
     
  11. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #11
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/02/vladimir-putin-syria

     
  12. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #12
    The UN is not looking for an excuse to hit Assad.

    The question is not so much whether it was real, but who was responsible. There appears to be no evidence linking it to Assad apart from one "telephone intercept" produced by the Israelis. Trusting in that alone would be the height of recklessness, if not culpable gullibility or actual connivance.

    Which is exactly why the UN inspectors were there. Anyway, Russia and China provide a useful brake on knee-jerk Western military reaction, which does not have a very glorious record of late.

    If, as is reported, Assad has "hundreds of tons" stockpiled, it would be well beyond the scope of any special forces operation. And if the Sarin used in the attack was supplied by the Saudis to Al-Nusra, you wouldn't really be doing much good, would you?

    Precisely. Without an unambiguous answer to this, military action in response to this attack in particular would be a travesty of due process.
     
  13. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #14
    Nonsense. How can they tell the difference between conventional shelling (which was going on at the time) and chemical projectiles? This is pure hogwash with a French accent.
     
  14. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #15
    Oh I agree, doing something now will be almost useless, if not make things worse. We should have helped the rebels 2 years ago, before 100K people died and the revolution was taken over by radicals.

    I'm not suggesting the US/others attack, but I *am* saying that the sarin gas attack was both real and perpetrated by the Syrian military (although whether it ordered by an idiot rogue commander or the actual military brass I don't know).

    ----------

    (a) I believe the attacks were done with rockets/missiles, not shells, and (b) the French (and everyone else) know where and when the attack happened. They look at the footage and trace back where those particular rockets/missiles came from.
     
  15. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #16
    What compelling information are you privy to which puts you so far ahead of the UN?
     
  16. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #17
    Syria has one of, if not the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the world. I can guarantee that they don't just keep them in one place, or have anyone other than a few key players to know exactly where they are all stored. Special forces don't have the manpower to eliminate something like this, and even if they did, given the size of the country and the number of weapons, whether you realize it or not you're describing an invasion, not a covert operation.
     
  17. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #18
    Oh, do you mean why would the Syrians launch a chem weapon attack now? Two possibilities:

    (a) We know there was small-scale use of chem weapons earlier this year. Nobody batted an eye, so it was seen as license to amp up the attacks? I mean, if they think they can get away with it, why wouldn't they?

    (b) Some rogue and/or idiot commander launched them, not in concert with the rest of the military. I think this is the most likely, given the two communications intercepted (the gist of both of which, one within the Syrian military and one to Iran, was "what the **** did you just do?!?!"

    ----------

    US and French intel. I don't trust them any more/less than the UN.

    It's not as if 90% of the US isn't saying "don't go into Syria!"; why would the US be itching to attack? What reason would the US have to fabricate evidence?
     
  18. Michael Goff macrumors G3

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #19
    B seems likely since Assad wasn't exactly losing the war against the rebels. As for why, if I were a dictator who was winning the war I wouldn't risk it at all.
     
  19. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #20
    The UN inspectors were already in the country precisely to investigate those attacks, which may have been carried out by the "opposition". Why would Assad carry out small-scale attacks? Why would he show his hand for so little gain?

    Highly unlikely that a rogue commander would even have access to chemical weapons.
     
  20. lannister80 macrumors 6502

    lannister80

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2009
    Location:
    Chicagoland
    #21
    Trial balloon?
     
  21. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #22
    No matter what is done, it's not going to help Syria much or any. I would still say a strike needs to be implemented based on putting on a show as a warning to other countries who can be a threat to us or their own people.
     
  22. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #23
    Government forces were in the ascendant. He had no need to risk the blowback.
     
  23. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #24
    cuz he thought he could get away with it? Wars are won and lost by such errors in judgement.

    cuz he thought he could get away with blaming it on the opposition? or on an israeli conspiracy to frame him? cuz he knows the Russians will cover for him?
     
  24. AhmedFaisal, Sep 5, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013

Share This Page