Syria Uproar?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Also…

Why is gassing someone wrong when killing people with bullets, bombs, and grenades ok ?

Are they any more or less dead ?[/quote]

Na, but WWI was really, really ugly.

Like, really, really.

Which is when it was decided that some shit is just no fun, even in wartime.

[/quote]

Yeah, because a dirty nuke is so much less horrible than mustard gas.

And a ban by Geneva or Hague doesn’t prevent a country (like oh, say, all of them) from continuing to produce and stockpile as many chemical and biological weapons as they (we) possibly can. That picture of the 155mm sarin gas shell I posted above was from the 1980s, and I’m sure more than a few made it into Saddam’s arsenal during the Iran-Iraq war.

Would be ironic (and a little embarrassing) if the Syrians surrendered their chemical weapons, and we found out that every third one is marked “MADE IN USA”.
[/quote]

I think we dont have them.

Because… we dont take defense seriously.

At all.

302

Assad could easily hand over chemical weapons… it doesn’t mean they are going to stop making them. Although it would be funny to see pictures of said weapons, and stamped on the side of it “Made in the USA.” Wouldn’t that be ironic?

I find it funny there is all this posturing for war, and then we have the summit and folks sit around coffee and tea and agree that if ‘x’ is handed over, they’ll withdraw. Its like a game, that’s all.

Someone said something about the “biggest jokesters” and listed Obama, Putin, etc. Could have saved yourself the time and just wrote “politicians.”

303

[quote]orion wrote:

I think we dont have them.

Because… we dont take defense seriously.

At all.

[/quote]

But everyone takes the weapons business seriously.

Everyone.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED19Ak05.html

“The one common characteristic Syria shares with Iraq in regard to its chemical weapons program is the help it received from the West in establishing it. Former CIA director William Webster told a Congressional panel in 1989 that the CIA had determined foreign assistance was of ‘critical importance in allowing Syria to develop its chemical warfare capability. West European firms were instrumental in supplying the required precursor chemicals and equipment. Without the provision of these key elements, Damascus would not have been able to produce chemical weapons.’”

“Syria’s principle suppliers of chemical and biological weapons production technology were large chemical brokerage houses in Holland, Switzerland, France, Austria and Germany, including many of the same companies that were supplying Iraq.”

304

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

I think we dont have them.

Because… we dont take defense seriously.

At all.

[/quote]

But everyone takes the weapons business seriously.

Everyone.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ED19Ak05.html

“The one common characteristic Syria shares with Iraq in regard to its chemical weapons program is the help it received from the West in establishing it. Former CIA director William Webster told a Congressional panel in 1989 that the CIA had determined foreign assistance was of ‘critical importance in allowing Syria to develop its chemical warfare capability. West European firms were instrumental in supplying the required precursor chemicals and equipment. Without the provision of these key elements, Damascus would not have been able to produce chemical weapons.’”

“Syria’s principle suppliers of chemical and biological weapons production technology were large chemical brokerage houses in Holland, Switzerland, France, Austria and Germany, including many of the same companies that were supplying Iraq.”[/quote]

Yeah, we sell a lot of shit.

If our army was equipped with the stuff we can actually build…

But, the more enlightened Vice-Lieutenants (Master Sergeant, I guess) will show you how to make a white flag out of standard gear so I insist that we are not delusional.

Just not willing to defend ourselves.

But if YOU want to defend yourself, well, for a reasonable price…

305

Reasonable? Have you seen what they’re charging for a Steyr AUG these days?!

306

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Reasonable? Have you seen what they’re charging for a Steyr AUG these days?![/quote]

Then get Ak47s to equip your army of child soldiers you hobo…

307

[quote]b89 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
A win in terms of military engagement and a win in terms of long term successful nation building are two different things.

When you conflate the two you err from the path of good, solid, intellectually honest debate.[/quote]

Why are you bringing up this non-sequitur bullshit about winning military engagements. That was NEVER the goal. The goal was ALWAYS to destroy al Qaeda’s and other terrorist organization’s ability to operate in the region. We clearly have NOT succeeded there. Conflating the issue is about as detrimental to good, solid, intellectually honest debate as trying to wash over the fact that, while we have won a military engagement there, we never went there simply to win engagements but to accomplish the larger goal of wiping away safe havens. If anything, we’ve actually created more safe havens since it seems as if Iraq is now a massive training ground for jihadists all over the region.

Iraq is to Johnny Jihad what Dagobah is to Luke Skywalker.[/quote]

Permanently? That’s delusional. I don’t know whether you’ve realized this or not but during OEF and OIF we’d take control of those safe havens only to get told and pack it up and leave. The goal has always been a withdrawal. But to say there wasn’t any success as far as disrupting their activities goes is ridiculous. It’s just short term because there wasn’t a long term goal from the top down.

[/quote]

The goal has NEVER been to withdraw from a situation that will flare up again the second we leave. THAT is delusional. But that is essentially what happens. We kick the shit out of a bunch of Johnny Jihadists and their psychopath brethren, we declare victory with honor or whatever bullshit Madison Avenue catchphrase is the flavor of the month, and then the crazies ooze back into the vacuum we’ve left.

Of course there has been success in disrupting their activities. But that was never the goal and anyone who says it was/is is beyond delusional. “Oh gee, let’s just go blow some people up for the fuck of it. We’ll disrupt them for a decade or so, pull out, let them get a full head of steam again and then when they blow something else up here in the U.S. we’ll go back and beat the fuck out of them again for a little while. Rinse and repeat.” Yeah, right.

308

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Also…

Why is gassing someone wrong when killing people with bullets, bombs, and grenades ok ?

Are they any more or less dead ?[/quote]

Nope. It’s why I partially commend whichever Syrians used the chemical weapons. I don’t condone warfare, but fuck it. If you’re going to kill someone why should you give one flying fuck how you do it? Why should you care at all what the rest of the world says about HOW you kill someone?

Oh fuck! We killed that guy the wrong way! Holy shit! You blew that guy’s brains out all wrong! We’re going to bomb you into the fucking Stone Age now!

It’s complete bullshit.

What’s even worse is this half-measure where we bomb some shit, project our military might a little bit and then go away. All we’re doing is just killing people to send a message, nothing more. Is that what the U.S. is all about now? Is that what my tax dollars are used for? To kill people like some fucking Sicilian message?

309

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Reasonable? Have you seen what they’re charging for a Steyr AUG these days?![/quote]

Then get Ak47s to equip your army of child soldiers you hobo…
[/quote]

Nah, I still have some pride. I prefer SIG or H&K: Swiss, German and Austrian engineering beats Russian, Chinese and Yugoslavian.

And the AUG can still actually be had cheaply if one knows where to look.

If only Steyr made it in 7.62mm …

310

Better engineering as in reliability, accuracy, ease-of-cleaning/disassembly, addons… in what respects? I always thought the AK’s were regarded as the most reliable for crutty conditions, but not necessarily accurate like the M4.

What’s the word on the new SCAR or whatever its called that our special forces are using. Supposedly its pretty awesome, but I haven’t read a ton on it.

311

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

Of course there has been success in disrupting their activities. But that was never the goal and anyone who says it was/is is beyond delusional. “Oh gee, let’s just go blow some people up for the fuck of it. We’ll disrupt them for a decade or so, pull out, let them get a full head of steam again and then when they blow something else up here in the U.S. we’ll go back and beat the fuck out of them again for a little while. Rinse and repeat.” Yeah, right.[/quote]

It only makes sense if you’re an arms dealer. Or a politician who receives bribes from arms dealers.

312

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Reasonable? Have you seen what they’re charging for a Steyr AUG these days?![/quote]

Then get Ak47s to equip your army of child soldiers you hobo…
[/quote]

Nah, I still have some pride. I prefer SIG or H&K: Swiss, German and Austrian engineering beats Russian, Chinese and Yugoslavian.

And the AUG can still actually be had cheaply if one knows where to look.

If only Steyr made it in 7.62mm …[/quote]

I think you do not appreciate the beauty of the Ak47 enough.

First, you can teach a malaria ridden, glue sniffing 10 year old budding psychopath how to operate it in 10 minutes.

Second, even if you drag it through the mud or desert it will probably still fire. very low maintenance.

Third, you can buy it at the price of scrap metal.

So, in a certain strategic position…

313

[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
Better engineering as in reliability, accuracy, ease-of-cleaning/disassembly, addons… in what respects? I always thought the AK’s were regarded as the most reliable for crutty conditions, but not necessarily accurate like the M4.

What’s the word on the new SCAR or whatever its called that our special forces are using. Supposedly its pretty awesome, but I haven’t read a ton on it. [/quote]

Uh oh. Sorry I brought it up.

Don’t get me talking about guns. Start another thread on GAL for that.

Not that the “which is the better/best combat rifle” hasn’t been done to ABSOLUTE DEATH all over the Internet, in guns stores, ranges and military bars for decades.

But seriously, if you want my opinion on the relative benefits and shortcomings of the G3, FAL, AK, AR, M1, AUG and their progeny, I’ll see you over on GAL.

314

Actually, its in process, I’m just trying to come up with an appropriate first post to get the conversation going. I’m rather interested in the topic, maybe I’ll base it around platform, etc. and let it go from there :D.

Look for it in the next 5-10 minutes.

315

Ugh, Can’t wait to see all the same people who hated Bush rally behind that shitty speech.

I’ll never understand how a prochoice person can use the death of children to justify anything, and remain intellectually honest. Because being sucked out with a vacuum is better than being gassed I guess…

316

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Reasonable? Have you seen what they’re charging for a Steyr AUG these days?![/quote]

Then get Ak47s to equip your army of child soldiers you hobo…
[/quote]

Nah, I still have some pride. I prefer SIG or H&K: Swiss, German and Austrian engineering beats Russian, Chinese and Yugoslavian.

And the AUG can still actually be had cheaply if one knows where to look.

If only Steyr made it in 7.62mm …[/quote]

I think you do not appreciate the beauty of the Ak47 enough.

First, you can teach a malaria ridden, glue sniffing 10 year old budding psychopath how to operate it in 10 minutes.

Second, even if you drag it through the mud or desert it will probably still fire. very low maintenance.

Third, you can buy it at the price of scrap metal.

So, in a certain strategic position…[/quote]

Oh, I don’t deny anything you say. If not for the AK, popular revolutions and gang turf wars just wouldn’t be anywhere near as exciting.

I owned a Kalashnikov, and I have also owned an H&K 91, and an M1A. All three will do essentially the same job, just as a 3000-ruble Russian hooker will probably do about the same job as a 200 euro German call girl or a 500 dollar French Canadian escort.

Which is the best bang for the buck? Depends on what you expect, I guess, and how important aesthetics, ergonomics and fit-and-finish are to you.

317

Can someone link to an article or something that covers Obama’s address? Being as I’m at work, I wasn’t able to watch. Or maybe provide a Cliff Notes of what was said and the overall reaction of those in the address and for you personally.

318

Just so I am clear…

If Assad uses gas…we strike.

If Assad goes back to his bullets, bombs, and grenades, the US will stay out of it…

got it

319

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Just so I am clear…

If Assad uses gas…we strike.

If Assad goes back to his bullets, bombs, and grenades, the US will stay out of it…

got it[/quote]

Yeah. If he uses gas again we’re going to show him how to REALLY kill people. If we got our way over in Syria we’d bomb the living fuck out of half the country and then roll in there afterward and start selling McDonald’s and Marlboros to everyone lucky enough to survive the initial onslaught. The American Dream is alive and well and if you disagree we’re going to fucking KILL you until you’re a believer.

320

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]b89 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]b89 wrote:

What’s his alternative? It isn’t like he can ship them out and say they don’t exist. [/quote]

It worked for Saddam Hussein…He is the one who shipped them to Syria. Don’t believe me ask Jewbacca.
[/quote]

Saddam isn’t hanging out in his palaces anymore these days. Russia would ship chemical weapons to Assad just so he could give them up and prevent American intervention. I wouldn’t be surprised if Kerry got advised to offer that as an alternative so intervention can be avoided, it’s too unpopular. Chemical weapons were supposed to be the ace up the sleeve and it’s accomplished nothing.[/quote]

Where do you think Assad is getting his chemical weapons? Iran, Russia, Iraq (previously), and he might produce some himself. If he hands them over to Russia they will just wait till everything cools down internationally and then give them back. They need to be destroyed by Russia or some other International agency.

I do not want to go to war over this. It is their civil war let them hash it out.
[/quote]

Someone probably helped them develop the capability to produce them, Russia, and they’ve been doing it on their own. I don’t think it’s that big of a deal for Syria to give them up. If they give up their stockpile and declare all of their facilities, really give it all up it up, it wont change the outcome of the war if there’s no real intervention to assist the rebels. And Russia is already making a stipulation that Syria playing ball on chemical weapons means there wont be any intervention.

I think Western nations will no longer make the regime change a priority so funding for the rebels is just going to dry up. Nations in the region will continue to assist them but it wont be enough win. I wouldn’t even be surprised if Russia and Iran step up and try to end the conflict. I do think Syria will have to deal with ISI/AQI in the future though, they’re already in the fight and they can do a lot of recruiting in Syria due to the conflict. Ironic since Syria let AQI cross its border during OIF and made a big deal out of America crossing the border illegally and taking some guys out.