Russo-Syrian arms shenanigans

[Zoraptor]

But it was the Bad Rebels using sarin, not the Good Rebels. And all arms will be going to the Good Rebels.

 

(Whatever happened to John McCain? He used to be relatively cool in 2000, then he got curb stomped by Karl Rove and came back utterly bonkers)

[Agiel]

(Whatever happened to John McCain? He used to be relatively cool in 2000, then he got curb stomped by Karl Rove and came back utterly bonkers)

 

Now that you mention it, it sort of reminds me of this scene from Network:

 

[Gorth]

 

Wasn't it the rebels using Sarin? At least that's what the UN was saying

 

And honestly, I don't see what the big difference is between killing people with chemical weapons and causing repiratory problems and birth defects in survivors, and blowing people the hell up and leaving survivors with missing limbs and shrapnel and such. End result of both is dead and mangled people.

 

Its not like the rebels are any better than the governmemt at this point either. At least the government isn't cutting out the hearts of prisoners and eating their hearts

I think that it's the fact that Bombs and splosions are controllable, more so than a gas. A bomb, you hit a spot, it explodes, and that spot is gone, you cut loose with Sarin and you've got your target zone, and anything down wind contaminated.

 

It may be part of what causes the sentiment, but it's a truth with modifications. The long term effect of the landscape littered with DUP rounds and unexploded cluster bombs is still a subject of debate.

 

Edit to add: Not condoning chemical weapons, just pointing out their propaganda value seems better than any military benefit, at least with the deployment methods available to the combatants.

[HoonDing]

USA should just let them fight in peace.

[Walsingham]

USA should just let them fight in peace.

 

Yes, because devastated hellzones produce happy healthy people who become neither refugees, nor terrorists, nor just pathetic mangled reminders of our smug isolation.

 

 

EDIT:

 

Three things mark chemical weapons usage as repellent:

 

1. Medical aid to victims of vesicants and nerve gases is basically non-existent

2. Modern soldiers tend to be relatively well warned, and protected against the effects*

3. Civilians can't get out of the way of a fight using chemical weapons

 

Meaning, ultimately that their only use is to terrorise and murder civilians. You can argue that you think that's OK, but I will think you're a ****.

 

*Officialy speaking. The reality is we don't really know.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Walsingham

[HoonDing]

My point was, since Assad likely received these chemical weapons from Russia, let the latter clean up their mess or at the mininum pull the chains on their dog. If USA gets involved, they're just going to send even more missiles.

[BruceVC]

I've mentioned this before but I'll do it again as its relevant to this discussion.

 

There is a correct and relatively easy way that the West can assist with necessary regime change in countries like Syria. The model works and it was used in Libya

 

The West helps to destroy the airpower, heavy artillery and tanks but doesn't send in ground troops with the exception of special force advisors. The forces opposing the dictatorial government need to do the hard hand to hand combat. When the government is overthrown the success is not seen as a Western victory but a victory by the people who wanted regime change. The Arab spring has lead to different countries having different types of protests so obviously I am not suggesting the West intervenes like this in every case. For example in Bahrain this wouldn't have been applicable.

 

For all those people who are opposed to Western intervention the net result is Syria. This is what happens to a country where this type of civil war is prolonged. Tens of thousands of people killed, millions displaced and the infrastructure of the country basically destroyed. And why? Because Russia and China keep vetoing any proper military involvement for a number of reasons

 

Well done Russia, your behaviour is disgraceful !!!

Edited June 14, 2013 by BruceVC

[obyknven]

We support Assad because long wars is profitable)))). Actualy this war is shame of US foreighn politics. Gaddafy waste moneys on social projects (irrigation of Sahara, social support for Lybians and other peaceful ****) instead of buy our weapons. All known how this guy die. After this our arms sells increased, everyone want be armed and prepared to war. Even Saudi wants buy our weapons now, they have fear being backstabbed by American "ally", as Gaddafy has been backstabbed by European "friends". Thanks so much NATO, your agressive politics make us richer.

 

If West really want stop war in Syria, they must pay reparations to us. We stop support Assad if these reparations become extremely more profitable than arm sales to Assad regime. But westlings too greedy for this, and this war will never end. What a shame!

[melkathi]

Bruce, have you read about the crimes the rebels in Syria are committing? Pushing prisoners of war off of rooftops? That was a nasty enough start. But eating their enemies' hearts? Anyone who supports that kind of creatures with arms should not be the one pointing fingers.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

We could always bomb Syria to oblivion. I'm pretty sure it would be a bit more cost effective than the current US policy and lead to pretty much the same result.

[BruceVC]

Bruce, have you read about the crimes the rebels in Syria are committing? Pushing prisoners of war off of rooftops? That was a nasty enough start. But eating their enemies' hearts? Anyone who supports that kind of creatures with arms should not be the one pointing fingers.

 

The longer the war drags on more atrocities will be committed by both sides. The rebels also have  certain Al-Qaeda elements that fight for them so you are correct that there is no more defined side that has the moral high ground

 

But this wasn't always the case and Assad had months to make meaningful political change. He chose to crush the political dissension with the might of his army and police. So once again this is the result of countries not being able to intervene militarily and a civil war that drags on

 

What is both scary and interesting is the type of ideological Syria that will eventually emerge from the ashes when this civil war is over.

Edited June 14, 2013 by BruceVC

[Gfted1]

Why is the US even getting involved? France and the UK are all hot and heavy to arm the rebels, let them deal with it.

[BruceVC]

Why is the US even getting involved? France and the UK are all hot and heavy to arm the rebels, let them deal with it.

 

The USA has advanced military hardware and a much bigger military budget that its other allies , you can see the huge difference this played in the Libya conflict . Also despite the incorrect perception Western countries always prefer and expect  the USA to be involved in these types of conflicts. Its like having a big, strong brother in the room when you were a kid and arguing with friends. You just feel more confident

Edited June 14, 2013 by BruceVC

[Malcador]

USA should just let them fight in peace.

Pretty much, why is this fight worth the US' time and if they get any more directly involved, the life of any US service personnel ?

[Drowsy Emperor]

Because its not about Syria but about driving Russia, China and Iran out of the middle east. In the case of Iran its a win either way, because the US backed rebels win, Iran loses an ally and its borders are threatened, if they lose Iran still has to waste resources in that fight to reestablish its influence.

 

Syria is just another battleground of even less importance than some other, recent ones.

 

The EU is a joke, only the US can play that game with Russia/China/Iran, the EU countries know it which is why they don't dare act on their own, and the US knows it but it lets them on the boat so they can feel influential (and to use their resources in the fight obviously).

 

Israel wants a more aggressive approach because they're interested in busting up Iran and their nuclear program but the US is hesitant to deploy troops because they're already weakening Iran and fulfilling their goals and there is little to gain from having US troops return in body bags in the process.

[Walsingham]

I see what you mean, Bruce. But Syria ain't Libya. Just as a starter for ten you've got hot and cold running jihadis and Iranian proxies running loose by the _thousand_. Then you have an established Russian military presence, and a big (if currently abstracted) Chinese interest.

 

I believe that several UK politicians are desperate to do something about Syria. Charitably it's because it seems wrong to do **** all. Uncharitably it's one more opportunity to look statesmanlike when domestic politics is pretty humdrum and zero profit.

 

However, I don't believe that anyone inside or outside Syria has sufficient intelligence to manipulate what's happening in a smart enough way to get what they want 'lite'.

 

Only a major intervention could stabilise the situation at present. And thanks to the 'war is always wrong' lobby, that's not going to happen. So all we can do now is watch the casualties mount up. I predict 5-10 years of increasingly futile slaughter.

[Gfted1]

No way Wals. Now that the US has been rope-a-doped into joining this mess it will turn out just like Libya. We'll do all the heavy lifting by destroying their ability to fight and the rebels will swoop in at the end and stab Assad in the rectum.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Not likely. There was no one to back Libya which is why it fell so quickly, but Syria is of vital importance to Iran and to a lesser extent Russia and China. 

 

If it could have had its way the US would have already toppled Assad, its obviously not working out.

[Walsingham]

No way Wals. Now that the US has been rope-a-doped into joining this mess it will turn out just like Libya. We'll do all the heavy lifting by destroying their ability to fight and the rebels will swoop in at the end and stab Assad in the rectum.

 

They don't like it up 'em. LOL

 

Joking aside, I wonder if this will be another drone drama Obama style.

 

The other thought which occurred to me was giving the rebels ONLY the heaviest weapons. Tanks, arty, planes etc. Add firepower, don't add anything useful for terrorism later.

[Malcador]

Well they're whining for that http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syrian-rebels-say-they-need-heavy-weaponry-not-small-arms-from-us/2013/06/14/775615fe-d4e2-11e2-8cbe-1bcbee06f8f8_story.html

 

“We welcome the decision, but it is a late step. And if they send small arms, how can small arms make a difference?” said Louay al-Mokdad, political and media coordinator for the Free Syria Army. “They should help us with real weapons, antitank and antiaircraft, and with armored vehicles, training and a no-fly zone.”

Maybe gold plated ones as well?

[Zoraptor]

Uncharitably it's one more opportunity to look statesmanlike when domestic politics is pretty humdrum and zero profit.

Hi. I'm. William. Hague. I. Try. To. Sound. Like. Churchill. But. End. Up. Sounding. Like. A. Bad. Impression. Of. Captain. Kirk

 

Meh, the real Churchill would have advocated gassing the arabs for being brown and uppity, per Iraq.

[BruceVC]

 

Uncharitably it's one more opportunity to look statesmanlike when domestic politics is pretty humdrum and zero profit.

Hi. I'm. William. Hague. I. Try. To. Sound. Like. Churchill. But. End. Up. Sounding. Like. A. Bad. Impression. Of. Captain. Kirk

 

Meh, the real Churchill would have advocated gassing the arabs for being brown and uppity, per Iraq.

 

 

 

Okay funniest post of the week award go's to you

 

[Bos_hybrid]

History repeating itself.

 

The fact that the West is backing the side, which by all reports is losing ground(due to Hezbollah troops, incoming Iranian troops and incoming arms from Russia). Will most likely mean direct intervention is needed to bring down Assad.

[BruceVC]

History repeating itself.

 

The fact that the West is backing the side, which by all reports is losing ground(due to Hezbollah troops, incoming Iranian troops and incoming arms from Russia). Will most likely mean direct intervention is needed to bring down Assad.

 

No I don't see this as that bad, you need to also consider another result with the  West openly aiding the rebels that this becomes a classic proxy war and Iran has to pour even more money and resources into assisting Assad. This weakens Iran which is not necessarily a bad thing if you think of other tensions in the area?

 

I heard this interesting perspective today on CNN and the  Fareed Zakaria show. It makes sense  but doesn't help speed up an end to the war and the horrific suffering of the civilians.

[Drowsy Emperor]

The reason the rebels never had a chance without foreign intervention is that Syria has a pretty good army by middle eastern standards. Arms and instructors can only do so much.

 

If the US keeps on intervening more and more towards the east, a third world war scenario becomes more and more likely. Not allowing Russia, China Iran, and certain other countries to have space to project their own interests leads down the path to an inevitable conflict.