Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Peter Stacey on August 26, 2013, 09:03:51 pm
-
At risk of starting a new thread like the Snowden one, what should be done about the Syrian crisis?
With confirmation that chemical weapons have been used, do we as the rest of the World have a moral obligation to step in with military force, even if that puts our own troops at risk of similar attack?
It's clear that international law has been broken and while it's a bit early to conclude, it is also likely that a war crimes tribunal will be formed at some point in the future. But while major Governments are currently responding with some indecision regarding intervention, does the use of chemical weapons against civilians change the risk vs benefit and should we be more committed to stepping in to stop what happening?
Can we stop what's happening?
-
With confirmation that chemical weapons have been used
yet another WMD, Gulf of Tonkin, Yellow Rain (that is from Agent Orange hall of famers), you name it... ;)
-
yet another WMD, Gulf of Tonkin, Yellow Rain (that is from Agent Orange hall of famers), you name it... ;)
In this case, substantially more than either the yellow rain (I was involved in an investigation of yellow rain so I know the details intimately) and Gulf of Tonkin incidents.
-
was involved in an investigation of yellow rain so I know the details intimately
Cui bono
-
Cui bono
As part of a UN investigation conducted at the request of a country located in south-east asian region following concerns of their citizens. Little else I can really add on that, other than 'as a benefit to whom' - to the locals. This was conducted in recent years.
-
At risk of starting a new thread like the Snowden one, what should be done about the Syrian crisis?
With confirmation that chemical weapons have been used, do we as the rest of the World have a moral obligation to step in with military force, even if that puts our own troops at risk of similar attack?
It's clear that international law has been broken and while it's a bit early to conclude, it is also likely that a war crimes tribunal will be formed at some point in the future. But while major Governments are currently responding with some indecision regarding intervention, does the use of chemical weapons against civilians change the risk vs benefit and should we be more committed to stepping in to stop what happening?
Can we stop what's happening?
I don't have a clear answer to these good questions. It does seem to be clear that chemical weapons have been used, but in evaluating the US administration's claim that it is certain they were used by the regime, I can't help remembering previous claims of certainty emanating from Washington. We have a moral obligation to avoid any action that will make the situation worse in the long term. Interfering in what appears to be a civil war seems very risky. Doing something for the sake of being seen to do something seems a grotesque moral vanity. "Surgical strikes" seem a dangerous delusion.
-
At risk of starting a new thread like the Snowden one, what should be done about the Syrian crisis?
...
Can we stop what's happening?
Put the country in a box and tell them that when they've sorted out their own internal problems that they'll be let out and welcome to join the world again.
-
An interesting interview here (http://www.abc.net.au/radio/player/rnmodplayer.html?pgm=Late%20Night%20Live&pgmurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fradionational%2Fprograms%2Flatenightlive%2F&w=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fradionational%2Fmedia%2F4912128.asx&r=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fradionational%2Fmedia%2F4912128.ram&t=Should%20the%20West%20intervene%20in%20Syria%3F&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.abc.net.au%2Fradionational%2Fprograms%2Flatenightlive%2Fshould-the-west-intervene-in-syria3f%2F4912128&p=1).
-
Put the country in a box and tell them that when they've sorted out their own internal problems that they'll be let out and welcome to join the world again.
You could say that about a lot of countries and the uprising is an attempt by the people to do just that. However, when the govt has a huge and deplorable advantage with chemical weapons, is it right to sit around and just say - well, fend for yourselves.
This is one case where more decisive action is warranted. Death by chemical weapons, especially nerve agents is unpleasant to watch and the effects are deplorable. These are methods of attack that the World agreed as early as 1899 that they should never be used (and in several other resolutions and conventions since then).
So for me, this is a case where removing the threat of chemical use is important. After that, I'm less inclined to interfere, which may not make any sense.
-
Does anyone know who supplied the ingredients for the chemical weapons? Did the Syrians create the weapons or did some other country supply them? The USA are appalled by their use but has used them themselves. This is a very messy situation with no clear solution. Interfering could mean it spills into other countries and Russia has an interest in Syria. :o
-
Doing something for the sake of being seen to do something seems a grotesque moral vanity.
Well put. Yet, this seemed to be a popular line of thinking when I discussed a certain middle-eastern dictator with some (but not all) US citizens in 2003: rather do something (no matter how bad the consequences), than doing nothing.
-h
-
It seems that conflicts (asymmetric civil warfare in particular) is more and more being fought in international media.
I'd be sceptical about any claims about one side being "evil" (or more evil than the other), (thus warranting external force) until the matter has been investigated. If there is a large and immediate threat to civilians, I'd be willing to let go of this principle, but would much prefer a broad UN-sanctioned force over some "coalition of willing".
It would be interesting to rally know what the Russian and Chinese leaders are saying to their people, and how those people really feels about this conflict. Is it really the "free people of Syria + the free world" vs "the bad Assad + cynic suppressing regimes that are afraid of future interventions in their own country"? Or is the picture more complex?
-h
-
Or is the picture more complex?
I'm sure it's more complex then that, but there is never an excuse for the use of chemical weapons by either side in any conflict.
It would be good for a multinational force to form, but history suggests that is rare and takes forever. With the Libyan situation, the risk of Gaddafi using his chemical weapons at the time partly prompted the French action prior to broader NATO action.
Perhaps in this, one country needs to step up and take a lead, but there is so much troubled recent history in the middle east region that the countries that might otherwise have been prepared to take proper steps (not just surgical strikes) are no longer in a position to act unilaterally.
-
I'd be sceptical about any claims about one side being "evil" (or more evil than the other), (thus warranting external force) until the matter has been investigated. If there is a large and immediate threat to civilians, I'd be willing to let go of this principle, but would much prefer a broad UN-sanctioned force over some "coalition of willing".
+1
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/world/middleeast/american-tells-of-odyssey-as-prisoner-of-syrian-rebels.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/10/world/middleeast/journalists-in-syria-face-dangers-of-war-and-rising-risk-of-abduction.html?pagewanted=all
-
If the West move to take out Assad then he might have a nasty surprise for Israel. Something to think about? From a cynical point of view it strikes me that some "Rulers" in the west want to have on their CV's the fact they got involved in some kind of war. It doesn't really matter that it was successful, only that they managed to get involved. Blair wasn't in the least repentant about Iraq. Still stating he done the right thing. I don't think the citizens of Syria are really on their minds. A good chance to play politics on a world stage.
-
...the countries that might otherwise have been prepared to take proper steps...
What might "proper steps" be? The interview I linked above suggests that nothing short of a massive invasion suppressing both sides would stop the conflict. The lesser possibility might be to do something to strongly discourage Assad from using chemical weapons again, while otherwise leaving the two sides to fight it out. But can we be sure that such an approach would result in reducing death and suffering in the long term, or can we even think it more likely than not that it would have that effect?
-
The Syrian conflict has become (amongst other things) a proxy war between Iran & Saudi Arabia, which certainly complicates things. With Hezbollah joining the Assad side, and various radical Islamist groups joining the rebels, it's fast becoming a case of finding the lesser of two (or more) evils. In the middle of this nonsense, innocent civilians are getting hurt & killed.
Any intervention has to acknowledge that there have been atrocities on both sides, and neither is much interested in freedom & democracy. Whatever action is taken, it needs to be under the auspices of the UN, should be focussed absolutely on the welfare of civilians & the prevention of further conflict. That said, I expect we'll see airstrikes against key military installations & major units known to be loyal to Assad. But FFS, let's not go down that f***witted road of 'shock & awe' again.
-
The Syrian conflict has become (amongst other things) a proxy war between Iran & Saudi Arabia, which certainly complicates things. With Hezbollah joining the Assad side, and various radical Islamist groups joining the rebels, it's fast becoming a case of finding the lesser of two (or more) evils. In the middle of this nonsense, innocent civilians are getting hurt & killed.
Any intervention has to acknowledge that there have been atrocities on both sides, and neither is much interested in freedom & democracy. Whatever action is taken, it needs to be under the auspices of the UN, should be focussed absolutely on the welfare of civilians & the prevention of further conflict. That said, I expect we'll see airstrikes against key military installations & major units known to be loyal to Assad. But FFS, let's not go down that f***witted road of 'shock & awe' again.
But anything but nonsense to the parties concerned.
FWIW, I'd leave them alone to fight it out. You can't resolve it by intervention any more than was possible anywhere else. These people have their beliefs, just as was the case in Northern Ireland: dogma that eventually ends up being nothing at all to do with the basics of religion (identical) but everythijng to do with control. I think the only sensible action anyone can take is to freeze external assets for all sides - there are clearly more than two.
Maybe Russia and China have a point, despite their obvious worry about agreeing to a precedent that could turn round and bite them both in the ass.
Rob C
-
As part of a UN investigation conducted at the request of a country located in south-east asian region following concerns of their citizens. Little else I can really add on that, other than 'as a benefit to whom' - to the locals. This was conducted in recent years.
indeed... not only "little else" but "absolutely nothing" ;) ... that is unlike spraying people w/ defoliants and then they try to teach others about not using chemical weapons... get a mirror.
-
1. Demonization
2. Sanctions
3. Incident (or "incident")
4. Moral outrage (or "moral outrage")
5. Intervention
How predictable.
How repetitive.
How pathetic.
-
1. Demonization
2. Sanctions
3. Incident (or "incident")
4. Moral outrage (or "moral outrage")
5. Intervention
How predictable.
How repetitive.
How pathetic.
Got it, Slobodan. Nice summary of typical reaction to carnage in distant lands.
Now, back to the question posed by this thread: What should be done (according to Slobodan)?
-
... typical reaction to carnage in distant lands...
REaction!? I was having in mind our action. But of course, we prefer to see ourselves as just innocent bystanders, eager to help out of the goodness of our heart.
... What should be done (according to Slobodan)?
Other than basic humanitarian assistance, nothing. Oh, yes, it might help stop selling them chemical and other weapons.
-
REaction!? I was having in mind our action. But of course, we prefer to see ourselves as just innocent bystanders, eager to help out of the goodness of our heart.
Other than basic humanitarian assistance, nothing. Oh, yes, it might help stop selling them chemical and other weapons.
I thought that was Russia doing the selling or maybe the gifting... perhaps that's why they don't want anyone to interfere; bad for their business too?
Rob C
-
I thought that was Russia doing the selling or maybe the gifting...
It is both a vicious circle and a chicken and egg problem, Rob: Americans sell to one side, Russians to the other.
-
No one sells chemical weapons to anyone else anymore. Its 30 years since that process stopped.
-
No one sells chemical weapons to anyone else anymore. Its 30 years since that process stopped.
How can you tell? Nothing else is for sure; why that? Guns travel booked in as spares for tractors... why not chemicals as baby milk?
Rob C
-
No one sells chemical weapons to anyone else anymore. Its 30 years since that process stopped.
(http://www.prestoimages.net/store/rd648/648_pd2070008_1.jpg)
-
(http://www.prestoimages.net/store/rd648/648_pd2070008_1.jpg)
That is related to a Schedule 1 chemical (not scheduled as a chemical weapon in that form as it's a salt and not the form developed for military purposes in the past - still highly toxic, but not nitrogen mustard in that specific form without chemical modification). The label is useful, because it's still toxic and closely related to other chemicals, but it isn't a chemical weapon as that form of the chemical (even with traces of nitrogen mustard in it).
-
How can you tell? Nothing else is for sure; why that? Guns travel booked in as spares for tractors... why not chemicals as baby milk?
Few of us here are professional photographers, so we have other employment for income. Mine relates to this specific area. As a chemical weapons inspection team leader our role involves inspections in all of the 189 member States, both for destruction purposes and for non-proliferation. OPCW knowledge of what manufacturing capabilities and what is happening Worldwide is pretty good (not perfect, but good enough to know what is happening in relation to the manufacture and trade of chemicals).
Why not chemicals as babies milk? You need to have the ability to make the chemicals and have access to the required raw materials in the first place (not a trivial matter), to transport them, to receive and store them, to weaponise them. It's not as simple as labelling chemicals one thing, but them being another. There is a whole chain of activity (and people involved) and a lot of barriers deliberately in the way to prevent it at different points in the chain.
-
That is a Schedule 1 chemical, used under Part VI of the Chemical Weapons Convention (Purposes Not Prohibited).
It's not a chemical weapon in that form.
in that particular form, no but the substance can be weaponized though for that purpose (and cheaply synthesised from widely available components)... the point is that chemical weapons are not necessarily state of the art sub 1microgram/kg lethal doze chemical compaunds.
-
in that particular form, no but the substance can be weaponized though for that purpose (and cheaply synthesised from widely available components)... the point is that chemical weapons are not necessarily state of the art sub 1microgram/kg lethal doze chemical compaunds.
See my edited post above. It could be weaponised, as many, many other non-scheduled chemicals could be, but that brings a whole load of other issues with it that makes it difficult.
These issues are going off topic, which was related to the current Syrian issue and opinions on what should be done.
What do you think should be done?
-
You need to have the ability to make the chemicals and have access to the required raw materials in the first place (not a trivial matter), to transport them, to receive and store them, to weaponise them. It's not as simple as labelling chemicals one thing, but them being another. There is a whole chain of activity (and people involved) and a lot of barriers deliberately in the way to prevent it at different points in the chain.
well, you tell that to those dudes from Aum Shinrikyo who managed to make not a cheap mustard gas, but sarin type chemical and use it... and that was like when ? 20 years ago - now those sunni rebels w/ all Saudi/Qatar gov't money can do no worse.
-
well, you tell that to those dudes from Aum Shinrikyo who managed to make not a cheap mustard gas, but sarin type chemical and use it... and that was like when ? 20 years ago - now those sunni rebels w/ all Saudi/Qatar gov't money can do no worse.
Yep, early 1990's (Matsumoto 1994, Tokyo subway 1995), prior to introduction of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which was 1997. Aum Shinrikyo manufactured not only sarin, but also VX and used it on their own members. 15 years of treaty compliance has made a lot of difference.
-
See my edited post above. It could be weaponised, as many, many other non-scheduled chemicals could be, but that brings a whole load of other issues with it that makes it difficult.
on an industrial scale, but to make a show in a local area in Syria - not a big deal...
-
on an industrial scale, but to make a show in a local area in Syria - not a big deal...
Really?
Someone is going to sell chemicals, plant, equipment and chemical defence capabilities to Syria (not what they already have from the past), for them to weaponise and use at a scale that provides military advantage?
Or alternatively, a country is going to trade chemicals, plant and equipment with other countries that would allow them to produce chemical weapons?
My scepticism is nothing to do with it not being possible. It is. That doesn't mean it will happen or is happening. There are a lot of things in place to prevent it and to detect if it is happening.
-
What do you think should be done?
stop supporting next Bin Laden's... because they will bite you...
-
I'm sure it's more complex then that, but there is never an excuse for the use of chemical weapons by either side in any conflict.
...
The act of hurting or killing civilians in a military (-like) conflict; women, children, elderly and male non-combattants where no other significant objective is involved than spreading fear in the population and subduing your military opponent is just bad. I think it is bad in most religious and non-religious systems of moral and ethics. It is so bad that any thinking, functioning, individual should see it as bad no matter your background and what you think about your opponent. It is bad if it is carried out by (self-proclaimed) muslim fundamentalists in the form of terrorist attacks, it is bad if it carried out as bomb-attacks on (largely) civilian Dresden during WW2.
Now if (perish the thought), I, close family or friends were to be hurt or killed by someone during a war or civil war or war-like event. Either as civilians or combatants. Would it really matter to me if the weapon was a knife, an AK47 or some chemical arms? I'd say no. If the pain was particulary bad, this would be worse, but I am quite sure that a dull knife can be used to inflict great pain during hours, days or (for survivors) the remainder of their life. If the amount of casualties was particularly large, this would (of course) be worse, but I am quite sure that AK47s can be used to hurt or kill a large number of civilians.
There might be good practical reasons to forbid chemical arms, such as the ease with which they can be used to spread terror and death by a small number of people, affecting a large number of people. I fail to see the fundamental moral distinction between affecting a given number of people by a given level of pain/death by conventional vs chemical weapons.
-h
-
The act of hurting or killing civilians in a military (-like) conflict; women, children, elderly and male non-combattants where no other significant objective is involved than spreading fear in the population and subduing your military opponent is just bad. I think it is bad in most religious and non-religious systems of moral and ethics. It is so bad that any thinking, functioning, individual should see it as bad no matter your background and what you think about your opponent. It is bad if it is carried out by (self-proclaimed) muslim fundamentalists in the form of terrorist attacks, it is bad if it carried out as bomb-attacks on (largely) civilian Dresden during WW2.
You should have lived in London then; I was in Middlesex to the north (not far from Northolt...) and could, as a child, still see the glow; and it wasn't fairy lights... I also remember the gliders going on their one-way flights across to Europe - poor sods. And it sure wasn't just London, either: the shipyards, the factories, all of it, country-wide, was under bombardment in those glory days of the Reich. On the good side, it cleared some of the slums and introduced a lot of kids to the countryside.
Rob C
-
Really?
Someone is going to sell chemicals, plant, equipment and chemical defence capabilities to Syria (not what they already have from the past), for them to weaponise and use at a scale that provides military advantage?
not to Syria, dear... and not "plant"... to "rebels"... and again - dudes in Japan made sarin type w/o any an industrial sized plant/equipment and w/o any state terrorist sponosors like Saudi/Qatar (and USA is the same by proxy) and "rebels" (unlike miniscule Japanese sect) have money, material support and territorial safety to operate w/ full US blessing to Saudi/Qatar & Ko... so when reason to attack is absent what can be better than invent that reason (like "WMD" were invented in Iraq... Kerry, apparently, envies Powell's laurels ;) - because Powell will be remembered forever as a face of that lie, and not for anything else he did before... say "Powell" and his UN performance is what will be remembered in instant).
-
At risk of starting a new thread like the Snowden one, what should be done about the Syrian crisis?
With confirmation that chemical weapons have been used, do we as the rest of the World have a moral obligation to step in with military force, even if that puts our own troops at risk of similar attack?
It's clear that international law has been broken and while it's a bit early to conclude, it is also likely that a war crimes tribunal will be formed at some point in the future. But while major Governments are currently responding with some indecision regarding intervention, does the use of chemical weapons against civilians change the risk vs benefit and should we be more committed to stepping in to stop what happening?
Can we stop what's happening?
a revisit to the original nature and birth of capitalism can give you a better understanding what has been going on even in the postmodern world in terms of underlying driving forces:
let me quote:
All this raises the question of what “capitalism” is to begin with, a question on which there is no consensus at all. The word was originally invented by socialists, who saw capitalism as that system whereby those who own capital command the labor of those who do not. Proponents, in contrast, tend to see capitalism as the freedom of the marketplace, which allows those with potentially marketable visions to pull resources together to bring those visions into being. Just about everyone agrees, however, that capitalism is a system that demands constant, endless growth. Enterprises have to grow in order to remain viable. The same is true of nations. Just as five percent per annum was widely accepted, at the dawn of capitalism, as the legitimate commercial rate of interest—that is, the amount that any investor could normally expect her money to be growing by the principle of interesse—so is five percent now the annual rate at which any nation’s GDP really ought to grow. What was once an impersonal mechanism that compelled people to look at everything around them as a potential source of profit has come to be considered the only objective measure of the health of the human community itself.
Starting from our baseline date of 1700, then, what we see at the dawn of modern capitalism is a gigantic financial apparatus of credit and debt that operates—in practical effect—to pump more and more labor out of just about everyone with whom it comes into contact, and as a result produces an endlessly expanding volume of material goods. It does so not just by moral compulsion, but above all by using moral compulsion to mobilize sheer physical force. At every point, the familiar but peculiarly European entanglement of war and commerce reappears—often in startling new forms. The first stock markets in Holland and Britain were based mainly in trading shares of the East and West India companies, which were both military and trading ventures. For a century, one such private, profit-seeking corporation governed India. The national debts of England, France, and the others were based in money borrowed not to dig canals and erect bridges, but to acquire the gunpowder needed to bombard cities and to construct the camps required for the holding of prisoners and the training of recruits. Almost all the bubbles of the eighteenth century involved some fantastic scheme to use the proceeds of colonial ventures to pay for European wars. Paper money was debt money, and debt money was war money, and this has always remained the case. Those who financed Europe’s endless military conflicts also employed the government’s police and prisons to extract ever-increasing productivity from the rest of the population.
— Debt : The First 5,000 Years, by David Graeber
-
Yes, if we want the leadership position then we need to set the example.
Yet, like everyone else I'm tired of our young men sacrificing so much, our economies being set back years and more, and in the end we really don't change middle eastern countries. You won't change any country without a actual war is hell approach and then years of occupation as we did with Germany and Japan. If we are not willing to make real and meaningful change then we should not "go to war."
The "Shot Over the Bow" approach is the worst plan I've ever seen. It's saying "we really don't want to get involved but you need to be punished, so we'll take out a few runways on an helicopter base (and provide you the day and time so no one gets hurt) and call it punishment, okay?
I mean really, can they be serious? Unfortunately yes.
The Israelis have been effective with their actions for the most part when all is considered. When the bad guys do certain bad things the leaders who ordered these things at the highest practical level are targeted. They can't sleep more than a few hours at any one location, every trip by plane, train, or automobile becomes a nightmare. The target's life ceases to function as they know it. They run scared. They can no longer go near their family mosque, or other places they're used to hiding behind because such places aren't recognized as such. And once their car is hit by a hellfire from Blackhawk then the next guy on the list is made known and I'm sure they think long and hard before acting.. because we teach them there are consequences they will pay for personally. The bill will come in their mailbox. And it's done at the least cost and the least life possible. And it's been proven to work.
No wars, no huge costs, and the least life lost. The "rest of the world" might protest and make a few speeches, but really they know the bad guys need punishing and this works without hurting innocents unless the bad guy decides to risk his own family or friends, but nothing large scale. Hell, even the UN finds little to complain about. And you could enact this policy without formal sanctions against the country, sanctions which btw hurt more innocents than actual military actions do.
It's time to change the rules.. make it real to the people who so casually order things like the use of chemical weapons. Go ahead, make my day..
-
It's time to change the rules.. make it real to the people who so casually order things like the use of chemical weapons. Go ahead, make my day..
Who gets to decide who are the bad guys and needs to be executed without a fair trial? The US? France? Russia? China? North Korea? NATO? The UN security council? When there is disagreement, may one player act on its own (using, perhaps, a "coalition of willing")?
If (as you seem to suggest) the use of WMD against civilians and (perhaps) the scale of manufacture of WMD is a crime in itself (that warrants death penalties without a trial), then what nation has the most criminal leaders?
What about the people who order the use of conventional weapons against women, children, elderly, sick and non-combattants?
I think that the establishment of "world order" is a noble but difficult task. It might have been easier in the aftermath of ww2 as economic and military power was concentrated among nations of cultural similarity and (perhaps shared goals). As long as the powerful nations see fit to play the game of politics rather than adhering to (or even signing up for) some international law, I don't see anything changing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash_of_Civilizations
http://www.globalpolicy.org/us-un-and-international-law-8-24/us-opposition-to-the-icc-8-29.html
-h
-
The UK won't be taking part in the bombing of Syria because Parliament has voted against participation and I don't think the Tories can find a way to get round that. I think David Cameron - the UK prime minister - will be secretly glad because it gets him of the hook. He can claim he tried his best and if anything goes wrong with a bombing mission by the USA and France then they will get the blame. If the situation worsens then he can claim his critics are to blame and he tried to alleviate the situation. I think he will, perversely, be a happy man.
-
The UK won't be taking part in the bombing of Syria because Parliament has voted against participation and I don't think the Tories can find a way to get round that. I think David Cameron - the UK prime minister - will be secretly glad because it gets him of the hook. He can claim he tried his best and if anything goes wrong with a bombing mission by the USA and France then they will get the blame. If the situation worsens then he can claim his critics are to blame and he tried to alleviate the situation. I think he will, perversely, be a happy man.
That is, if you assume that he is only in it for staying in office not having any ambitions or goals of his own.
-h
-
... they think long and hard before acting..
Riiiight... That has surely stopped them.
-
The UK won't be taking part in the bombing of Syria because Parliament has voted against participation and I don't think the Tories can find a way to get round that. I think David Cameron - the UK prime minister - will be secretly glad because it gets him of the hook. He can claim he tried his best and if anything goes wrong with a bombing mission by the USA and France then they will get the blame. If the situation worsens then he can claim his critics are to blame and he tried to alleviate the situation. I think he will, perversely, be a happy man.
I don't think he's happy about the decision...he's spoken up about the fact that some action needs to be taken even though UK military isn't getting involved. Well I guess that depends whether you believe him or not, but I do.
-
he's spoken up about the fact that some action needs to be taken even though UK military isn't getting involved.
did you expect him to express his joy in a public way ;D ... he is not that bad politician to let such slip happen
-
That is, if you assume that he is only in it for staying in office not having any ambitions or goals of his own.
-h
The ambitions of the Conservative party are to turn the UK into a truly free enterprise market economy - just like Thatcher once did - instead of a mixed economy and he sure isn't going to resign or let principles over Syria get in the way of that goal.
-
Who gets to decide who are the bad guys and needs to be executed without a fair trial? The US? France? Russia? China? North Korea? NATO? The UN security council? When there is disagreement, may one player act on its own (using, perhaps, a "coalition of willing")?
What, you think someone needs permission? It's war. Leave the decision making to those with the means to carry it out. If we limit the killings to those with the power and who actually do execute WMD's they'll have the motivation to find another way to solve their problems.
If (as you seem to suggest) the use of WMD against civilians and (perhaps) the scale of manufacture of WMD is a crime in itself (that warrants death penalties without a trial), then what nation has the most criminal leaders?
It doesn't matter. Without the means you lose the war and the authority to effect change and carry out policy.
What about the people who order the use of conventional weapons against women, children, elderly, sick and non-combattants?
This ultimately is decided by those who win the war. It always has been.
I think that the establishment of "world order" is a noble but difficult task. It might have been easier in the aftermath of ww2 as economic and military power was concentrated among nations of cultural similarity and (perhaps shared goals). As long as the powerful nations see fit to play the game of politics rather than adhering to (or even signing up for) some international law, I don't see anything changing.
I don't. I think it's scary and for those who think they'll benefit from "the order."
-
Riiiight... That has surely stopped them.
Nothing is 100%. It does work as a deterrent, If there is a better way to deter lets use that.
-
If there is a better way to deter lets use that.
there is - bomb the rebels instead a secular Asad and that's it
-
there is - bomb the rebels instead a secular Asad and that's it
Well, that's fresh concept, and I can see some sense there... Wait; innit what we are/were doing in Afghanis... ?
Rob C
-
I think there is a certain "Bush-backlash". The lies that president Bush and his men told us in order to get to go to war in Iraq makes many people wary about going into Syria.
This has to be balanced against the genocides that have happened in recent history where UN troops might have made a difference, but did not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
Is there no "3rd" way? Can the UN security councel not agree on use of collective force to aid refugees fleeing the country, leaving the combattants to fight?
-h
-
Quite true in my opinion, about the "Bush-Backlash". But that's only a very recent example. It seems that every war starts with lies, exaggerations and constructions to boost the own cause and criminalize the opponents. The first victim of war is always truth.
I feel the proper time for involvement of "the West" has long passed. "The West" was far too concerned with their financial problems. The displeased Syrian population, who began demonstrating are no longer actively involved - far too many major and minor religious and fanatic factions have gathered to battle their common enemy for the moment. They've poured into Syria for their own reasons. Afterwards, they'll battle themselves. Arming "the rebels" is to arm future enemies.
Who gives "the West" the right to punish the Syrian government for using chemical weapons? Those who suffer are always the innocent. There are countless dictatorships on this planet and far too many atrocities occur. Why are only certain ones in such focus? The matter is far more involved than what meets the eye.
The US and other countries should further assert political pressure but refrain from using military force.
By the way, who are "the West" and "the Rebels". Always easy to simplify, but always wrong.
-
"I see the advantage in having our enemies fighting each other, despite the inevitable civilian suffering and the potential for the violence to spill into neighboring countries. We should focus on mitigating these problems, while letting our enemies kill each other. After all, at a certain point in a structure fire the firemen simply have to step back, let it burn and try to keep the fire from spreading."
First published in June 2013: http://nation.time.com/2013/06/04/the-enemy-of-my-enemyremains-my-enemy/#ixzz2dYX7OMmc
-
At risk of starting a new thread like the Snowden one, what should be done about the Syrian crisis?
With confirmation that chemical weapons have been used, do we as the rest of the World have a moral obligation to step in with military force, even if that puts our own troops at risk of similar attack?
It's clear that international law has been broken and while it's a bit early to conclude, it is also likely that a war crimes tribunal will be formed at some point in the future. But while major Governments are currently responding with some indecision regarding intervention, does the use of chemical weapons against civilians change the risk vs benefit and should we be more committed to stepping in to stop what happening?
Can we stop what's happening?
We seem to know for sure that chemical weapons were used, but by whom? The rebels seem to be a pretty vile bunch on their own, how can we be sure they didn't cleverly stage this attack to get the US and others to help them? Given the abysmal competence of the US "intelligence" community, we can't be even remotely sure. And, given Obama's "red line" comment, I cannot believe that Assad, vile though he may be, would be willing to risk US intervention for a minor tactical advantage. The whole thing smells fishy to me. It's a dismal situation, to be sure, but perhaps not the US's business (humanitarian aid aside).
-
We seem to know for sure that chemical weapons were used, but by whom?...
A Madison Avenue PR agency?
-
Ah, it's a joy to see all you military experts solving the world's problems. If only everyone would listen to you guys all would be well and people would stop killing each other.
-
Ah, it's a joy to see all you military experts solving the world's problems. If only everyone would listen to you guys all would be well and people would stop killing each other.
That's why, Russ, in all civilized societies, it is civilians commanding the military, not the other way around. Leave it to your military experts, and all they know to do is bomb the shit out of everything and everyone. In the post-WWII period, your military experts bombed 30+ countries, killing about one million civilians in the process.
-
Yeah. And we did it just for fun. Right, Slobodan? Same thing in WW II. We bombed the shit out of Germany just for the fun of it. Same with Japan.
Elected civilians certainly should be the people who decide whether or not we go to war, but it really helps if those elected civilians have had military experience so they at least have a clue what war actually means. But once the decision has been made it's always catastrophically stupid to have civilians trying to run the war. I was there when LBJ made all the targeting decisions in Vietnam. I sat at Ubon Ratchathani and watched North Vietnam build SAM sites we weren't allowed to hit until they were operational. I was there when Truman was making decisions about the Koran war. At least Truman had had enough military experience that he knew what to stay away from. I was happy when he canned Macarthur, but he made some really dumb mistakes before that. His first mistake was to tell the world we didn't really care about Korea, a decision that brought on the war.
As far as I'm concerned we desperately need a constitutional amendment that will keep anybody from running for commander in chief (president) unless he's had at least four years military experience.
You're not really in a position to talk about war, Slobodan.
-
... As far as I'm concerned we desperately need a constitutional amendment that will keep anybody from running for commander in chief (president) unless he's had at least four years military experience.
Right. In happier times, it was said that "the business of America is business" (president Coolidge). In post-WWII era, it seems that the business of America is war. So, yes, your proposal makes perfect sense.
You're not really in a position to talk about war, Slobodan.
Oh!? Why not? Are you suggesting that only those with some military experience should? Mind you that they (you) are in a small majority, relative to the rest of the population. Reduce that to those with war experience, and it becomes a minuscule minority. Come to think of it, chances are that if we would indeed left war decisions to veterans, we would NOT have so many wars.
-
We seem to know for sure that chemical weapons were used, but by whom?
The purpose of the in country investigation was to determine not only what was used (ie. chemical vs non-chemical), but also the who, when, where and how.
As an outcome of the investigation, evidence to make conclusions about each of these aspects has been gathered and preliminarily provided. The final report is due 30 days from the return of the team and that will include the result of additional analysis work currently underway in some of the top analytical laboratories in the World (in addition to what has already been done by the inspection team).
-
I wonder if Saddam had any weaponized nerve agents that got relocated before we went in.
Frank
-
Right. In happier times, it was said that "the business of America is business" (president Coolidge). In post-WWII era, it seems that the business of America is war. So, yes, your proposal makes perfect sense.
Oh!? Why not? Are you suggesting that only those with some military experience should? Mind you that they (you) are in a small majority, relative to the rest of the population. Reduce that to those with war experience, and it becomes a minuscule minority. Come to think of it, chances are that if we would indeed left war decisions to veterans, we would NOT have so many wars.
You're way out of your depth, Slobodan, and over your head. You haven't a clue.
-
You're way out of your depth, Slobodan, and over your head. You haven't a clue.
Touché! :)
-
The purpose of the in country investigation was to determine not only what was used (ie. chemical vs non-chemical), but also the who, when, where and how.
As an outcome of the investigation, evidence to make conclusions about each of these aspects has been gathered and preliminarily provided. The final report is due 30 days from the return of the team and that will include the result of additional analysis work currently underway in some of the top analytical laboratories in the World (in addition to what has already been done by the inspection team).
According to the news service I have watched, the remit is ONLY to discover if they have been used.
Rob C
-
Hi Peter
Your question does not seem to have been answered!
You seem to be best placed and qualified to provide an answer.
What do you think should be done?
Regards
William
-
At the risk of being cynical and callous I think the two side will have to fight till one or the other is the victor? I don't see any prospect for a negotiated peace, at least one that both sides will stick to. Of course this doesn't help the civilian population. An article in the Sunday Mail - Scotland - alleges the UK Government agreed to a license for chemicals to be sold to Syria - after the war started - that when one other easily obtainable chemical was added to the mix it could be used to gas the population. Then again lobbing cruise missiles into Syria from hundreds of miles away WON'T imo solve anything. It looks as Obama is looking for a way to get off the hook. Putin looks like he has called the USA bluff when he states that evidence should be made available to the UN. Ain't the world a wonderful place. :o
-
Then again lobbing cruise missiles into Syria from hundreds of miles away WON'T imo solve anything.
Depends on what you mean by "anything," Stamper. It certainly won't solve anything as far as the war is concerned, but it'll solve a credibility problem Obama's beginning to see grow among his "base." He's beginning to realize that his "red line" throwaway was a mistake unless he actually intended to respond. The cruise missiles will be to show that he's "doing something."
-
According to the news service I have watched, the remit is ONLY to discover if they have been used.
Rob C
There's a lot not in the public domain.
The inspection has been conducted in accordance with Paty XI of the CWC Verification Annex and specifically in relation to issues associated with the origin of the weapons, as outlined in clause 25 and 26:
http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/verification-annex/part-xi/
So a lot of additional information collected by the team in country (as part of the written mandate the team were operating under), which will ultimately be combined with information from the intelligence community.
-
Concern about the civilian population as a separate entity mystifies me: it is a civil war.
As for sides, how many are there? From a variety of different Moslem types to Christians, and back to a government made up predominantly of one of those types... If anything, it's starting to look as if it isn't really much to do with specific governments but far more to do with the abolition of national borders and the creation of separate Moslem religious sectors across the entire Middle-East. I'd hate to live in Cyprus these days.
Quite where that'll leave Israel is anyone's guess. Maybe back in '48 they should have been offered Montana instead.
Rob C
-
... to show that he's "doing something."
I couldn't help noticing a great pun, though the points raised are good too (Time Magazine):
Are You Syrious, Mr. President? (http://swampland.time.com/2013/09/01/are-you-syrious/?xid=rss-topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+time%2Ftopstories+%28TIME%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo)
Slobodan
Clueless in Chicago
-
As far as I'm concerned we desperately need a constitutional amendment that will keep anybody from running for commander in chief (president) unless he's had at least four years military experience.
Your prior President did have some military experience. It did not seem to help him make very good decisions (as seen from the outside).
One might demand that the big chief has a deep background in economy, law, military, natural sciences, private sector,... He/she should also be young, fit,... It quickly builds up to an impossible list. I think it makes more sense to choose a guy (or woman) who has done at least something right in his/her life, and who seems to be able to attract (and listen to) the right advisors.
-h
-
Hi Hjulenissen, The mistake you're making is to assume I'm talking about a "field of study," or a credential. I'm not. I'm asking that the commander in chief be required to have had some personal experience with war, either as a combatant or as a small unit commander who's required to send people into combat. Unless you've had that kind of experience, "combat" and "war" are abstractions. It's kind of like a white man telling you he knows what it's like to be black.
I'd certainly go along with demanding that a presidential candidate have some experience in the "private sector." If you don't think that's reasonable, check out what George McGovern, failed Democrat presidential candidate in 1972, said after he tried to run a business: "What I Know Now: Nibbled to Death" http://www.inc.com/magazine/19931201/3809.html. Before this experience George knew all about the private sector -- in the abstract. That's not the same thing as experiencing it. This distinction is the thing that causes so many extensively schooled and heavily credentialed college professors to make so many catastrophic mistakes. Theory is one thing. Experience is another. And rarely do the twain meet.
-
Hi Hjulenissen, The mistake you're making is to assume I'm talking about a "field of study," or a credential. I'm not. I'm asking that the commander in chief be required to have had some personal experience with war, either as a combatant or as a small unit commander who's required to send people into combat. Unless you've had that kind of experience, "combat" and "war" are abstractions. It's kind of like a white man telling you he knows what it's like to be black.
And why is practical knowledge of war more important than the practical knowledge of e.g. economy? Practical knowledge about how laws (among them, your constitution) works? One could certainly make the case that ruining the economy can have worse consequences on the people of a nation than loosing a war.
I'd certainly go along with demanding that a presidential candidate have some experience in the "private sector." If you don't think that's reasonable, check out what George McGovern, failed Democrat presidential candidate in 1972, said after he tried to run a business: "What I Know Now: Nibbled to Death" http://www.inc.com/magazine/19931201/3809.html. Before this experience George knew all about the private sector -- in the abstract. That's not the same thing as experiencing it. This distinction is the thing that causes so many extensively schooled and heavily credentialed college professors to make so many catastrophic mistakes. Theory is one thing. Experience is another. And rarely do the twain meet.
"Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other.", attributed to Ben Franklin. (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/benjaminfr125395.html)
Theory is just a description of reality that seems to fit well. Most people dissing theory are using theories (possibly without knowing), such as the theory that "Theory will not predict what happens when you go to war".
No single man or woman can have hands-on experience (or theoretical depth) in every critical subject. I take the one capable of recruiting and listening to good advisors over the over-confident single-cause ex-marine.
-h
-
With respect, this is simply arguing a flawed view that any single person can have only one experience or the other. I believe that there are those whose experience is broad enough to understand both the reality of sending people to their uncertain fate on the battlefield, as well as the truth about markets, banks and how the system keeps on rolling until something like a brick wall or a broken axle stops it in its tracks.
Then you need someone with strength, conviction and the ability to move public sentiment in a big way.
Few seem capable of meeting the challenge; fewer yet will have that opportunity (or seek it) because we have a press that is permanently out for blood and excitement at the cost of absolutely everything else, including national security and stability. We don’t need external enemies when our own writers and broadcasters are ever doing their very best to undermine every aspect of our own countries. In some European states, any man in office who hasn’t had an interesting sex-life is considered slightly odd, a bit of a hick, and less than broadly experienced in the ways of the world; in Britain and the States that seems to be the very first thing that precludes or ejects any man from office. Why? What has the bedroom to do with the office? Election by hypocrisy seems greatly what it’s about, and plays neatly into the hands of the tabloids and news (news - really?) slots on tv.
I read these threads here, and the single common factor that forces through is this obsession with baring all, with a manic fear of losing some freedom thought constantly under far greater imaginary threat from deep within the state than at the hand of its common, external foes. And there are many.
Perhaps it’s a matter of age, experience and a broader first-hand knowledge of how other parts of the world comport themselves. What strikes me here is an attitude I’d expect from someone who has never left the farm. All in all, it renders these kinds of threads somewhat moribund from the very start.
Rob C
-
One could certainly make the case that ruining the economy can have worse consequences on the people of a nation than loosing a war.
Try telling that to the people in Western Europe who were overrun by the Nazis.
-
... In some European states, any man in office who hasn’t had an interesting sex-life is considered slightly odd, a bit of a hick, and less than broadly experienced in the ways of the world; in Britain and the States that seems to be the very first thing that precludes or ejects any man from office. Why? What has the bedroom to do with the office?...
Rob, do you really expect me to look up to a man as the "broadly experienced in the ways of the world" who cheated on a cancer-stricken wife, while using her for a sympathy bump in his campaign? Who fathered a child but didn't take responsibility for it until the very tabloids you so despise forced him to?
The morality of the modern age might have relaxed a number of old axioms, but there are still certain core values that most decent man share. The above is definitely not one of those core values, and I, for one, do not want a leader with "values" like that. On the other hand, I am much less concerned with an occasional BJ in the Oval Office.
A Farm Boy
-
As far as I'm concerned we desperately need a constitutional amendment that will keep anybody from running for commander in chief (president) unless he's had at least four years military experience.
or
I'm asking that the commander in chief be required to have had some personal experience with war, either as a combatant or as a small unit commander who's required to send people into combat. Unless you've had that kind of experience, "combat" and "war" are abstractions.
Which one is it ?
Or do you mean someone who has 'had at least four years military experience .. either as a combatant or as a small unit commander' ?
Perhaps your constitutional amendment should require that in the upcoming elections, at least one of the pair should have the required military experience. That way, should war break out, we can swap them. A bit like, Bill & Ben (the flowerpot men).
-
... I'm asking that the commander in chief be required to have had some personal experience with war, either as a combatant or as a small unit commander who's required to send people into combat...
For presidential candidates to claim such an experience, a country must be in a perpetual state of war. In a rare situation that it isn't, god forbid, candidates must work hard to start a new war, otherwise their political career goes down the drain. Of course, these things will never happen in real life. Oh, wait... damn!
-
Which one is it ?
Both.
For presidential candidates to claim such an experience, a country must be in a perpetual state of war. In a rare situation that it isn't, god forbid, candidates must work hard to start a new war, otherwise their political career goes down the drain. Of course, these things will never happen in real life. Oh, wait... damn!
No problem, Slobodan. The world's been in a perpetual state of war since before the beginning of recorded history. History can tell you about the wars after history began to be recorded. Archaeology can tell you about the wars before that.
-
Both.
Q.E.D
-
No problem, Slobodan. The world's been in a perpetual state of war since before the beginning of recorded history. History can tell you about the wars after history began to be recorded. Archaeology can tell you about the wars before that.
That's true, but you are assuming that the US has to be involved in them almost continually for your proposal to work. I honestly cannot see how it would be a good idea for all Presidents to need to have active military service. When you say they should know what it's like to send men into battle, what is there to gain from that? From my reading of history, some leaders (soldiers) after a war can always justify more fighting, and others would not send men to war ever again out of principle. I'm excluding obviously the special case of where a state is directly attacked - like happened in 1939/40. Lots of people join the military just so they can get involved in war and shoot people. We need leaders (in my opinion) who see any sort of legal or illegal murder as the last possible recourse, and not just another tool of diplomacy. At the moment the US has the biggest stick - it once was the British, and it has been other nations before and it will be yet others in the future. The claim that Obama might sanction action just so he can be "seen to be doing something" strikes me as madness.
Regarding Syria, we should keep out of any bombing or fighting. The whole mess in that region is so complicated that any stoking of the fire will have repercussions which nobody honestly can predict. Yes, it might help, like in Bosnia, or it might backfire as in Iraq - who knows? Nobody, it would be playing roulette with the only certain outcome that more people are going to die and the arms industry will make a load of money replacing the spent arsenals.
Jim
-
Unless you've had that kind of experience, "combat" and "war" are abstractions.
Agreed. And it's more the "experience" than the knowledge. Anyone can read and become an expert at war given an adequate IQ and desire, but to actually understand where you're sending your troops.. you need the experience of having done so.
I don't think many will argue that national defence/sovereignty of the Nation is a Presidents most important role. The experience of serving, of being either the one who sends or gets sent.. in an invaluable aid no adviser can adequately explain.
I also spent 4 years on the SDPD riding patrol and other various duties. I quit and went back to the military despite 3x the pay and benefits and frankly I loved the job. So why go back? Because the city of San Diego decided to have a civilian shooting review board without any prior law enforcement experience. I knew in my mind and in my heart they could never know what it was like to be me, walk down that dark alley, face down lopsided numbers, or even walk up to a car you stopped at night. So how could they adequately represent my decision to shoot? (much less decide my fate, freedom, and future) There is no way they could. Without having a gun pointed in your face not knowing if the guy was going to pull the trigger or not.. you just can't know what it feels like. Or what it does to you even years later. I left and went back in the service.
During all the years I served I noted a huge almost seismic shift in attitude towards the CIC, respect, confidence in actions, and belief in our tasking.. between different Presidents. Carter was laughed at, Reagan was almost a deity, Bush Sr. was respected, Clinton was hated like no other, and Bush Jr. respected.. though that lessened..
I'll go further. I think every man and woman should serve their country for at least a two year stint. Military, duty in nursing homes, forest firemen/smoke jumpers, duty in a public morgue, and should as a rule do this service away from their home town and support system. Show me you have what it takes to give back to your country in a way we can believe is a "sacrifice" and I'll give you a chance to lead me.. or follow me.
-
What strikes me here is an attitude I’d expect from someone who has never left the farm. All in all, it renders these kinds of threads somewhat moribund from the very start.
Rob C
With respect, until this last part your flawed views could be forgiven as being from someone who just doesn't know.. But this crosses the line of civiity imo. Perhaps from someone who has never visited a farm..
-
Rob, do you really expect me to look up to a man as the "broadly experienced in the ways of the world" who cheated on a cancer-stricken wife, while using her for a sympathy bump in his campaign? Who fathered a child but didn't take responsibility for it until the very tabloids you so despise forced him to?
The morality of the modern age might have relaxed a number of old axioms, but there are still certain core values that most decent man share. The above is definitely not one of those core values, and I, for one, do not want a leader with "values" like that. On the other hand, I am much less concerned with an occasional BJ in the Oval Office.
A Farm Boy
Agreed in concept. Your examples could be argued. It's well known that people with sick, disabled, coma stricken, spouses.. will seek a much needed physical release while still loving their spouse and doing whatever else they can to be there for them. You could even argue such a relationship allows them the mental state to be a better spouse. Though.. combined with other known facts I don't like the guy either. The occasional BJ in the office.. with an otherwise or even purported healthy relationship.. shows a deep disrespect to the office he holds. And a breech of trust to every parent sending their 19 year old to intern at the White House. But even that didn't reach the level for impeachment in my mind.. it was the lying to Congress. The House he needed to be on working terms with for the benefit of our nation.. and he goes and lies under oath.. so sad.
-
Regarding Syria, we should keep out of any bombing or fighting. The whole mess in that region is so complicated that any stoking of the fire will have repercussions which nobody honestly can predict. Yes, it might help, like in Bosnia, or it might backfire as in Iraq - who knows? Nobody, it would be playing roulette with the only certain outcome that more people are going to die and the arms industry will make a load of money replacing the spent arsenals.
I don't personally see my views as being any more valid than anyone else's and the kind of society I live in doesn't automatically mean everyone else should chose to live under the same model.
As a result, I'm generally for letting others sort out their own problems in their own way, no matter who they are.
However, there are some lines that globally we have agreed cannot be crossed. In relation to the use of chemical weapons, that's one line that as early as the first Hague Conference in 1899 we said that should be illegal under international law. That was reaffirmed at the second Hague Conference in 1907, then the Geneva Convention in 1925 and many conventions since. We have fallen down on that commitment a number of times, but not at a state level since the 1980s.
The use of chemical weapons is an abhorrent way to conduct war and by not stepping in to prevent it happening further in Syria, it makes it harder to step in the next time another state or sub-state group uses/or threatens to use them. The position of all Governments becomes weaker when we chose to do nothing in relation to this particular class of weapon.
For me, the ideal here would be to find an appropriate way to prevent any further chemical attacks in the current conflict and once the conflict is resolved, to ensure that Syria signs and ratifies the Chemical Weapons Convention (as they are 1 of only 5 countries in the World left to do so - the others being Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan (only recently an independent state) and Angola; with 2 countries signed but never ratified - Israel and Myanmar). Full universality and compliance inspections would be the best way to help prevent anything in the future. While complete prevention will never be possible, the verification and destruction regime makes it more difficult.
-
I wonder whether we would be discussing this if the exact same Syria were not located next to Israel? ;D
Now, the Tomahawks are aging, need to find a way to clear the stock.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I wonder whether we would be discussing this if the exact same Syria were not located next to Israel? ;D
"Humanity" and "loving your next" seems to be intimately connected with ones religious, economic, political interests. Not surprisingly, the actions of national states seems to reflect this.
One might hope for the UN to be some kind of "neutral grounds", setting super-national rules that will be enforced when broken, rules that can be accepted by vastly different cultures. Currently, this seems to not be the case.
-h
-
Try telling that to the people in Western Europe who were overrun by the Nazis.
My country was one of them. You don't need to tell me.
War and economy tends to go hand in hand. If you run your economy poorly, going to war is one way of trying to regain what was lost (or divert the attention of your voters. As practiced by a range of US presidents).
I believe that US voters agree with me; my impression is that US presidential elections tends to be won on economy, not on foreign policy. Having a war veteran with poor economic skills seems like a naiive approach. Like one might expect from the image of gun-slinging, wild-west, self-sufficient, thoughtless image that is sometimes (often wrongly) attributed to people from the US.
-h
-
I believe that US voters agree with me; my impression is that US presidential elections tends to be won on economy, not on foreign policy. Having a war veteran with poor economic skills seems like a naiive approach. Like one might expect from the image of gun-slinging, wild-west, self-sufficient, thoughtless image that is sometimes (often wrongly) attributed to people from the US.
-h
1. No more naive than thinking they are necessarily exclusive, or that "advisors" for war fighting could be any less effective than advisors for economics.
The lack of intellectual honesty is stunning for the sake of making a rather weak point
2. It would warm my heart to know they exist outside our country.
-
My country was one of them. You don't need to tell me.
What is (or was) your country ?
-
1. With respect, until this last part your flawed views could be forgiven as being from someone who just doesn't know.. But this crosses the line of civiity imo.
2. Perhaps from someone who has never visited a farm..
1, Exactly what I’d expect from you, so congratulations on consistency.
2. For my sins – and pleasures – we bought right next to a farm thirty-two years ago. Since that time, the local farmer (Spanish) has been paid by the European Community to slaughter all his animals and to stop growing produce. The farm was consequently abandoned, and is now turning into a pine forest. Pine grows very rapidly, in direct proportion to the loss of our view, you might say.
Funny thing: if you drive the length of France, top-to-bottom, you will see more working farms than you could possibly imagine; I’m told that Germans can get allowances for owning even two farm animals, but I can’t vouch for the veracity of that. However, guess which two countries in the EEC have the major clout and pretty much control the Agricultural Policy…
But to be more serious: I have travelled to many countries and lived in several. I do have a fairly good grasp of the realities of life in different cultures. It seems to me that most writers here do not have that knowledge and experience, just the crap that hits them from the tv or the press, which isn’t their fault and doesn’t make me any better: I just led a different life from the day I was born; my experiences are just different. In a sense, international gypsies, but comfortably so, you might say. Fortunately or otherwise, insularity and blind national patriotism hasn’t been my lot.
;-)
Rob C
-
Rob, do you really expect me to look up to a man as the "broadly experienced in the ways of the world" who cheated on a cancer-stricken wife, while using her for a sympathy bump in his campaign? Who fathered a child but didn't take responsibility for it until the very tabloids you so despise forced him to?
The morality of the modern age might have relaxed a number of old axioms, but there are still certain core values that most decent man share. The above is definitely not one of those core values, and I, for one, do not want a leader with "values" like that. On the other hand, I am much less concerned with an occasional BJ in the Oval Office.
A Farm Boy
Slobodan, if you pray for a saint in office, your prayer will go unanswered. 'Saints' don't seek power; they abhor it.
Better a man with worldly experience than one with religious bigotry; as they say, one too heavenly to be of any Earthly use?
Rob C
-
Rob,
I don't question your wisdom or life experiences, but you seem uninterested/unaware of the risks and consequences of de facto totalitarianism.
Have you read novels from Gombrovicz or Kundera?
They are eye opening and describe with minute details the early days of Eastern Europe, the self imposed censorship, group pressure to be good citizens,... and all these things we see happening in the West nowadays.
Only it was better back then because people were probably more educated and typically had more personal time available to think.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't personally see my views as being any more valid than anyone else's and the kind of society I live in doesn't automatically mean everyone else should chose to live under the same model.
As a result, I'm generally for letting others sort out their own problems in their own way, no matter who they are.
However, there are some lines that globally we have agreed cannot be crossed. In relation to the use of chemical weapons, that's one line that as early as the first Hague Conference in 1899 we said that should be illegal under international law. That was reaffirmed at the second Hague Conference in 1907, then the Geneva Convention in 1925 and many conventions since. We have fallen down on that commitment a number of times, but not at a state level since the 1980s.
The use of chemical weapons is an abhorrent way to conduct war and by not stepping in to prevent it happening further in Syria, it makes it harder to step in the next time another state or sub-state group uses/or threatens to use them. The position of all Governments becomes weaker when we chose to do nothing in relation to this particular class of weapon.
For me, the ideal here would be to find an appropriate way to prevent any further chemical attacks in the current conflict and once the conflict is resolved, to ensure that Syria signs and ratifies the Chemical Weapons Convention (as they are 1 of only 5 countries in the World left to do so - the others being Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan (only recently an independent state) and Angola; with 2 countries signed but never ratified - Israel and Myanmar). Full universality and compliance inspections would be the best way to help prevent anything in the future. While complete prevention will never be possible, the verification and destruction regime makes it more difficult.
Peter - I quite understand all you are saying. However deplorable chemical weapons are, is it really much different to the victims in the end? I mean bullets, shrapnel, fuel-air munitions, mines, they are all pretty awful if you are the victim. In the Syrian case we have the added emotional impact of the children too. But I seem to remember the carnage wrought in other countries recently by US weapons on the population where targeting information went wrong or innocent children just happened to be 'in the wrong place at the wrong time'. To see the pictures of the rags of bodies left over from such strikes is pitiful - and they weren't hit by chemical weapons. And of course for every dead victim there are probably more maimed for life - both physically and possibly mentally too.
In principle I cannot quite see why the 'Red Line' is set depending on the type of weapons used. The armaments industry spends enormous sums on researching the most effective and efficient killing devices possible, and then we say that chemical weapons are banned. The Red Line seems arbitrary and my worry is, as in the past, the West is looking for an excuse to wade in and start bombing people. Perhaps we only sanction weapons that we ourselves are easily capable of defending ourselves against. Chemical, nuclear and biological weapons are hard to control and defend against, except by pre-emptive action. Therefore we in the West make sure that the guys we don't like are not able to build, store or have the means to deliver any nasty weapons outside of there own borders. Just give them guns and they can happily kill themselves as much as they like.
Jim
-
Peter - I quite understand all you are saying. However deplorable chemical weapons are, is it really much different to the victims in the end? I mean bullets, shrapnel, fuel-air munitions, mines, they are all pretty awful if you are the victim. In the Syrian case we have the added emotional impact of the children too. But I seem to remember the carnage wrought in other countries recently by US weapons on the population where targeting information went wrong or innocent children just happened to be 'in the wrong place at the wrong time'. To see the pictures of the rags of bodies left over from such strikes is pitiful - and they weren't hit by chemical weapons. And of course for every dead victim there are probably more maimed for life - both physically and possibly mentally too.
In principle I cannot quite see why the 'Red Line' is set depending on the type of weapons used. The armaments industry spends enormous sums on researching the most effective and efficient killing devices possible, and then we say that chemical weapons are banned. The Red Line seems arbitrary and my worry is, as in the past, the West is looking for an excuse to wade in and start bombing people. Perhaps we only sanction weapons that we ourselves are easily capable of defending ourselves against. Chemical, nuclear and biological weapons are hard to control and defend against, except by pre-emptive action. Therefore we in the West make sure that the guys we don't like are not able to build, store or have the means to deliver any nasty weapons outside of there own borders. Just give them guns and they can happily kill themselves as much as they like.
My thoughts as well.
What do we do about Egypt, North Korea, Myanmar, Ethiopia,... and the countless other countries where thousands of people are killed every year for bad reasons without using "chemical" weapons.
What do we tell our children when the most powerful people on earth act this way?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
However deplorable chemical weapons are, is it really much different to the victims in the end? I mean bullets, shrapnel, fuel-air munitions, mines, they are all pretty awful if you are the victim.
In principle I cannot quite see why the 'Red Line' is set depending on the type of weapons used.
You know what it feels like to come close to dying from not being able to control your nervous system to the point you're grasping for every breath and suffering from violent convulsions/seizures worse than going through electro shock therapy without anesthesia? Yeah, I'ld say there's a big differences by comparison to being cut down by shrapnel or a bullet. I'ld bet anyone suffering under those conditions would prefer a bullet to the head without question.
It's the kind of torture we don't inflict on animals or any living creature but seem to rationalize in discussions of this sort with it being done to children. Having hard time rationalizing that on its own.
Aside from that point I think it would be important to know why any member of the al-Assad regime would stop using such a torturous weapon seeing how efficient it was at getting the job done. Why not keep using it? What stopped them? Why hasn't the Syrian President made an effort at tracking down who gained access to these weapons if he's so against using them?
These questions need to be answered before we bomb Syria because this doesn't add up. Things aren't what they appear.
And if it wasn't anyone within the regime that did this then how was access to these weapons made so easy for this one particular use and if it was this easy, what is to prevent other folks getting to them and using them on us and any other country.
I think we should punish al-Assad for not answering these questions as well as not showing due diligence to the rest of the world that he has full control over the members of his military regime in making sure it won't happen again.
-
Rob,
1. I don't question your wisdom or life experiences, but you seem uninterested/unaware of the risks and consequences of de facto totalitarianism.
2. Only it was better back then because people were probably more educated and typically had more personal time available to think.
Cheers,
Bernard
1. Bernard, however you dress it, it comes down to the simple fact that life is ever difficult and countries are always in competition if not outright hostilities.
We all, as nations, have to do the best for ourselves. That might fly in the face of the current tree-hugging ethos, but it’s the reality all actually in public office have to accept and deal with as best they can. Perceived weakness is as instantly exploited internationally as it is in the schoolyard, only it can actually hurt you even more out of school.
Totalitarianism. That’s a bit of a stretch! As for being without care or unaware, maybe; I don’t believe in the Don Quixote syndrome anymore: for me it never worked - I just wasted many years tilting at the windmills of my own mind. I don’t believe that the concept of dictatorship will arrive in Europe any day soon. We have become a land of the self-centred, given to instant gratification and the desire to get as much as possible for the minimum of effort, and especially do we cherish the notion of getting it through the efforts of others. People like this aren’t about to vote in anyone offering blood, sweat and tears! If anything, I see coalition after weak coalition… I don’t know enough about the States to be sure, but I still believe they care more there about the need to do things for yourself than we Europeans do – that was one of the early seductions of the EEC… let’s share our problems and magnify our benefits. The only benefits I see magnified are for those politicos with tax-free benefits and unlimited expense accounts.
2. I’m not sure how far back ‘then’ lies in your mind; I suspect it was a time before even I was an adult! As I understand it, on average, people came home from work, had something to eat, washed at the kitchen sink (if there was a kitchen sink), braved the outside toilet for as brief a moment as they could manage and took themselves off to bed where they either began the next generation that they couldn’t afford or simply zonked into unconsciousness. Probably not a lot of difference either way.
Books cost money; they also demand that you can read. So yeah, maybe you do have a point after all! Except that that point indicates that only the educated wealthy would really be advanced enough to have a worthwhile political say…
;-)
Rob C
-
to ensure that Syria signs and ratifies the Chemical Weapons Convention (as they are 1 of only 5 countries in the World left to do so - the others being Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan (only recently an independent state) and Angola; with 2 countries signed but never ratified - Israel and Myanmar).
so why don't we start w/ 2 reciepents of our dollars - that is Egypt and Israel ? huh ?
-
... The occasional BJ in the office.. with an otherwise or even purported healthy relationship.. shows a deep disrespect to the office he holds...
I would thought that a good BJ commands a lot of respect. Dare I suggest it provides a perfect happy ending to his term in the office? A pinnacle perhaps? Crème de la crème? ;D
-
1, Exactly what I’d expect from you, so congratulations on consistency.
2. For my sins – and pleasures – we bought right next to a farm thirty-two years ago. Since that time, the local farmer (Spanish) has been paid by the European Community to slaughter all his animals and to stop growing produce. The farm was consequently abandoned, and is now turning into a pine forest. Pine grows very rapidly, in direct proportion to the loss of our view, you might say.
Funny thing: if you drive the length of France, top-to-bottom, you will see more working farms than you could possibly imagine; I’m told that Germans can get allowances for owning even two farm animals, but I can’t vouch for the veracity of that. However, guess which two countries in the EEC have the major clout and pretty much control the Agricultural Policy…
But to be more serious: I have travelled to many countries and lived in several. I do have a fairly good grasp of the realities of life in different cultures. It seems to me that most writers here do not have that knowledge and experience, just the crap that hits them from the tv or the press, which isn’t their fault and doesn’t make me any better: I just led a different life from the day I was born; my experiences are just different. In a sense, international gypsies, but comfortably so, you might say. Fortunately or otherwise, insularity and blind national patriotism hasn’t been my lot.
;-)
Rob C
1. Thank you. Civility is important when discussing a topic not related to the forum. Obviously not everyone understands this.
2. I've been to France.
3. You seem to think you're special or have some special knowledge because you're travelled? Perhaps. I've lived 25+ years in foreign countries, lived in 6 for 12 months or longer, and learned 3 new language as an adult. While experience with other cultures is nice, in all my travels I've noticed most still don't get it.
-
I would thought that a good BJ commands a lot of respect. Dare I suggest it provides a perfect happy ending to his term in the office? A pinnacle perhaps? Crème de la crème? ;D
To be fair I can see your point. But what I'm specifically talking about were the times he was getting his BJ's while talking on the phone discussing war actions.. Clouded judgement? Distracted at the worst time? I really don't care about who does what sexually.. but it does taint a man's character when he disrespects his wife so publically. It's going to be funny to see what intern she plays with when she's President..
-
1. Thank you. Civility is important when discussing a topic not related to the forum. Obviously not everyone understands this.
2. I've been to France.
3. You seem to think you're special or have some special knowledge because you're travelled? Perhaps. I've lived 25+ years in foreign countries, lived in 6 for 12 months or longer, and learned 3 new language as an adult. While experience with other cultures is nice, in all my travels I've noticed most still don't get it.
Nope, I think know I'm 'special' because I am me! Just as you think that you are special because you are yourself, too. We are all 'special'; just ask our wives and/or mothers.
If you don't think of yourself as special, what the hell do you have to offer to society? Thinking oneself a cog is the end, the most absolute of zeroes outwith the textbooks...
Rob C
P.S. Oops! I am I.
-
Nope, I think know I'm 'special' because I am me! Just as you think that you are special because you are yourself, too. We are all 'special'; just ask our wives and/or mothers.
If you don't think of yourself as special, what the hell do you have to offer to society? Thinking oneself a cog is the end, the most absolute of zeroes outwith the textbooks...
Rob C
The non-bombastic truth in the representation of "me." How could I not be happy with that?
-
Peter - I quite understand all you are saying. However deplorable chemical weapons are, is it really much different to the victims in the end? I mean bullets, shrapnel, fuel-air munitions, mines, they are all pretty awful if you are the victim.
Not any different to these victims, but action may help prevent other victims in the future (not only in this conflict, but in others also).
As much as it pains me to think about it, if my sons ever ended up in a war, I would hate for them to become the victims of chemical weapons.
War is always going to be here irrespective of how everyone feels about it. That's why we have rules for its conduct and those rules say throwing metal at each other and using explosive pressures are ok, but not chemicals that kill by their toxic effect.
The biggest problem with the use of chemicals is that they are indiscriminate.
A bullet fired at someone has limited ability to maim and kill. A chemical isn't constrained the same way. Explosions, while acting in 360 degrees, have a rapid fall-off in pressure that is predictable. Chemicals don't have the same limitation.
We can all agree that bullets, bombs, rockets, missiles, grenades, claymores and other conventional munitions are terrible ways to die, but they are the ways we've said are allowed.
The use of mines, chemicals, mutilation of bodies, torture, mistreatment of prisoners and other cruel acts we've decided, are not the ways we should conduct war.
When we chose not to hold others to those standards, or we fall short in them ourselves, then we open up our own future generations to suffering the same things.
That's why in my view, something strong should be done to stop any further chemical attacks in the current Syrian conflict (and then let the sides continue against each other with conventional mean). Not to make it better for the victims there have already been, but because I don't want the potential for my kids or other future generations of soldiers to face similar things.
In the Syrian case we have the added emotional impact of the children too. But I seem to remember the carnage wrought in other countries recently by US weapons on the population where targeting information went wrong or innocent children just happened to be 'in the wrong place at the wrong time'. To see the pictures of the rags of bodies left over from such strikes is pitiful - and they weren't hit by chemical weapons. And of course for every dead victim there are probably more maimed for life - both physically and possibly mentally too.
Personally you won't get an argument out of me on that. War in general is an unfortunate tool we use against each other. However, while there are still innocent victims in war, the number is decreasing due to improved technology. Technology will always fail, or the location of a conflict will be in urban areas, however it's nowhere near as bad as it was in the past and I hope the number of victims continues to decrease in the future.
In principle I cannot quite see why the 'Red Line' is set depending on the type of weapons used. The armaments industry spends enormous sums on researching the most effective and efficient killing devices possible, and then we say that chemical weapons are banned. The Red Line seems arbitrary and my worry is, as in the past, the West is looking for an excuse to wade in and start bombing people.
The various red-lines seem arbitrary, but really aren't. There have to be some ways to conduct war, but through a very large number of Conventions, some countries, most countries or all countries (depending on the Convention) have agreed that certain things should not be done, while others are ok.
It isn't just about the West, though as Westerners that's what we see. It really should be a Worldwide push (and in this case it really is a global push with a few powerful blockers in the way). Many countries that have condemned the attacks just don't physically have the means to intervene outside of diplomacy or sanctions because they don't have the military capability.
There are only a few countries that can take physical action and the most powerful of those is the US. I can really understand why US citizens don't want to get involved, because it always seems that it's the US that's called on the act first. It's not always the case, but the US is a powerful nation and it's view on these things has a significiant impact on the position of other nations.
Therefore we in the West make sure that the guys we don't like are not able to build, store or have the means to deliver any nasty weapons outside of there own borders. Just give them guns and they can happily kill themselves as much as they like.
Not only the West, other nations have also agreed that these types of weapons are not acceptable. What is unfortunate is that these weapons exist. What's more unfortunate, being a Westerner, is that each of them was invented in the West. The development by others followed the lead that Western countries took.
I don't know whether that places a higher burden on us in the West to ensure that those weapons are controlled (probably not), but in any case, it's not only a problem for countries with a Western ideology. It's a problem for everyone.
-
OK... let's see... so the red lines are for real... and they must be enforced. So, I were a government's local opponent, and much weaker at that, and want someone to intervene on my behalf... hmmm... what shall I do? How about I make it look like the government crossed the red line? Smart, huh? On the other hand, if you are the government, why would you risk foreign intervention for something you could achieve just as easily with conventional weapons?
-
OK... let's see... so the red lines are for real... and they must be enforced.
They must, or they mustn't. My individual view doesn't have much weight on it's own, but it's a valid view, just as others are.
Whatever the collective view is will probably drive whether intervention occurs.
So, I were a government's local opponent, and much weaker at that, and want someone to intervene on my behalf... hmmm... what shall I do? How about I make it look like the government crossed the red line? Smart, huh? On the other hand, if you are the government, why would you risk foreign intervention for something you could achieve just as easily with conventional weapons?
Those are scenarios that may or may not apply here. That's why objective, independent evidence has been collected in this case. Evidence doesn't lie, though we may lack the ability to collect it fully or interpret it correctly (or have a political position that affects its interpretation).
Political games in conflict are just as prevalent as physical assault, so governments and other groups have always tried to fool others. That's where in this case at least, the evidence is helping to determine the factual sequence of events.
-
The biggest problem with the use of chemicals is that they are indiscriminate.
A bullet fired at someone has limited ability to maim and kill. A chemical isn't constrained the same way. Explosions, while acting in 360 degrees, have a rapid fall-off in pressure that is predictable. Chemicals don't have the same limitation.
The use of mines, chemicals, mutilation of bodies, torture, mistreatment of prisoners and other cruel acts we've decided, are not the ways we should conduct war.
1. Perspective might show this to be one of it's greatest features. A soldier might tell you one of the biggest problems of chemical warfare is always being in your MOP suit, having one standing by, and the logistical demands demanded by their use. A commander would have a different view, and the enemy another.
2. Umm.. no. Bombs are just chemicals too. And chemicals have completely predictable fallout regions, though wind, rain, freezing cold.. can impact these regions. Are you thinking of germ warfare? Viruses are to be greatly feared. Outside the proper lab they present a huge danger to the entire world. Scary.
3. The history of this is fascinating.. and gruesome.
-
A soldier might tell you one of the biggest problems of chemical warfare is always being in your MOP suit, having one standing by, and the logistical demands demanded by their use.
That's also a strategic advantage to their use. It places an additional burden on the enemy, which if you don't have the same burden (or less of a burden) may give you an advantage that can be exploited.
There are a number of reasons a State might chose to use or threaten to use chemical weapons, not only to kill the enemy - and the type of agent that should be used for each purpose or under different environmental conditions is often different.
What's always consistent is that there must be a strategic advantage to the threat or use of chemical weapons.
Umm.. no. Bombs are just chemicals too. And chemicals have completely predictable fallout regions, though wind, rain, freezing cold.. can impact these regions. Are you thinking of germ warfare? Viruses are to be greatly feared. Outside the proper lab they present a huge danger to the entire world. Scary.
Explosives don't kill by their toxic effects (certainly that's not their primary reason for use), where chemical weapons do. Sure, explosive compounds are chemicals too, but there is a difference between them and chemical weapons (which all except for some spray tanks, also include an explosive component).
Everything physical thing can be described as a chemical, but that doesn't make everything a chemical weapon.
Chemicals have predictable behaviour in a laboratory. In the field, the behaviour is often very different. I work with large quantities of chemical weapons as an Inspection Team Leader and as Head of training for all chemical weapons inspectors, we are very familiar with how the predictable behaviour of an agent is not so predictable under real world conditions.
The predictable nature of an explosion is very predictable and knowable under almost all circumstances (and we commonly use explosions as a means for emergency destruction where other approaches are not possible).
Biological weapons add an additional layer of difficulty, not only through use, but also through compliance. They are banned under the BWC, but there is no practical way to confirm that the bans are effective and from a very small amount, a large quantity of material (aside from toxins like Ricin, which is also a chemical weapon) can be produced with relatively simple equipment in a short period of time (this isn't generally true of the chemicals that have been weaponised, which require a higher level of sophistication to produce - sulfur mustard being an exception that is relatively simple and safe to produce with the right precursors - which are subject to verification and are subject to trade limitations). Verification under the BWC was looked at again internationally post 'Amerithrax', but globally agreed, that a huge amount of money would be spent to implement an ineffective verification regime. It's arguable that the behaviour of biological agents is also quite predicable, but again, real World behaviour is often different and rightly, most of the WHO, CDC and other key organisations involved in monitoring clinical effects of disease, focus primarily on biological organisms that are already in/or may arise within, existing communities.
-
I don't know who bombed who, I don't know if assad would give way to a less inflammatory leader, I don't know if there is a military solution in syria, I don't know who is allied with who in syria and the surrounding extremist riddled groups,
I DO know you'd be going against previous proof of promised outcomes as being fat lies and propaganda, and that taking The United States Government's word on what and how we should approach the issues in syria, is like listening to your buddies on the internet about just how they think we should approach the issue.
Just dumb...
These are exactly the same guys that had it 100% wrong in Iraq that has just today claimed another 42 people in the related US caused death toll that is an unconscionable number,
300 children in syria dead?
How bout the children left to die in the back of police cars in the US?
We are going to force the rest of the world to do something we wont even do
Protect civilians.
BAH!
Do it here then maybe,,
You all really are going to trust these same liars that brought us Iraq?
You fell for it again you bunch of slow learners you...
-
That's also a strategic advantage to their use. It places an additional burden on the enemy, which if you don't have the same burden (or less of a burden) may give you an advantage that can be exploited.
There are too many reasons to list.. I just named a few to get people to think of more on their own to show it's not limited.
Everything physical thing can be described as a chemical, but that doesn't make everything a chemical weapon.
Again, obvious. I was hoping readers had a basic understanding of the sciences. I still think most do, but it's amusing how little faith you see one person put in the other. Runaway ego perhaps?
Chemicals have predictable behaviour in a laboratory. In the field, the behaviour is often very different.
The statement I was responding to was that chemical weapons are indiscriminate. My point is they are no more indiscriminate than a bullet or explosives when discussed in context. We aim a bullet, we aim chemical weapons. (or rather target). We just don't throw chemical weapons up in the air and they seek out our enemies.. that would be the perfect weapon and might someday happen with another type of weapon, but not a chemical weapon. Chemical weapons are dispersed by many of the same delivery systems we used to deliver bullets or explosives. We target chemical weapons just like we aim bullets. We drop them from planes, we shoot them in cannisters, put them in shells in place of explosives, we "sprinkle" them from a number of platforms..
Chemical weapons also don't "often" behave differently in the field than in the lab. They behave the same, 100% of the time. Ask an chemist. They don't mutate. They do "mix", shoot a gallon of chlorine and it lands in a gallon ammonia and you'll have a problem. Shoot a tracer into a fuel storage tank and you'll also have a problem. What you're trying to say is there's a larger variety of substances to which a "mix" might be an issue. Fair enough. Take a .50bmg into an urban setting where one shot can go through 10-20 thin walls and kill what the eye never intended to target and you have the same type of issue.
The real problem with chemical weapons is that the lab.. is often real people in a real setting. I know we kill animals with chems in the lab.. but we don't kill humans (god I hope not) in the lab and we don't build small neighbourhoods or large cities in the labs either. RECENTLY we do effective computer modelling.. but there is often very little difference between the lab and actual real life use.
Biological weapons add an additional layer of difficulty
,
Germ or biological warfare presents more danger to mankind than anything short of a world ending meteorite hit.. They mutate, they can live in the heat of a volcano, or the cold of a polar ice cap, they can live for thousands of years. The perfect way for man to destroy this planet. The cannot be compared to bombs or chemical weapons.
-
Chemical weapons also don't "often" behave differently in the field than in the lab. They behave the same, 100% of the time. Ask an chemist.
I think we might be discussing different things.
I think you're discussing chemical behaviour, which is the same 100% of the time, while I'm discussing physical behaviour, which is the same a very low percentage of the time for chemical weapons.
In relation to asking a chemist, I am one (not an ego thing at all. I just have a view on the use of chemical weapons because I work with them directly).
I still think most do, but it's amusing how little faith you see one person put in the other. Runaway ego perhaps?
Sorry, I'm lost on that one. I was just responding to the statement that bombs are no different to chemical weapons because they are also chemicals. That's not a position accepted by most countries.
I must have misunderstood what you meant.
Germ or biological warfare presents more danger to mankind than anything short of a world ending meteorite hit.. They mutate, they can live in the heat of a volcano, or the cold of a polar ice cap, they can live for thousands of years. The perfect way for man to destroy this planet. The cannot be compared to bombs or chemical weapons.
I agree on that (unless of course, we discover that a World ending meteorite starts heading towards Earth... :)).
-
OK... let's see... so the red lines are for real... and they must be enforced. So, I were a government's local opponent, and much weaker at that, and want someone to intervene on my behalf... hmmm... what shall I do? How about I make it look like the government crossed the red line? Smart, huh? On the other hand, if you are the government, why would you risk foreign intervention for something you could achieve just as easily with conventional weapons?
1. As real as the teleprompter he read "red line" from..
2. OR we say it must be enforced and hope we never have to. And if it does, we use it as a "teachable moment" to explain how or predecessors put us in the position where we had to make such a statement.
3. No no no.. read "predecessors" above. See how that works? Our own little teachable moment.. just you and me.. ;D
4. To put the fear of Allah into the resistance. Most can understand the concept of a bomb or explosives. Chemical weapons are a different matter. Like a vengeful god. The unseen enemy. A bullet and a Columbian Necktie are both designed to kill a single person. But it's the latter that strikes uncontrollable fear and brings obedience to the table..
-
I think we might be discussing different things.
At least. Let's try and clarify this a bit more.
I said "Bombs are just chemicals too. And chemicals have completely predictable fallout regions"
You said .. well a lot but I think this was most germane "
Explosives don't kill by their toxic effect:"
We all knew this. But, I think you are trying to say explosive behaviour is more predictable than chemical weapon behaviour. I'd agree it is. But for battle field purposes, drop a cluster bomb and cover a certain spread pattern (btw, I hate these almost as much as chems), drop a chem cannister and cover a certain spread pattern. Both are predictable, but the prediction on both can change for many reasons. Weather, ground type, and so on.
Tell us, what more are you trying to say that makes chems any more/less predictable than say a cluster munition? From drop to dispersion.
In relation to asking a chemist, I am one (not an ego thing at all. I just have a view on the use of chemical weapons because I work with them directly).
Fair enough. You can call me an "end user" and an observer of such. So far very little of what you've said has made much difference from my original point. But the reason I like these discussions is every now and then, certainly not often, we run across someone who can fill in holes.. or realign the knowledge we have. I'm listening.
-
The entire situation in Syria is just so unbelievably sad and tragic I wouldn't know where to begin in offering advice or suggesting a solution.
But instinctively I feel we should stay the hell out of such a place. Let the Syrians sort out their own mess, particularly considering that there is no united view of the United Nations.
All wars are an abomination. You'd think we would be smart enough, after such a long history of well-documented, continual wars stretching back to the dawn of civilization, to avoid them, in our modern age of relative prosperity and high education.
Not so, apparently. I struggle to understand how nations, organisations, and groups can behave so stupidly. It's as though there is some unthinking, completely animal behaviour at work that has no connection with being human.
-
At least. Let's try and clarify this a bit more.
I said "Bombs are just chemicals too. And chemicals have completely predictable fallout regions"
You said .. well a lot but I think this was most germane "
Explosives don't kill by their toxic effect:"
We all knew this. But, I think you are trying to say explosive behaviour is more predictable than chemical weapon behaviour. I'd agree it is. But for battle field purposes, drop a cluster bomb and cover a certain spread pattern (btw, I hate these almost as much as chems), drop a chem cannister and cover a certain spread pattern. Both are predictable, but the prediction on both can change for many reasons. Weather, ground type, and so on.
Tell us, what more are you trying to say that makes chems any more/less predictable than say a cluster munition? From drop to dispersion.
Fair enough. You can call me an "end user" and an observer of such. So far very little of what you've said has made much difference from my original point. But the reason I like these discussions is every now and then, certainly not often, we run across someone who can fill in holes.. or realign the knowledge we have. I'm listening.
Steve and Peter - I think this is all getting a bit too 'techy' for this forum. Peter was responding to my point about chemical versus conventional weapons, and I feel he has a good level of expertise with the former. I am completely satisfied that Peter knows exactly what he's talking about and so I respect his position. However I still cannot really see why the two types of weapon are segregated other than it suits us that they are. We have huge arsenals of nuclear weapons, both strategic and tactical, and so obviously (particularly in the case of strategic) have scenarios in which we can contemplate mass slaughter of innocents. But chemical weapons are much cheaper and low-tech and therefore available to more nations. We cannot really use them because there would be a public outcry, so we are happy for them to be outlawed. Leaders like Assad, possibly, have far fewer scruples about their use and in upsetting public opinion.
And as for Tim's point earlier (reply 97) about the unpleasantness of gasping for breath etc, I should think drowning in your own blood from a lung punctured from a bullet would be quite awful too. My point still stands that the method of maiming and killing is much less important than the fact it is happening, and that the 'Red Line' is just giving the US a reason to get stuck in - in spite of the fact that most of the citizens of that country are against involvement.
Maybe zapping a few Syrian installations and widowing a few hundred women will work. But historical precedent is not promising.
Jim
-
You know what it feels like to come close to dying from not being able to control your nervous system to the point you're grasping for every breath and suffering from violent convulsions/seizures worse than going through electro shock therapy without anesthesia? Yeah, I'ld say there's a big differences by comparison to being cut down by shrapnel or a bullet. I'ld bet anyone suffering under those conditions would prefer a bullet to the head without question.
I tried to raise this question earlier.
Are you certain that no conventional weapons can cause the agony that you are describing? I think that we may be surprised by the creativity (evil) shown by people trying to subdue other people using whatever means they have (e.g. dull knives).
-h
-
Hopefully the chemical used wasn't anything like the chemical used in the link beneath. It seemed to have been effective and killed a lot of people. :o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange
-
Forget the techy stuff for a second-
Forget the position of the US for a second-
Forget the "red line" for a second-
People will die if we attack Syria.
If you support an attack on Syria, you support the deaths of people
That's
YOU support the deaths of HUMAN BEINGS.
That's YOU
SUPPORT
THE
DEATHS
OF
HUMAN
BEINGS
There isn't another way of looking at it...
-
I've read most of the posts and try to understand the message each individual is trying to bring across. I'm not sure we will ever reach anything close to a consensus. Is it even possible to rationally discuss something as irrational as war? As perverted as killing other people and morally justifying the act? Is it possible to wage war for a just cause? I'm not questioning history, I'm trying to reap some sort of guidance from it. In my mind, that would be the only way to say, that people didn't die in vain.
-
If you support an attack on Syria abortion, you support the deaths of people
That's
YOU support the deaths of HUMAN BEINGS.
That's YOU
SUPPORT
THE
DEATHS
OF
HUMAN
BEINGS
There isn't another way of looking at it...
And by the way, I do support US action against the Syrian regime, and I generally support killing people under all kinds of circumstances that start with them wanting to kill me.
-
Funny how certain people have no problem supporting killing and yet claim to be pro-life. Staunchly pro-death and pro-life simultaneously. Schizophrenic?
-
Basically, life and death have been at the behest of nature and also of man, for as long as we have existed. And it was the same with all of the other carnivores that walked this pleasant planet.
It ain't pretty and it ain't sweet, but it's what we are. We know we can do it, and when push comes to shove, we often realise there's no other way to go. BUT, I think we should reserve that option for times when we and/or our cultures are directly at risk. I'm not sure if the various religious groups that develop in the Middle-East would actually seek to kill all non-believers (of their beliefs) or not; it's said that some have this obligation to convert or eliminate...
Anyway, in the end, they have to clean their own house.
Iraq was lesson enough, I'd have thought, and the much vaunted 'assistance' to Libya didn't earn us a hill of beans or anything else but a few more murdered diplomats. We will ever be seen as foreign aggressors - save the bother and waste of meddling.
Rob C
-
Funny how certain people have no problem supporting killing and yet claim to be pro-life. Staunchly pro-death and pro-life simultaneously. Schizophrenic?
Not so funny if you stop and think when was the last time a fetus was plotting to kill you, or drive a plane through a building.
The concept of the "innocent" having a right to life, and those trying to us being killed first really isn't that much of an abstraction is it? >:(
-
And by the way, I do support US action against the Syrian regime, and I generally support killing people under all kinds of circumstances that start with them wanting to kill me.
Problem being, as an almost certainty, is that the people doing the dying have no wish to be involved. A young Syrian recruit is not Assad, anymore than a US soldier who joins up to get a College education and wants to defend his homeland wants to get his balls blown off in some god-forsaken desert that probably he didn't even know the location of before being sent there as an instrument of his government.
I'm with Rocco.
Jim
-
... plotting to kill you...
Progressing from schizophrenia to paranoia, aren't we? ;)
-
PR of a different kind = http://function.mil.ru/news_page/country/more.htm?id=11833159@egNews (use translate.google.com)
-
Funny how certain people have no problem supporting killing and yet claim to be pro-life. Staunchly pro-death and pro-life simultaneously. Schizophrenic?
dual personality disorders are as american as apple pie.
-
Progressing from schizophrenia to paranoia, aren't we? ;)
"We" first need to deal with that little condition of denial you're exhibiting. While you go sit in the corner with the pointy hat on I'll be nice and make up some flash cards for you. On the first one will be the twin towers, then the USS Cole, followed by a variety of embassies.. No worries mate, we'll get you squared away. :D
-
"We" first need to deal with that little condition of denial you're exhibiting. While you go sit in the corner with the pointy hat on I'll be nice and make up some flash cards for you. On the first one will be the twin towers, then the USS Cole, followed by a variety of embassies.. No worries mate, we'll get you squared away. :D
may be we shall rather start w/ poor Mosaddegh, United Marine's Boots Fruit Co, etc, etc... get a mirror, then complain about towers, ships and embassies
-
Thank goodness for old guys, thanks Rob-
I think I'll back off here and just say this overall,
we here in America are quick and sure to condemn any little infraction of law, international or otherwise, if it suits us.
People go to jail for sleeping in their cars, even though they have no house,
people go to jail in North Carolina now if they don't willingly cooperate with self incarceration on the edge of town, with zero contact or access to their weak albeit ONLY support system for the sole crime of being homeless.
Shootings in Oakland?
Let the victim bleed out if it is gang related,
if a police officer arrives on the scene, and there are witnesses giving CPR and applying pressure to the wound,
many times the police just either sytand by and do nothing as they're waiting for the ambulance,
or with the real guys,
they force everyone back before not doing anything,
even if the bystander is trained and administering CPR,
to be stopped by the police,
who then let the victim then bleed to death,
Just like when the cops shoot a victim.
Usually 14 or more bullets hit the target,
dead men tell no tales right?
Anything Obama, the senate, congress or the military says about Syria should take a back seat to everyday, flagrant use of force in violation of the law by a large percentage of the police here,
and by the vigorous prosecution of war criminals we harbor in our midst,
PS
anyone arguing my side against that idiot maddog's side has forgotten I pledged to block that stalker,
and have
-
Tell us, what more are you trying to say that makes chems any more/less predictable than say a cluster munition? From drop to dispersion.
On this specific issue, the difference relates primarily to the time over which the weapon is effective and the behaviour of the material in that time.
A munition containing submunitions is predictable in the way it will fall and once the submunitions activate (assuming 100% activation for simplicity), the effect of the weapon is short, determined by the physical characteristics of the explosion and any enhancements. Once activated, the munition has no further effect (also assuming no depleted uranium in the munition and since this is a discussion of cluster munitions, none developed have contained dU).
The behaviour of a chemical inside a munition is determined by the characteristics of the munition for only the first 30 seconds after release (this is from research conducted in by the East Germans during the cold war). After that point, the behaviour of the chemical is determined by the physical properties of the chemical and the environmental conditions. The initial impact zone may be known based on the characteristics of the munition (but not always as below for the French), however following that, the effects of the agent (eg. VX) can last for several weeks and the chemicals can move in the environment causing problems in areas that were never targeted initially.
As a result, chemical weapons are regarded as more indiscriminate than conventional munitions (not including cluster munitions in that) because they can affect areas not initially targeted and people not initially targeted may move into affected areas and become victims long after the weapon have been released.
A cluster bomb (which are also illegal under the Convention on Cluster Munitions - but that has only 108 signatories at the moment) kills through its explosive properties and the explosive over pressures are very predictable and fall-off according to the inverse square law. Once the weapon is dropped, it's effects are virtually pre-determined and predictable.
For chemical weapons, the characteristics of the munition are known, but the physical behaviour of the chemical may vary significantly from predictions, particularly in response to environmental conditions.
In WWI, the French first used chlorine in response to earlier German attacks. In their initial attempt they released the gas and while it initially headed towards its target the wind changed and it came back straight through the allied lines, affecting their own troops (and Canadians). The behaviour of the weapon (ie. the components + the chemical) was exactly opposite the what they initially expected. Gases aren't a great example though, since they have been replaced by more reliable agents.
Research on Sarin has shown that in the early mornings following an attack, the concentration of agent in the air will rise, even if the area was previously declared clear. This occurs because the agent binds to soil, but has less affinity for the soil than moisture does. In the early morning dew periods the water binds to the soil, releasing sarin back into the air. Similar behaviour has been observed with other nerve agents also.
Mustard freezes at around 14 deg C (depending on purity as impure mustard will be liquid to lower temperatures). Once frozen it's effects (and ability to detect it) are diminished. However once it again melts above its freezing point, it can cause major problems (and there are many examples of this from WWI and from the Iran-Iraq War).
VX being non-volatile is difficult to detect, thought its presence is extremely lethal on contact. People, not knowing an area has been contaminated can move into it and be affected (with a high mortality rate). A study on VX I conducted under field conditions showed it was still effective 6 weeks after contamination (that was when we stopped the study).
So from drop to dispersion is one thing, but redistribution in the environment and the long lasting effect of the weapon is part of the reason why it's agreed that chemical weapons should be completely destroyed and never again produced (I don't think we'll ever reach that Utopia).
-
may be we shall rather start w/ poor Mosaddegh, United Marine's Boots Fruit Co, etc, etc... get a mirror, then complain about towers, ships and embassies
There's always one voice of unreason...
First, the point of the discussion you responded to was if there were enemies out to get us. NOT if their status was earned. But it was nice of you to support my argument by giving even more reasons we have people trying to hurt our country. Even if it was what.. 60 odd years ago? Kinda like if we were still trying to bomb a pichinko parlour in Japan over Pearl Harbour..
-
So from drop to dispersion is one thing, but redistribution in the environment and the long lasting effect of the weapon is part of the reason why it's agreed that chemical weapons should be completely destroyed and never again produced (I don't think we'll ever reach that Utopia).
You make many good points. Thank you. Unfortunately on a few of the points like the lasting effects.. cluster bombs aren't the only 'come lately' munitions. Land mines have been a huge problem, unexploded ordinance of all types, and even depth charges and anti-ship mines have taken out entire ships as they were "discovered" later.
Ever seen (pictures count) a battle field after cluster bombs hit it? You wouldn't forget it. How many bacterial threats not to mention possible viruses come out of those meat grinders? At once point we had I think 5% of the bomblets going unexploded and kids carrying them home hoping to sell for scrap metal? Human hamburger from one side of the field to the next. Diseases of all types.
Remember in the final days of Desert Storm, the refinery and well fires? Chemicals (industrial and some weapons being disposed of)were so thick in the air you could cut them with a knife and they're largely blamed for Gulf War Sickness.
I could go on with volumes of examples, but we can agree these are all unintended consequences of conventional ordinance. (cluster bombs were then conventional). Throughout the history of conventional munitions we have these kinds of issues. Bombs set for air burst that hit the ground, and the other way around. depleted uranium making land and water supplies unusable.
There's no doubt chemical weapons have their issues. But with virtually every bombing mission there are also issues we didn't plan for that cause death and strife mainly to those we didn't target. I really don't think either chemical weapons or conventional weapons gets to be the winner. But I'd sure vote for biological weapons..
-
You make many good points. Thank you. Unfortunately on a few of the points like the lasting effects.. cluster bombs aren't the only 'come lately' munitions. Land mines have been a huge problem, unexploded ordinance of all types, and even depth charges and anti-ship mines have taken out entire ships as they were "discovered" later.
Sure. Thankfully those issues don't currently relate to the Syrian situation, which is difficult enough already without adding those problems on top.
In parts of other countries in the middle east I have worked, minefields were a constant consideration and it doesn't make for fun when trying to find suitable locations to explosively destroy other munitions.
-
Sure. Thankfully those issues don't currently relate to the Syrian situation, which is difficult enough already without adding those problems on top.
In parts of other countries in the middle east I have worked, minefields were a constant consideration and it doesn't make for fun when trying to find suitable locations to explosively destroy other munitions.
With the ME and current politics they might threaten to mine the Straight again. As we've seen with the insurgents nothing is off the table and they consider to do well in the innovation department. And now we know it's okay to lob a chem out there every now and then to keep us thinking and they'll face nothing more serious than the bitter taste of global apathy..
-
Q. What do you get if you lock two 'academics' in a room and everyone else goes away?
A. Peace.
..........................
An Irishman, an Englishman and a Welshman are in a pub. The Irishman says: where’s the Scotsman?
An Irishman, an Englishman and a Welshman are in a pub. The Englishman says: where’s the Scotsman?
An Irishman, an Englishman and a Welshman are in a pub. The Welshman says: maybe you’ve heard this one before?
A Scotsman walks into an empty pub. He says: thank fuck it’s busy tonight.
;-)
Rob C
-
What has been lacking for this appalling gas attack has been motive. Here are two opinions pointing to the same origin:
First (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/columnists/chris-trotter/9117920/Prince-never-far-from-Middle-East-strife)
Second (http://www.collapsenet.com/free-resources/collapsenet-public-access/news-alerts/item/11528-dr-nafeez-ahmed-syria-intervention-plan-fueled-by-oil-interests-not-chemical-weapon-concern)
Not saying they are right, just that I haven't seen any alternative yet.
In the meantime, from the purely selfish viewpoint of a Pacific dweller, I really hope they sort out Fukushima.
-
from the purely selfish viewpoint of a Pacific dweller, I really hope they sort out Fukushima.
I heard the Japanese PM yesterday pledge full govt resources to the disaster.
Understand they want to permafrost the place with big chillers?
Windfarm offshore to power it?
Oh god save me from these people- we are so screwed
Several state agencies charged with the task of monitoring water quality in both the Los Angeles area, and Santa Barbara area
have reported
[fb feed]
Fukushima Radiation Plume Hit Southern and Central California
The Journal Environmental Science and Technology reports in a new study that the Fukushima radiation plume contacted North America at California “with greatest exposure in central and southern California”, and that Southern California’s seaweed tested over 500% higher for radioactive iodine-131 than anywhere else in the U.S. and Canada:
Projected paths of the radioactive atmospheric plume emanating from the Fukushima reactors, best described as airborne particles or aerosols for 131I, 137Cs, and 35S, and subsequent atmospheric monitoring showed it coming in contact with the North American continent at California, with greatest exposure in central and southern California. Government monitoring sites in Anaheim (southern California) recorded peak airborne concentrations of 131I at 1.9 pCi m−3 Anaheim is where Disneyland is located.
EneNews summarizes the data:
Corona Del Mar (Highest in Southern California)
2.5 Bq/gdwt (gram dry weight)= 2,500 Bq/kg of dry seaweed
Santa Cruz (Highest in Central California)
2.0 Bq/gdwt = 2,000 Bq/kg of dry seaweed
Simon Fraser University in Canada also tested North American seaweed after Fukushima:
“In samples of dehydrated seaweed taken on March 15 near the North Vancouver SeaBus terminal, the count was zero; on March 22 it was 310 Bq per kilogram; and by March 28 it was 380 Bq/kg.” -Vancouver Sun
Seaweed in Seattle also tested positive for iodine-131; levels were not reported -KIRO
No results after March 28 were reported
In addition, radioactive debris is starting to wash up on the Pacific Coast. And because the Japanese are burning radioactive materials instead of disposing of them, radioactive rain-outs will continue for some time … even on the Pacific Coast. In addition, radioactive debris is starting to wash up on the Pacific Coast. And because the Japanese are burning radioactive materials instead of disposing of them, radioactive rain-outs will continue for some time … even on the Pacific Coast.
Of course, the government is doing everything it can to help citizens cover up what’s occurring. We pointed out in January:
Instead of doing much to try to protect their citizens from Fukushima, Japan, the U.S. and the EU all just raised the radiation levels they deem “safe”. [link to www.ritholtz.com]
-
An Irishman, an Englishman and a Welshman are in a pub. The Irishman says: where’s the Scotsman?
An Irishman, an Englishman and a Welshman are in a pub. The Englishman says: where’s the Scotsman?
An Irishman, an Englishman and a Welshman are in a pub. The Welshman says: maybe you’ve heard this one before?
A Scotsman walks into an empty pub. He says: thank fuck it’s busy tonight.
I don't really get this joke, and I still laughed aloud. Now I want to go to Scotland.
-
I really hope they sort out Fukushima.
Where, do you suppose, does the Fukushima disaster fit into this chart?
-
I don't really get this joke, and I still laughed aloud. Now I want to go to Scotland.
My mother never really understood me either.
But then she was half-Italian. I think I undestood both of her.
;-)
Rob C
-
Even if it was what.. 60 odd years ago?
nice position, huh... the problem is that memory on the receiving end is not limited to 60 years...
-
A cluster bomb (which are also illegal under the Convention on Cluster Munitions - but that has only 108 signatories at the moment) kills through its explosive properties and the explosive over pressures are very predictable and fall-off according to the inverse square law. Once the weapon is dropped, it's effects are virtually pre-determined and predictable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_Denial_Artillery_Munition
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_Denial_Artillery_Munition
In the wonderful world of armaments there are always exceptions to the general principles. Unfortunately that isn't an uncommon type of submunition (and not an exception). Mines, bomblets, chemical - a whole host of submunitions have been used over the years. All of them are appalling and all of them thankfully not related to the topic of the thread, which is opinions on what should be done about the current Syrian situation.
I'm happy to discuss munitions all day long, but perhaps in a different thread.
-
nice position, huh... the problem is that memory on the receiving end is not limited to 60 years...
This is just too rich.. I must resist.. resist..
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_Denial_Artillery_Munition
Unfortunately the spec sheets often don't carry the failure rates.. only what is 'intended' to happen.
-
In the wonderful world of armaments there are always exceptions to the general principles. Unfortunately that isn't an uncommon type of submunition (and not an exception). Mines, bomblets, chemical - a whole host of submunitions have been used over the years. All of them are appalling and all of them thankfully not related to the topic of the thread, which is opinions on what should be done about the current Syrian situation.
I'm happy to discuss munitions all day long, but perhaps in a different thread.
Sometimes it's the simple stuff.. Like napalm or its variants. I'm thinking of what we did in Japan. Possibly the worst we've ever done. I'm really glad the days of attacking civilian populations are over, bombs are smarter, etc. Or that drones make target ID more possible.
-
Sometimes it's the simple stuff.. Like napalm or its variants. I'm thinking of what we did in Japan. Possibly the worst we've ever done. I'm really glad the days of attacking civilian populations are over, bombs are smarter, etc. Or that drones make target ID more possible.
If only hey.
But aside from things being no better now than in the past, what would you do about the current Syrian issue and why?
-
What has been lacking for this appalling gas attack has been motive. Here are two opinions pointing to the same origin:
First (http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/columnists/chris-trotter/9117920/Prince-never-far-from-Middle-East-strife)
Second (http://www.collapsenet.com/free-resources/collapsenet-public-access/news-alerts/item/11528-dr-nafeez-ahmed-syria-intervention-plan-fueled-by-oil-interests-not-chemical-weapon-concern)
Not saying they are right, just that I haven't seen any alternative yet.
In the meantime, from the purely selfish viewpoint of a Pacific dweller, I really hope they sort out Fukushima.
Now that makes a lot more sense!
Cheers,
Bernard
-
If only hey.
But aside from things being no better now than in the past, what would you do about the current Syrian issue and why?
I answered that question in the beginning of the thread. Since it wasn't a traditional answer it was made fun of. I don't think killing people and breaking things will be helpful. Either will doing nothing. But I do think killing the people who ordered the chem strike and if we continue to do so.. would put every would be asshat on notice to buy a hat. You know, the Israeli model.
-
I answered that question in the beginning of the thread. Since it wasn't a traditional answer it was made fun of. I don't think killing people and breaking things will be helpful. Either will doing nothing. But I do think killing the people who ordered the chem strike and if we continue to do so.. would put every would be asshat on notice to buy a hat. You know, the Israeli model.
I have the same position. Stop it happening again, but then let them sort the rest out themselves.
-
I have the same position. Stop it happening again, but then let them sort the rest out themselves.
Right. Currently we target a few camps or missile sites, kill a few dozen helpless soldiers who are usually no more/less looking forward to a war than their US counterparts.. or maybe take out a leaders vacation home and blow up his luxury cars. Or if we're really serious we'll target more civilians or some piece of infrastructure which will make the populace suffer. But they didn't make the decision to gas their neighbour or extended family who lives in Rockostan City.. They die, but they were no more involved than you and me. Who feels better about this? It must stop.
If our intel network can say with confidence Assad's troops (for instance) had control over the stockpile the chem in question came from (and you know this usually can be done) then we target the leadership.. If we're just a little mad (the worse the atrocity, people killed, children, school, hospital, etc.. the more mad we become), target Assad. If we're a lot mad target him and the generals in charge of the stockpile AND the general in charge of delivery. Make it personal, make it appropriate, and make it now.
We can even announce our policy. Starting immediately from their violation we'll target them as they sleep, eat, travel, s s and s, but only them. Starting two weeks after, we'll target them and anyone in their company when we find them. Give them a chance to do the right thing and not hide behind skirts. We could also give them a time period to turn themselves in for trial.. but then we'd need a judicial body that worked. So that leaves out most of the UN. Anyway, we make known our policy, we stand behind it 100% of the time, and we put these despots on notice there are consequences. Each and every time. We'll probably need to take out a few to make the point.. Do this and we do that.
Nothing works better than consistent, effective, and immediate consequence.
How would you handle this situation?
-
Quote: "How would you handle this situation?"
Just like I have by withdrawing my support of DIFI and threatening the same for my congresswoman
Seems there has been a softening over the last few days huh?
Smarter than last time it seems,
but not out of the woods yet,
John Kerry is worse than I ever imagined.
Someone vote that guy into retirement would you?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/06/g20-syria-divides-putin-dinner
-
Maybe the US will finally get around to whatever-it-is-that-will-eventually-happen militarily.....and maybe Assad will live up to his word and throw a few missiles into Israel.
Katy bar the door.
-
... killing the people who ordered the chem strike ...
Exactly! If only we could find someone with impecable moral authority and unquestionable track record to present the irrefutable evidence. Where is Colin Powell when you need him?
-
watch this for easy to understand reasons we should all be writing our elected leaders discouraging any involvement in Syria's civil war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqtCOxeGAHE
-
Unfortunately the spec sheets often don't carry the failure rates.. only what is 'intended' to happen.
zarin as we saw is not 100% lethal... regardless of whatever spec sheets - because you never know how much of it will actually get to the body, so terminal doze per kg or whatever is just a theory, in reality like with above mentioned munition you just do not know what happens
-
Exactly! If only we could find someone with impecable moral authority and unquestionable track record to present the irrefutable evidence. Where is Colin Powell when you need him?
I see your point. But we can work with it. It's like gun owners. I've always believed (and Florida actually did it during my time there)we should require guys either be locked up in a state approved safe or in direct personal control of the owner (sleeping with it in their hand for instance). We won't go in their homes or enforce these laws until such time a child or burglar or someone not the owner gets control of the weapon and either causes injury with it, or commits a crime. Then the law allows the owner who failed to lock up their weapons.. to be charged with that crime.
We do the same with the current head of state and military general assigned to that billet.
In Florida there were massive amounts of guns being turned in and showing up in buyback programs. Funny thing, many people decided they didn't want to own guns any longer. And as a strong 2nd amendment supporter I was happy to see the people not willing to safeguard their weapons or suffer the consequences get rid of them.
Do you think leaders of rogue countries might get rid of theirs if they see there is absolutely no chance the weapons can be used without a Hellfire coming through their bedroom window?
-
Anything Obama, the senate, congress or the military says about Syria should take a back seat to everyday, flagrant use of force in violation of the law by a large percentage of the police here......
Spotted by the side of the road in Scottsdale, AZ....and posted here especially for Rocco Penny.....who has me blocked. ;)
I'm going to assume there should be a question mark (not a period) after 'POLICE'. It's certainly implied.
(http://i39.tinypic.com/a26nhs.jpg)
-
Exactly! If only we could find someone with impecable moral authority and unquestionable track record to present the irrefutable evidence. Where is Colin Powell when you need him?
There are 3 questions here:
- Were chemical weapons used? It seems reasonnable to think there was a usage of chemical weapons,
- Who was responsible for their usage? It seems very unlikely that the Syrian gov did it because it would mean that they are suicidal,
- Does it justify strikes that are certain to kill many innocent people whose surviving relatives will be manipulated into thinking that the US did it because it is controlled by Israel? I would say absolutely not considering the geopolitical impacts.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
- Who was responsible for their usage? It seems very unlikely that the Syrian gov did it because it would mean that they are suicidal....
Suicidal? So far, not so much.
All this red line/crimes against humanity business over chem as the tipping point is hot air. When Iraq was at war with Iran, the Iraqis used chem on Iranian tank formations, I don't recall any particular outrage.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran
-
Suicidal? So far, not so much.
All this red line/crimes against humanity business over chem as the tipping point is hot air.
Obama made a very clear public statment about the consequences of crossing this line.
So going against this statment, without any value whatsoever for the Syrian gov, in a context where they have clear ennemies both in Israel and Saudi Arabia... doing this is either showing a degree of stupidity that is not realistic for a head of state... or a form of suicide... which again is not credible. Not after the US did what they did in Irak.
As always, the odds are much higher that those benefiting from a possible retaliation from the US made sure the chem weapon usage would happen.
We have to stop with the childish views of the world. There is simply not way the Syrian gov ordered the usage of chem weapons.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
At risk of starting a new thread like the Snowden one, what should be done about the Syrian crisis?
With confirmation that chemical weapons have been used, do we as the rest of the World have a moral obligation to step in with military force, even if that puts our own troops at risk of similar attack?
It's clear that international law has been broken and while it's a bit early to conclude, it is also likely that a war crimes tribunal will be formed at some point in the future. But while major Governments are currently responding with some indecision regarding intervention, does the use of chemical weapons against civilians change the risk vs benefit and should we be more committed to stepping in to stop what happening?
Can we stop what's happening?
“Everything the State says is a lie, and everything it has it has stolen.”
― Nietzsche
-
As always, the odds are much higher that those benefiting from a possible retaliation from the US made sure the chem weapon usage would happen.
We have to stop with the childish views of the world. There is simply not way the Syrian gov ordered the usage of chem weapons.
Cheers,
Bernard
I understand what you're saying, Bernard. Cui Bono, etc. I get it.
However, let's examine how Assad might benefit (in fact is benefitting, at least so far) from the events as they have unfolded.
Russia has reiterated its staunch support for Assad, effectively lining up with Syria against the US. It has in fact taken a stronger position than it had taken up to this point, and these events precipitated this stance. Unprecedented weapons shipments are undoubtedly in transit from Moscow as we speak.
Assad now has clarified for the populous the potential consequences of sympathy and support for the rebels, with no backlash, at least so far.
He has established himself across broad swaths of the relevant cultural milieu as the so called 'strong horse', an accomplishment Obama cannot fathom.
Assad has played chicken with the US and is...so far...the clear winner, especially among his key constituencies, which don't include Americans or Europeans.
Assad made a judgement about the character and constitution of Obama, and the mood of the American body politic and the West in general at the present time, and I'm sure he's feeling vindicated.
Who might benefit from US involvement/retaliation? That's purely academic at this point, because there has been no retaliation, and whatever might happen, Assad knows for damn sure it will not be anything like what happened to Saddam. Obama (and the silence of our allies) has made that quite clear.
Who benefits if the US sends a couple dozen missiles into Syria? Assad...that's who.
-
I understand what you're saying, Bernard. Cui Bono, etc. I get it.
However, let's examine how Assad might benefit (in fact is benefitting, at least so far) from the events as they have unfolded.
Russia has reiterated its staunch support for Assad, effectively lining up with Syria against the US. It has in fact taken a stronger position than it had taken up to this point, and these events precipitated this stance. Unprecedented weapons shipments are undoubtedly in transit from Moscow as we speak.
Assad now has clarified for the populous the potential consequences of sympathy and support for the rebels, with no backlash, at least so far.
He has established himself across broad swaths of the relevant cultural milieu as the so called 'strong horse', an accomplishment Obama cannot fathom.
Assad has played chicken with the US and is...so far...the clear winner, especially among his key constituencies, which don't include Americans or Europeans.
Assad made a judgement about the character and constitution of Obama, and the mood of the American body politic and the West in general at the present time, and I'm sure he's feeling vindicated.
Who might benefit from US involvement/retaliation? That's purely academic at this point, because there has been no retaliation, and whatever might happen, Assad knows for damn sure it will not be anything like what happened to Saddam. Obama (and the silence of our allies) has made that quite clear.
Who benefits if the US sends a couple dozen missiles into Syria? Assad...that's who.
A totally plausible scenario, except that neither Bashar al-Assad nor his father have ever shown that degree of subtlety. (As far as I know; not saying you are mistaken). What is more likely is that outsiders ordered the attack, and now Bashar al-Assad will make the best of a bad situation and follow the last part of your outline.
-
why are we still talking about joining Syria's civil war?
http://www.globalresearch.ca/national-security-versus-food-insecurity-one-in-seven-hungry-in-america-as-obama-prepares-for-syrian-war/5348690?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=national-security-versus-food-insecurity-one-in-seven-hungry-in-america-as-obama-prepares-for-syrian-war
-
why are we still talking about joining Syria's civil war?
Because of the War Pigs (http://youtu.be/OGPD0ZBiMs0)! They're just like witches at black masses right now.
And do you really think the Nobel Peace Prize was because of Obama's track record? What we have is the perfect example of a narcissist incapable of seeing what he's standing in.
-
The German secret services just confirmed that the chem attacks had not been ordered by the Syrian gov.
My proposal: we keep the Tomahawks ready, find out who plotted the attacks and fire at those guys.
Odds are they will fly to Ryad or Jerusalem.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard,
What i can find online about the BND briefing is along the lines that Assad did not personally order the use of chemical weapons. Not that the regime did not.
Agree, wait and see and get the right target.
Frank
-
The German secret services just confirmed that the chem attacks had not been ordered by the Syrian gov.
My proposal: we keep the Tomahawks ready, find out who plotted the attacks and fire at those guys.
Odds are they will fly to Ryad or Jerusalem.
Cheers,
Bernard
When I read you first sentence I though you were cracking an old WW2 joke.
I'm also rather impressed with your own secret report and tale of two cities. Nothing like a bit of hard information in these troubled times!
;-)
Rob C
-
I'm also rather impressed with your own secret report and tale of two cities. Nothing like a bit of hard information in these troubled times!
I have never written they were "hard information".
Cheers,
Bernard
-
With all the ease of information we have at our disposal we have no credible information.
I have learned to trust no one. All parties have much to gain or escape from their propaganda.
Peter
-
Bernard,
The impression I'm getting from news reports on this, is that it seems clear,according to the intercepted messages by the Germans, that Assad himself did not order the chemical attacks, but other members of his miltary force may have done so. It's not clear or certain that these attacks were perpetrated by either the rebels or outside forces.
-
To join Rocco's line of thinking: while our government is busy protecting citizens of faraway countries from their evil governments, how about protecting its own citizens from evil government:
"Man owed $134 in property taxes. The District sold the lien to an investor who foreclosed on his $197,000 house and sold it. He and many other homeowners like him were LEFT WITH NOTHING."
Ironically, the story in Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2013/09/08/left-with-nothing/) starts with a retired Marine sergeant, one of those who bear the brunt of protecting citizens of faraway countries from their evil governments.
-
To join Rocco's line of thinking emotion: while our government is busy protecting citizens of faraway countries from their evil governments, how about protecting its own citizens from evil government:
"Man owed $134 in property taxes. The District sold the lien to an investor who foreclosed on his $197,000 house and sold it. He and many other homeowners like him were LEFT WITH NOTHING."
Ironically, the story in Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2013/09/08/left-with-nothing/) starts with a retired Marine sergeant, one of those who bear the brunt of protecting citizens of faraway countries from their evil governments.
Hey, I'm no fan of government. In fact, I want less of it at every turn.
But this kind of sob story is no reason to trash the government. You picked a bad example, Slobo. A $134 tax deficiency is just like a larger one, retired Marine or otherwise. If the tax delinquent is a sympathetic character, (handicapped, teacher, recovering crack whore with a good heart, whatever) we should then selectively enforce the statutes? Please....
A $134 deficiency is easy to remedy, and all required notices were undoubtedly provided to the salt of the earth retired Marine, who very likely ignored them. If one dislikes these kinds of rules, one should work to change them. If you think only large tax deficiencies incurred by people who have bad personalities or unsympathetic life stories should be subject to collection, then propose it.
-
Oh, please Mezzo, you are jumping the gun with your preconceived ideas without even reading the article, and resorting to the cheapest trick in the book, straw-man argument. Nobody is suggesting to selectively enforce statutes for "sympathetic characters."
However, no, $134 tax deficiency is not "just like a larger one." Nor is $0.80 (yes, eighty cents) that triggered a foreclosure in another example. Law recognizes degrees in breaking it in many other cases. There is a different penalty for speeding more than 5 miles above speed limit and speeding 30 miles. In many cases, speeding not more than 5 miles would not even trigger penalty. If you steal something, there is scale of punishment depending on the amount. If you are found with drugs on you, there is a different treatment for different amounts.
There is a legal principle of extenuating circumstances (like dementia in the OP case). Then there is that legal principle that punishment should fit the crime. There is another legal principle that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. If you do not think that taking away a home worth $200,000 to $300,000 dollars over a couple of hundred or even thousand dollars is not "cruel and unusual punishment," then YOU deserve a cruel and unusual punishment.
But lets for a second accept, for the sake of argument, that it is ok to sell a $200,000 home to collect $134 debt. Should not then the proceeds from the sale go to pay the debt, but the rest (the huge rest) go back to the original owner? In which case the offender would end up with a hassle and and a smaller home, but not homeless.
There was this case (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/soldier-iraq-loses-home-homeowners-association-foreclose) recently (and ongoing) where an active-duty soldier lost $300,000 home over $800 debt to a homeowner association, where the HOA sold it for $3,500 (yes, three thousand).
It is not about "sympathetic characters," it is about predatory collection methods and the governments that use them.
If you do not see a basic human injustice, the cruel and unusual punishment, in those cases, then we really have nothing to discuss.
-
Not to mention this guy has a mental illness (dementia) which by definition causes confusion and the inability to take care of more complex things. It progresses until they forget which end the boxers go on.
This isn't a 35 year old healthy person thumbing his nose at his taxes. It's a 76 year old dementia struck disadvantaged minority who on average has barely there literacy skills, a not so deep understanding of the "system", probably can't afford glasses to read the damn notice because his inadequate military retirement (where he served at a time his race held back promotions and equal pay) is barely enough to keep him in Purina large bits..
Should I go on? I'm laying it on thick, but all these things are there. Before the "city" turns over $194 to a collection agency whose practices are well known, shouldn't they visit the individual and see what the problem is? I mean shazam.. where's your community organizers when you need them? Obviously not helping the disadvantaged.. instead they're out there running up deficits.. dammit Scotty I'm tired of all this. We need more power and we need it now!
-
Oh, please Mezzo, you are jumping the gun with your preconceived ideas without even reading the article, and resorting to the cheapest trick in the book, straw-man argument. Nobody is suggesting to selectively enforce statutes for "sympathetic characters."
However, no, $134 tax deficiency is not "just like a larger one." Nor is $0.80 (yes, eighty cents) that triggered a foreclosure in another example. Law recognizes degrees in breaking it in many other cases. There is a different penalty for speeding more than 5 miles above speed limit and speeding 30 miles. In many cases, speeding not more than 5 miles would not even trigger penalty. If you steal something, there is scale of punishment depending on the amount. If you are found with drugs on you, there is a different treatment for different amounts.
There is a legal principle of extenuating circumstances (like dementia in the OP case). Then there is that legal principle that punishment should fit the crime. There is another legal principle that prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. If you do not think that taking away a home worth $200,000 to $300,000 dollars over a couple of hundred or even thousand dollars is not "cruel and unusual punishment," then YOU deserve a cruel and unusual punishment.
But lets for a second accept, for the sake of argument, that it is ok to sell a $200,000 home to collect $134 debt. Should not then the proceeds from the sale go to pay the debt, but the rest (the huge rest) go back to the original owner? In which case the offender would end up with a hassle and and a smaller home, but not homeless.
There was this case (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/soldier-iraq-loses-home-homeowners-association-foreclose) recently (and ongoing) where an active-duty soldier lost $300,000 home over $800 debt to a homeowner association, where the HOA sold it for $3,500 (yes, three thousand).
It is not about "sympathetic characters," it is about predatory collection methods and the governments that use them.
If you do not see a basic human injustice, the cruel and unusual punishment, in those cases, then we really have nothing to discuss.
Sounds like you want to change these taxation and collections practices. Best wishes. In the meantime, they are either fair or unfair irrespective of the sob stories and special cases that make it into Mother Jones. Your outrage and righteous indignation seem to be kindled...to what end?
-
Bernard,
The impression I'm getting from news reports on this, is that it seems clear,according to the intercepted messages by the Germans, that Assad himself did not order the chemical attacks, but other members of his miltary force may have done so. It's not clear or certain that these attacks were perpetrated by either the rebels or outside forces.
Yep, this is unclear, but many inputs point towards the fact that those were in fact used by the rebels. Now, were they able to use them by themselves, or were they helped by someone?
For some reason, I feel that this piece of information will not be disclosed.
The new proposal from Russia is interesting also... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
This article on the language used in relation to events in Syria (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/04/wmd-unconventional-weapons-language-war) is very interesting regarding the recent incident and the why the recent furore over it is a bit questionable, seeing as the vast amounts of people killed previously in Syria provoked no international action.
-
This article on the language used in relation to events in Syria (http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/sep/04/wmd-unconventional-weapons-language-war) is very interesting regarding the recent incident and the why the recent furore over it is a bit questionable, seeing as the vast amounts of people killed previously in Syria provoked no international action.
Besides, if the big picture goal is to prevent the death and suffering of people in the world, it would be far smarter for the US to cut in half defense spendings (which would bring us back to year 1996 levels... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG) and to focus on the advances of medical science instead.
And don't come and tell me that the US was under equipped defenwise in 1996... it already had by far the most modern and best equipped army in the Western part of the galaxy. It was certainly not perfect, but it was way closer to perfection than any other army it may ever have to deal with on planet earth.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That guy Obama,
he is such a louse.
Louse louse louse...
Listen to him,
"our troops are out of Iraq, our troops are coming home from Afghanistan"
good job America,
you have reconciled yourself as second rate war criminal supporters
-
Besides, if the big picture goal is to prevent the death and suffering of people in the world, it would be far smarter for the US to cut in half defense spendings (which would bring us back to year 1996 levels... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:InflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG) and to focus on the advances of medical science instead.
And don't come and tell me that the US was under equipped defenwise in 1996... it already had by far the most modern and best equipped army in the Western part of the galaxy. It was certainly not perfect, but it was way closer to perfection than any other army it may ever have to deal with on planet earth.
Cheers,
Bernard
Sometimes something so profoundly ignorant surfaces, and you really don't want to breech and insult the messenger, but the weight of what you're saying.. well.. I'd be remiss if I let it go without comment.
The first paragraph I'll just let go as coming from someone who believes the US military is the cause of much death and suffering and needs look no further than a body count to justify their views. I'm okay with that,difference of opinions and all..
But the second paragraph just misses the big floating boat on a number of issues. It doesn't matter how "well equipped in comparison" we are to whatever enemy surfaces unless being a bullet ahead is all it takes to make you feel good about sending people to war. That might work when you're competing with lemonade stands and your extra 1/4 lemon per unit gives you a product advantage.. but in war thousands or even millions die. A 1/4 lemon a ahead might mean we only lost 900,000 men .. to their million. Sure makes me feel good. Not. Modern warfare demands a certain level of readiness among men, equipment, training, attrition cycles, logistics, product development, well.. what any big business needs. You just can't guy a business back to a 20 year old operating budget and expect it to survive.
There are so many instances to use as examples.. but one that we all might have heard about is our lack of HUMINT (human intelligence) assets in the middle eastern countries who ended up attacking us. The President took over, wanted (at least on paper) a budget surplus, and come hell or high water he would get one. In this case it meant cutting our HUMINT assets in the countries that attacked us.. which is usually how we find out we're going to be attacked. Before we're attacked. But it goes further. We get attacked and now we're expected to just through money at it and its fixed. Start up that old product line and away we go, all fixed right? No. In the case of HUMINT resources they take a minimum of years.. usually 10+, often 20-30-40+.. the better your resources are rated is usually tied into their history/credibility.. With crappy HUMINT resources one could be led to believe.. well.. certain countries have WMD's who don't. Or who did but moved them somewhere. Stop funding your HUMINT resources in a way this certain President did.. and it directly puts us at risk. You never, ever, under ANY circumstances take your eye off your enemies. Unless a budget surplus and re-election is that important to you.
But it's more than our HUMINT sources in the ME, our fleets of planes, ships, and satellites are all on development and product cycles. Break one and it can take over a decade to get back to where you left off. What time edge we had over our enemies will probably not hold up. On a smaller scale, guns, gas masks, MOP suits, bullet proof vests.. remember, all those things Bush Sr. was taken to task for because he wasn't providing them and he still sent men to war? Yep, even those product cycles take 5-10 years to get back on track. And then there's the men who wear and use that equipment.
The list is long. And when someone who's familiar with the list reads what you wrote.. we really wish for a more thoughtful approach.
-
The first paragraph I'll just let go as coming from someone who believes the US military is the cause of much death and suffering and needs look no further than a body count to justify their views. I'm okay with that,difference of opinions and all..
Nope, this is not what I wrote. I didn't write anywhere that I thought the US army caused sufferings and death, nor is it what I think, and if they did as a regrettable side effect, it was only the result of the wrong orders they were given.
I wrote that there are far better ways to reduce suffering and death in the world than spending more on defense, which is so different that I cannot quite understand how you could confuse the two propositions.
But the second paragraph just misses the big floating boat on a number of issues. It doesn't matter how "well equipped in comparison" we are to whatever enemy surfaces unless being a bullet ahead is all it takes to make you feel good about sending people to war. That might work when you're competing with lemonade stands and your extra 1/4 lemon per unit gives you a product advantage.. but in war thousands or even millions die. A 1/4 lemon a ahead might mean we only lost 900,000 men .. to their million. Sure makes me feel good. Not. Modern warfare demands a certain level of readiness among men, equipment, training, attrition cycles, logistics, product development, well.. what any big business needs. You just can't guy a business back to a 20 year old operating budget and expect it to survive.
The list is long. And when someone who's familiar with the list reads what you wrote.. we really wish for a more thoughtful approach.
We are speaking of defense spendings, right?
Because the whole argument you are putting forward here awfully feels like the one of someone who is about to wage wars.
So yes, if some politicians decide to start a war for whatever reason, there is no limit to the amount the military will be willing to spend to reduce the causalities among the man they will have to sending out to follow political orders.
Now:
1. Nothing forces the politicians in the US to start wars. If history is of any value, there has not been a single significant example of war since WWII where the US got involved that was able to deliver on the objective initially stated as the reason for going to war. No need to look back at Irak as the most glaring example thereof,
2. In a defensive context, good enough has to be good enough in view of the other priorities a modern society has to deal with. Because defense budget is there for a purpose which is to serve society, because it is funded by society among other important things like education or medical sciences for example.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Nope, this is not what I wrote. I didn't write anywhere that I thought the US army caused sufferings and death, nor is it what I think, and if they did as a regrettable side effect, it was only the result of the wrong orders they were given.
Okay, clarified. Wrong orders they were given.. You mean by their civilian masters?
I wrote that there are far better ways to reduce suffering and death in the world than spending more on defense, which is so different that I cannot quite understand how you could confuse the two propositions.
It's context. You chose the context when you chose the subjects for comparison.
We are speaking of defense spendings, right?
Because the whole argument you are putting forward here awfully feels like the one of someone who is about to wage wars.
The job of the US military during peace time is to maintain a state or readiness as stipulated by the executive branch. For a long time this has been the ability to fight two wars and still protect the homeland. That's an awful lot of responsibility. So you're right. We maintain readiness to fight wars even when not at war. It's like your car, you might not drive it next week when you're out of town, but when you return you still want it to run, be insured, have fuel fresh enough to run, enough air in the tires, etc. Even when out of town you're paying for insurance, cost of ownership, service to your auto loan, etc.
So yes, if some politicians decide to start a war for whatever reason, there is no limit to the amount the military will be willing to spend to reduce the causalities among the man they will have to sending out to follow political orders.
Ideally yes. But military commands are given budgets just like anyone else. Maintaining readiness is a core requirement.
Now:
1. Nothing forces the politicians in the US to start wars. If history is of any value, there has not been a single significant example of war since WWII where the US got involved that was able to deliver on the objective initially stated as the reason for going to war. No need to look back at Irak as the most glaring example thereof,
2. In a defensive context, good enough has to be good enough in view of the other priorities a modern society has to deal with. Because defense budget is there for a purpose which is to serve society, because it is funded by society among other important things like education or medical sciences for example.
Well.. if the civilians are doing such a bad job choosing and running wars, perhaps we should give the responsibility (and the funding to match ) to the military?
Still, you're assuming "the initial objective" was their real objective. Or that they didn't get out of the wars they did fight.. what they wanted. Deterrence comes to mind.
In either case it's not enough to complain. You need to provide a solution. Reducing the budget of an organization that you appear to ideologically oppose to some arbitrary number appears not only short sighted, but wreckless to boot. We could probably cut the budget to the DOT by a like amount.. and that might look great on the surface. Well, until your car fell into a giant pothole, trucks supplying our daily supply of consumables (food, gas, etc) took twice as long to deliver at double the expense because of poor road conditions.. and who knows how many other consequences will rear their troublesome heads.
-
In either case it's not enough to complain. You need to provide a solution. Reducing the budget of an organization that you appear to ideologically oppose to some arbitrary number appears not only short sighted, but wreckless to boot. We could probably cut the budget to the DOT by a like amount.. and that might look great on the surface. Well, until your car fell into a giant pothole, trucks supplying our daily supply of consumables (food, gas, etc) took twice as long to deliver at double the expense because of poor road conditions.. and who knows how many other consequences will rear their troublesome heads.
The solution is very simple:
1. Stick to purely defensive missions where armed force maintain a level of readiness that enable them to react in case the territory of the US is being attacked,
2. Re-assess the budget accordingly. I would be extremely surprised it you were not able to go below 1996 levels, meaning less than half the current level of spending.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Bernard, you're suggesting what's tantamount to an isolationist programme, a further development of 'fortress America' that leaves the rest of the world outside and hopelessly the poorer. A huge amount of the UK economy is intertwined and integrated with the American one; many companies are co-owned on both sides of the Atlantic with vast amounts of capital and investment shared. How can anyone, in a modern world, think it possible to split the two asunder?
You are stock market savvy - look what happens to London when NY sneezes!
National defence and world politics are one and the same beast; can anyone imagine Russia loves the Middle-East? Nope, it's a marriage of convenience that can be struck by divorce whenever situation ethics demand. Don't forget Afghanistan: Russia had a pretty bloody nose from that adventure and dozens of home-inflicted aches and pains from down in its own Islamic areas... that the US helped in the battle against Russia in Afghanistan is one of life's supreme ironies.
Rob C
-
Bernard, you're suggesting what's tantamount to an isolationist programme, a further development of 'fortress America' that leaves the rest of the world outside and hopelessly the poorer. A huge amount of the UK economy is intertwined and integrated with the American one; many companies are co-owned on both sides of the Atlantic with vast amounts of capital and investment shared. How can anyone, in a modern world, think it possible to split the two asunder?
You are stock market savvy - look what happens to London when NY sneezes!
National defence and world politics are one and the same beast; can anyone imagine Russia loves the Middle-East? Nope, it's a marriage of convenience that can be struck by divorce whenever situation ethics demand. Don't forget Afghanistan: Russia had a pretty bloody nose from that adventure and dozens of home-inflicted aches and pains from down in its own Islamic areas... that the US helped in the battle against Russia in Afghanistan is one of life's supreme ironies.
Rob C
Rob, I'm sure Bernard can and will answer for himself, but I don't think he is talking economic isolation - just military.
In principle I do agree with him. The US however is involved in the Middle East for economic and ideological reasons, and it does anger me when action is justified purely on humanitarian grounds (gassed kids etc). And remember too that Russia has more reason to be involved from a 'defence' point of view when you see that the borders of Russia and Syria are only a few hundred miles apart. Quite different from the US which is many thousands of miles away.
Anyway, I see from the latest news re the Syrians considering relinquishing their Chemical weapons that we are able to get out of launching attacks without losing face. Thank goodness for that.
Jim
-
You can't be an empire without army. If you do not want to be one, somebody else will.
-
You can't be an empire without army. If you do not want to be one, somebody else will.
So true...
So better be you.
Next month a book! Or a letter to the The Times.
Rob C
-
The solution is very simple:
1. Stick to purely defensive missions where armed force maintain a level of readiness that enable them to react in case the territory of the US is being attacked,
2. Re-assess the budget accordingly. I would be extremely surprised it you were not able to go below 1996 levels, meaning less than half the current level of spending.
Cheers,
Bernard
1. The solution is either short sighted (extremely) or very radical on your part and I won't make that determination. It's also very "Japan like" but even they've recently realized the need to contribute to their allies and protect their interests overseas. We probably can't handle an extended large scale war on our own, we need to support our allies and protect our interests.. and we need our allies support. I do agree we could scale back and we should. But not nearly to the limits you've suggested.
2. When it comes to funding the military you get what you pay for. And there are a small number of shall we say "talented individuals" within the defence department we should keep in our employ and not risk them going elsewhere.
-
1. The solution is either short sighted (extremely) or very radical on your part and I won't make that determination. It's also very "Japan like" but even they've recently realized the need to contribute to their allies and protect their interests overseas. We probably can't handle an extended large scale war on our own, we need to support our allies and protect our interests.. and we need our allies support. I do agree we could scale back and we should. But not nearly to the limits you've suggested.
2. When it comes to funding the military you get what you pay for. And there are a small number of shall we say "talented individuals" within the defence department we should keep in our employ and not risk them going elsewhere.
We are just discussions directions here, I am OK to negotiate the details. ;)
The only point I am discussing really is the claim that such campaigns are led to avoid causalities in Syria and therefore saving humans lives.
My view remains that:
- Such an attack would be mostly a political act tightly connected to the interest of the US abroad and their connections with countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel,
- The ability to conduct such operations requires huge military spending that end up conflicting with other approaches that would contribute a lot more globally to reducing human causalities than a possible raid on Syria.
The desire to maintain and expand the empire appears to be a much higher priority than saving human lives.
I am not saying that this is not understandable, I am just tired by the hypocrisy of it all.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
We are just discussions directions here, I am OK to negotiate the details. ;)
The only point I am discussing really is the claim that such campaigns are led to avoid causalities in Syria and therefore saving humans lives.
My view remains that:
- Such an attack would be mostly a political act tightly connected to the interest of the US abroad and their connections with countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel,
- The ability to conduct such operations requires huge military spending that end up conflicting with other approaches that would contribute a lot more globally to reducing human causalities than a possible raid on Syria.
The desire to maintain and expand the empire appears to be a much higher priority than saving human lives.
I am not saying that this is not understandable, I am just tired by the hypocrisy of it all.
Cheers,
Bernard
Thank you for your views. Now I can see where you're coming from and it's not all that surprising they're very close to my own. Really, I think for the most part the views we see on this forum are very close, but perhaps with a more varied ability to put our feelings to paper we end up with misunderstandings and anger through frustration.
We can and should do better. We owe it to ourselves and our children. And yet we're not. What does this say about us other than our shame runs deep?
-
Quote Bernard Reply#193
My view remains that:
- Such an attack would be mostly a political act tightly connected to the interest of the US abroad and their connections with countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel,
Unquote
I heard John Kerry on TV a few days ago in a speech referring to "America's security interests". When you consider that Syria is thousands of miles away why would America feel threatened by them? Bernard gives the answer above. Hidden agendas. America trying to get at Russia via Syria and vice versa and America knows all about chemical weapons.
-
Quote Bernard Reply#193
My view remains that:
- Such an attack would be mostly a political act tightly connected to the interest of the US abroad and their connections with countries such as Saudi Arabia and Israel,
Unquote
I heard John Kerry on TV a few days ago in a speech referring to "America's security interests". When you consider that Syria is thousands of miles away why would America feel threatened by them? Bernard gives the answer above. Hidden agendas. America trying to get at Russia via Syria and vice versa and America knows all about chemical weapons.
And you think there exists a university in any city whose lecturers don't? I should imagine that Glasgow would be perfectly capable of producing any of them, which hardly makes the Scot. Nats. possible terror exporters... but given the Irish example, the undeniable links between the two Irelands and Scotland, who knows what the future might hold for us all?
Empire is, in my view, a totally misunderstood term.
We had an Empire in recent history, and I lived in a part of it whilst it still was part of our Empire. If anything, it was an object lesson in what empire really means: responsibility. It faced the Greeks as it eventually did the Romans and every other extraterritorial power too. You have no empire anymore when you don’t control it to your advantage, and to do that you need to depend not on force but upon the positives that you, as the top of the pyramid, can bring to the party. As all the others before discovered, tying up legions and muscle and finance only serves to leave the home base less well protected and itself open to attack.
And I believe that in the world of today, the greatest threat and disadvantage to the concept of empire and its continuation is finance. Can you imagine the state that Britain would be in today if it still had responsibility for what was India? We would be bankrupt. Africa? We could afford to keep troops there to separate warring tribes? The best thing we ever did was to abandon the whole concept of empire. We might have conceived better solutions to peaceful withdrawal than we did, but I suspect that the true scale of the drain on home resources that empire was ultimately seen to be post-WW2 made heads think very seriously.
I’d be quite surprised to discover that the States have an interest in creating an empire of their own. I would be even more surprised to think that the States didn’t want to have influence overseas. The two are by no means the same thing at all.
Solutions and aids to peaceful coexistence? More trade. It’s as simple as that. I’m led to believe that the EEC was supposedly set up to stop events like WW2 from being possible ever again; instead of concentrating upon trade that is of mutual benefit to all parties engaged in it, they corrupted the concept into one of federalism, causing the schism now threatening to split the entire thing asunder. How effing blind! They only had to consider the big players in the original concept: Italy had a boom, but Italy was not even a single country until very, very recently and the north still resents feeding the south; Spain, too, is bedevilled with factions wanting back their old independences and resenting the taxation payments that go elsewhere to support the hopeless cases; Britain? has anyone forgotten factions within Northern Ireland and Scotland and possibly Wales, too, seeking self-governance? France? As split as the rest, and as ever between ‘Paris’ and the Midi. Germany, the current top gun? Until they suddenly found themselves responsible for the eastern part, Soviet long enough to destroy the work ethic, they had few problems. Now they face all manner or domestic crisis and also the product of having had to import labour willing to do ‘menial’ work. It’s the American south and the plantations all over again, but with other players. You can’t send the ‘guests’ home again, they become you, but different. Hasn’t empire proved that in Britain, too?
Old countries are like old dogs: we are bad at new tricks.
I think the U.S. model works for them because they are new and managed quite quickly to get to a stage where there exists a common language; that that is seriously under threat is another story, and maybe selective lessons from the old countries might be worth learning.
Rob C
-
The new proposal from Russia is interesting also... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
Absolutely! It looks as though reason and common sense might prevail here. I think Putin has saved Obama's bacon. This is by far a better solution to a missile attack from America, used as a slap on the wrist to punish Assad.
-
Absolutely! It looks as though reason and common sense might prevail here. I think Putin has saved Obama's bacon. This is by far a better solution to a missile attack from America, used as a slap on the wrist to punish Assad.
Sure, far better: clearly impossible ever to regulate, it's usefully dead in the agua. An absolute victory to whichever faction used the stuff. Next time?
Would a US-led attack have helped? Equally, no! Nothing will help until the domestic game has played itself out at whatever cost it thinks it can afford. It's like divorce: both parties hate the other's lawyers, eventually more than they hate each other.
Rob C
-
An absolute victory to whichever faction used the stuff. Next time?
Rob C
Rob,
That's the point, the big WHO!
Peter
-
An absolute victory to whichever faction used the stuff. Next time?
Rob,
We don't know who used the chemical weapons. However, the surest way of preventing their repeated use, or reducing the risk of their repeated use, is to remove them from circulation.
I guess one would not expect this idea to occur naturally to many Americans, in view of their great resistance to removing firearms from circulation.
As I recall, you were not in favor of the principle of America removing firearms from public circulation after that school tragedy almost a year ago, as a result of some feelings of insecurity about possible attacks upon yourself.
-
I want to see the fall of Assad's regime, but I want to see a secular democracy in its place. Not a client state of some other world power, not some other autocrat, and not a theocracy either. The question is, assuming this is pretty much what the rest of us would like to see, how would we get from here to there?
Toppling Assad will leave a vacuum. Who knows who/what might fill it? What we do know is that something would, and we might not like it very much. In fact, it might be appreciably worse than Assad.
We could do as some politicians have suggested - arm the rebels, balance the situation so Assad doesn't have such overwhelming force to call on. Of course, that will prolong the agony. Approx. 1400 people died in the Damascus gas attack. About 1500 - 1700+ have died by more conventional means since. Helping drag the conflict on for months or years, benefits no one.
So what can we do? Here's my suggestion. Feel free to disagree, but your reasoning for doing so would be appreciated.
The partition of Syria. Syria as it is now, is the creation of Western powers (as are most of the nations of the Middle East). Partition isn't going to impact on age-old borders and the like, and anyway, it need not be anything but temporary. The Alawite population are no doubt terrified of the retribution that would be visited upon them by any new regime. So why not an Alawite state? Leave them to make what they will of Assad. Alongside that, a UN protectorate. Kick out the Islamists of Al-Qeada & their ilk, let a secular democracy arise - the UN Declaration of Human Rights would make a pretty good Bill of Rights for the new Free Syria. And maybe, at some future moment in time, the old Syria might be fit to be reunited with it's neighbour.
-
So what can we do? Here's my suggestion.
give Assad couple of nukes... that will strongly discourage 3rd parties to meddle and let him suppress the enemies w/o the likes of Qatar arming those
-
Well, there we are. Common sense appears to be prevailing. It looks as though America and Russia have agreed to a plan to 'eliminate' Syria's chemical weapons. Isn't that a much better idea than a missile strike from America? ;)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10309493/America-and-Russia-agree-plan-to-eliminate-Syrias-chemical-weapons.html
-
Isn't that a much better idea than a missile strike from America?
Hell yes.
-
Well, there we are. Common sense appears to be prevailing. It looks as though America and Russia have agreed to a plan to 'eliminate' Syria's chemical weapons. Isn't that a much better idea than a missile strike from America? ;)
Simplistic reasoning. Whilst it might be possible to control some of the 'government' weapons, how do you achieve that with the 'rebel' forces, assuming that they have chemicals too? They agreed to nothing.
"Alongside that, a UN protectorate. Kick out the Islamists of Al-Qeada & their ilk, let a secular democracy arise" -Chairman Bill.
Isn't that pretty much what was supposed to be happening in Afghanistan? And who's to decide if Al.K is or is not unpopular? Or does popularity not apply in the Midle East as a basis for voting in a party? We seem to love it in the West, where the more impossible the dream on offer at election time, the more popularity and support it can get... Do we really, really want to waste even more money and resource via the UN?
IMO, as long as they stay willing to sell us oil, why stick unwelcome noses into their business? Any calls for our 'help' are but ploys to give whichever faction the muscle it takes to give them victory they can't get alone and unaided. They don't want us; they want our power to kill.
Rob C
-
It looks as though America and Russia have agreed to a plan to 'eliminate' Syria's chemical weapons.
one boy, mr. P., thinks that he has a way in and another boy, mr. O., thinks that he has a way out...
-
Damn Putin! He just ruined Obama's Kickstarter campaign for WWIII:
http://rt.com/usa/kickstarter-campaign-ww3-obama-725/
;D