The post two pages ago by adultswim was actually rather enlightening.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/apr/25/internationaleducationnews.armstrade

Quote :

"Depleted uranium is standard in a number of anti-tank weapons. Amounts in bullets, shells and bombs vary from 300 grams to 7 tonnes in the bunker-busters of the type dropped on Baghdad. The bombs used on the restaurant in an unsuccessful attempt to kill Saddam Hussein are believed to have contained tonnes of depleted uranium which would have contaminated the surrounding area. Experts have calculated that from all sources between 1,000 and 2,000 tonnes of depleted uranium were used by the coalition in the three-week conflict."

Yes, the utility of DU in bunker busters is obvious. You want material that acts as a kinetic frontrunner, opening up as much of the ground as possible before the explosion. These would not be your garden variety hellfire missile. We're talking long distance, precision targeted, who even knows what kind of platform they would launch something like this from... But it also shows just how impossible and ridiculous the conversation is. When someone is talking about governments banning DU in warfare, are they talking about:

1. The absolute staple of anti-tank technology
2. Bunker busting behemoths

Surely, I wouldn't doubt the second one could lead to some problems. But even if we restrict this all to #1. We're talking about tank-on-tank hits. Are we concerned with:

1. Some person in the tank or right next to it when the hit happens getting exposure
2. Some person returning to the site of a crippled tank and possible rummaging around
3. The nearby village over the course of years

With the people screaming about "cancer rates are 100x times normal!", you obviously can't take them seriously. Because the above points, going from 1 -> 2 -> 3 each represents dramatic orders of magnitude reduction in exposure of internal organs to DU. Depending on what information you're going on, that ratio is nigh infinity.

It needs to be said, if the exposure was so high that normal babies can't be born in those villages, then the people who did have the direct (like #1) exposure to the dust must have been bubbling over with cancer the moment they stepped out of their tank. If you assume the claims to be true, and then reverse-calculate, you get to hilariously impossible conclusions. Conclusions that are obviously refuted by every day people work with this stuff.

[Edited on September 9, 2013 at 11:38 AM. Reason : ]

9/9/2013 11:38:10 AM

Quote :

"With the people screaming about "cancer rates are 100x times normal!", you obviously can't take them seriously"

yes you can, because they are empirical studies

Quote :

"It needs to be said, if the exposure was so high that normal babies can't be born in those villages, then the people who did have the direct (like #1) exposure to the dust must have been bubbling over with cancer the moment they stepped out of their tank."

false, that's not how it works

Quote :

"It needs to be said, if the exposure was so high that normal babies can't be born in those villages, then the people who did have the direct (like #1) exposure to the dust must have been bubbling over with cancer the moment they stepped out of their tank."

false, logic doesn't make any sense at all

and again, DU is not only in tank-to-tank or bunker buster munitions.

but since you are really interested in tank rounds, its not only dust that remains. If I remember correct, about 40-60% of the DU can remain intact for metal scrappers to handle. And outside of that the other metal now has DU particles embedded in it for metal scrappers to handle.

But its not just used against tanks, so the dust is found in towns, on farm fields, etc... where it is being introduced via various exposure pathways (ingestion, inhalation, etc...)

9/9/2013 11:46:51 AM

from previous page:
Assad did not order Syria chemical weapons attack, says German press
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild

Quote :

"The intelligence findings were based on phone calls intercepted by a German surveillance ship operated by the BND, the German intelligence service, and deployed off the Syrian coast, Bild am Sonntag said. The intercepted communications suggested Assad, who is accused of war crimes by the west, including foreign secretary William Hague, was not himself involved in last month's attack or in other instances when government forces have allegedly used chemical weapons."

Quote :

"The German intelligence findings concerning Assad's personal role may complicate US-led efforts to persuade the international community that punitive military action is justified. They could also strengthen suspicions that Assad no longer fully controls the country's security apparatus. Addressing a closed meeting of the German parliamentary committee last week, the BND chief Gerhard Schindler said his agency shared the US view that the attack had been launched by the regime and not the rebels. But he said the spy agency had not have conclusive evidence either way, German media reported."

--


in regards to attacking Syria, wouldn't the attack need to be a big one? What advantage would limited strikes give? if we have limited strikes isn't it easy for Syria to claim victory for standing up to american air strikes? wouldn't that encourage Syria to increase attacks in retaliation?

9/9/2013 11:54:24 AM

Quote :

"no, it discredits your statement that it leaves your system in 3 days because even people who had moderate or little exposure still have trace levels years after the exposure stops. "

no, you're completely misreading the article. Everyone has trace amounts of naturally occurring uranium in their system. The article clearly stated that the only people with elevated levels had shrapnel in them.

Cancer rates 100x normal don't mean anything in a country where they set oil wells on fire and let them burn for months on end.

Quote :

"But even if we restrict this all to #1. We're talking about tank-on-tank hits."

It's not just tank on tank hits, because we don't fight that way if we can avoid it. The vast majority of the DU used in Iraq came out of the 30mm minigun turrents on our A-10s. Those A-10s are going to use the same minigun to take out just about everything else that threatens them too, such as airborne planes, helicopters, and idiots on top of buildings shooting at them. Now you're talking about shooting DU in areas that aren't contained to a tank field.

9/9/2013 12:14:40 PM

Back on the subject...

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-kerry/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

I bet this will be the way to go. (International control of the weapons)

Seems like a win(Obama)-win(Will of the people)-lose(civil war still going)... better than the lose-lose-lose of last week.

9/9/2013 12:34:03 PM

^^even the low levels are above the levels that you or I would have

but, again, the issue is about people who are still being exposed. why are you so quick to dismiss the uranium when people exposed in these areas have uranium levels over 300 ng/L in their urine, some as high as 2000+ ng/L of uranium in thier urine. If you live in a place with high natural uranium, you could have up to 60 ng/L, but from what I can tell its generally under 10. (and in at elast some of the studies they looked at isotropic ratios to confirm that it was from DU and not natural uranium)

[Edited on September 9, 2013 at 12:40 PM. Reason : .]

9/9/2013 12:39:44 PM

This is interesting: http://www.policymic.com/articles/61681/a-flashback-to-vogue-s-very-nice-profile-of-asma-al-assad

Assad's wife was born, raised, and went to college in the UK.

9/9/2013 12:43:53 PM

related:
Disenchanted Goldman Bro Really Thought Assad Was “Pretty Cool”
http://gawker.com/disenchanted-goldman-bro-really-thought-assad-was-pret-1265091606

9/9/2013 12:46:54 PM

^Assad himself was a dentist living in the UK before basically inheriting rule over Syria.

Quote :

"The idea that elements of his military used chemical weapons on civilians without his approval/authorization is even more outlandish to me than the rebels doing it."

What's so outlandish about this possibility? It may warrant suspicion, I'll grant you that, but it's not completely absurd to think that this is the case. And if anything, the administration's refusal to present this supposed evidence to the public speaks volumes for the lack of definitive proof of who launched the attack.

At any rate, it's critically important that the US wait for conclusive evidence before going in on some shoddy intel. I seem to recall another war very recently being launched on bad information. Can't quite remember how that went. Oh wait, I remember now. It was a god awful shitty mess.

As a US citizen, you should be demanding proof of the attack by refusing to accept the "just trust us" reasoning that Colin Powell John Kerry is dishing out to the public....lest we find ourselves occupying another middle-eastern country for another decade.

9/9/2013 12:53:14 PM

Let's talk about what Kerry said:

Quote :

"That is exactly what we are talking about doing – unbelievably small, limited kind of effort."

This intervention is going to be so small you won't believe it, in a "I can't believe it's not butter" kind of way.

How could any American oppose that? Just one more flawless victory in the ol belt. eh?

Quote :

"and again, DU is not only in tank-to-tank or bunker buster munitions."

And I do not endorse the Uranium crop dusting.

[Edited on September 9, 2013 at 1:04 PM. Reason : ]

9/9/2013 1:03:50 PM

wouldn't a very limited strike just make things worse? If we strike I think it would need to be significant and at the very least completely destroy their air force.

(but I don't think we should strike without the UN)

9/9/2013 1:05:38 PM

Quote :

"working in the nuclear industry doesn't have anything to do with this. if mrfrog was an industrial hygienist he would have credibility, but from what he was written about uranium gas and vaporization its pretty clear that he is not an industrial hygienist. i'm actually trained professionally to deal with radiological contaminants such as DU, but I'm not basing anything off of my own personal knowledge or experience (I have never been involved in a project remediating DU), everything I've said is what has been said in the peer-reviewed journals and media that has been posted. (by that I mean that I was previously aware of the different types of radiation, exposure pathways, PPE required, and remediation methods) It is true that DU is used because its dense, but that doesn't mean its not a threat. It is an absolute fact that it is more dangerous than the bricks houses are made of, you can argue about the level to which it is more of a threat but it is absolutely incorrect to say that it poses no more risk than a clay brick. i have a brick house and you won't find any radiation in my piss, but you will in the people who live in those areas and even in veterans (even years after the exposure ended, some veterans have uranium levels 10-100 times above safe levels in their urine) look, its understandable to not fully understand exposure pathways and risks, but dismissing the large amount of empirical evidence because you don't understand the risks or have been told its safe is just dumb. i don't understand TKE-Teg's continual denial of any issue he personally disagrees with, regardless of evidence, simply because he doesn't agree with it. "

I appreciate that well thought out reply. However I don't appreciate you time and time again exaggerating my stance on views.

9/9/2013 1:18:46 PM

you continually have a deny first, be reasonable about contradicting evidence later approach to things. it's weird.

9/9/2013 1:20:51 PM

Quote :

"What's so outlandish about this possibility?"

Ummmm, everything? Especially when presented as an alternative theory supported by zero evidence. I totally get that you don't trust the administration's reasoning, but it's really the only logical conclusion based on everything we've seen and heard.

Based on nothing but news reports, social media, and independent analysis by chemical weapons experts we know that the only faction who've previously used the weapons linked to attack is the Syrian regime. Even if the rebels had access to the weapons, the only people capable of deploying them are Assad's military. The only people who have the actual chemicals are Assad's regime. Eye-witness reports claim the rockets came from territory held by Assad and are corroborated by ballistics analysis of the actual recovered weapons. On top of that, we know the affected areas were subsequently subjected to mass shelling by government forces during and after the attack. You can glean all this information without reading a single word from John Kerry, the US, or any western government.

On the other hand, there's as much real evidence showing that aliens were behind the attack as there is showing the rebels pulled it off, i.e. none.

9/9/2013 1:22:06 PM

Quote :

"Especially when presented as an alternative theory supported by zero evidence."

see:

Quote :

"The intelligence findings were based on phone calls intercepted by a German surveillance ship operated by the BND, the German intelligence service, and deployed off the Syrian coast, Bild am Sonntag said. The intercepted communications suggested Assad, who is accused of war crimes by the west, including foreign secretary William Hague, was not himself involved in last month's attack or in other instances when government forces have allegedly used chemical weapons."

9/9/2013 1:24:22 PM

That's not evidence that the rebels were behind the attack.

9/9/2013 1:25:56 PM

right, because you claimed:

Quote :

"he idea that elements of his military used chemical weapons on civilians without his approval/authorization is even more outlandish to me than the rebels doing it"

so i showed evidence that the military did it without his approval.

maybe you missed my post because it was buried on the last page:
Assad did not order Syria chemical weapons attack, says German press
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild

Quote :

"The intelligence findings were based on phone calls intercepted by a German surveillance ship operated by the BND, the German intelligence service, and deployed off the Syrian coast, Bild am Sonntag said. The intercepted communications suggested Assad, who is accused of war crimes by the west, including foreign secretary William Hague, was not himself involved in last month's attack or in other instances when government forces have allegedly used chemical weapons."

Quote :

"The German intelligence findings concerning Assad's personal role may complicate US-led efforts to persuade the international community that punitive military action is justified. They could also strengthen suspicions that Assad no longer fully controls the country's security apparatus. Addressing a closed meeting of the German parliamentary committee last week, the BND chief Gerhard Schindler said his agency shared the US view that the attack had been launched by the regime and not the rebels. But he said the spy agency had not have conclusive evidence either way, German media reported."

[Edited on September 9, 2013 at 1:28 PM. Reason : .]

9/9/2013 1:27:10 PM

I didn't miss it, I just chose to disregard it. Whether Assad personally ordered the strikes or just failed to explicitly prohibit them is pretty irrelevant.

Also,

Quote :

"President Bashar al-Assad did not personally order last month's chemical weapons attack near Damascus that has triggered calls for US military intervention, and blocked numerous requests from his military commanders to use chemical weapons against regime opponents in recent months, a German newspaper has reported , citing unidentified, high-level national security sources."

If I recall, German intelligence services were one of the few who actually backed up the whole Iraq WMD story.

[Edited on September 9, 2013 at 1:36 PM. Reason : :]

9/9/2013 1:32:25 PM

no one is being exposed at those levels; the upper limits of exposure to uranium in Iraq are no higher than the exposure to Coal miners in Wyoming and West Virginia.

9/9/2013 1:35:15 PM

its absolutely not irreverent if we are discussing the Russian plan where Syria gives up control of those weapons to the international community, it is directly relevant to that conversation.

Quote :

"no one is being exposed at those levels; the upper limits of exposure to uranium in Iraq are no higher than the exposure to Coal miners in Wyoming and West Virginia."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3050317.stm

Quote :

"The average for his 17 "randomly selected" patients was 315.5 nanograms, he said. Some were from Jalalabad, and others from Kabul, Tora Bora, and Mazar-e-Sharif. A 12-year-old boy living near Kabul had 2,031 nanograms. The maximum permissible level for members of the public in the US was 12 nanograms per litre, Dr Durakovic said. A second UMRC visit to Afghanistan in September 2002 found "a potentially much broader area and larger population of contamination". It collected 25 more urine samples, which bore out the findings from the earlier group"

Quote :

"He told BBC News Online: "In Afghanistan there were no oil fires, no pesticides, nobody had been vaccinated - all explanations suggested for the Gulf veterans' condition. "But people had exactly the same symptoms. I'm certainly not saying Afghanistan was a vast experiment with new uranium weapons. But use your common sense.""

http://umrc.net/publications-2/


[Edited on September 9, 2013 at 1:45 PM. Reason : Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Balkans all show the same signs]

9/9/2013 1:36:15 PM

Quote :

"I didn't miss it, I just chose to disregard it. Whether Assad personally ordered the strikes or just failed to explicitly prohibit them is pretty irrelevant."

I find that hugely relevant, and for different reasons. If Assad personally ordered the strikes, then it shows he's still in control of his military. If a weapons strike was carried out by some rogue general or by rebel forces, it shows that he has completely lost control of what is going on and chemical weapons are now being accessed by people outside the normal chain of command. If they gained access to chemical weapons stockpiles for use, what's to stop them from selling some off more to terrorist groups for funding or for an exit strategy out of the country?

9/9/2013 1:45:25 PM

^^with levels that high, they were either making a bomb or were in a cave when it got hit by a bunker buster. We've used very little DU in Afghanistan, and it wasn't DU on DU impacts like it was in Iraq.

9/9/2013 1:50:06 PM

or they were picking up and handling DU to scrap and use

9/9/2013 1:56:05 PM

Getting back to the source, exactly what does Obama have to gain by carrying out any military strike in Syria?

9/9/2013 2:07:10 PM

punishing assad or his army for using chemical weapons? evening the playing field for the rebels so they can continue to fight assad?

9/9/2013 2:09:09 PM

9/9/2013 2:09:34 PM

Quote :

"punishing assad or his army for using chemical weapons? evening the playing field for the rebels so they can continue to fight assad?"

to do that you would need more than a limited strike though

9/9/2013 2:41:18 PM

i mean, just taking out a few troop positions would help the rebels

[Edited on September 9, 2013 at 2:51 PM. Reason : to keep fighting another day, not to win]

9/9/2013 2:45:00 PM

Quote :

"to keep fighting another day, not to win"

What's the point of that?

9/9/2013 3:12:54 PM

Quote :

"Getting back to the source, exactly what does Obama have to gain by carrying out any military strike in Syria?"

This is my big question as well. This post on Reddit is the best analysis/explanation I've seen so far:

The above-linked and below-gronked post has a long list of sources cited to back up the various assertions within. I'd love to see RedGuard's take as well.

Quote :

"I've been reading through these comments, and I don't think any of them strike at the truth of the matter. I apologize if this seems blunt. Hereafter I will provide a detailed examination of US interest in Syria. Realpolitik[1] refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moral or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism. Chemical weapons aren't why the president is interested in Syria. The US has actually[2] been interested[3] in helping the Syrian rebels[4] for a long time. That last link is from the past few days, but they're all connected, which I'll get to. The US has brought several motions to the UN. Things involving military force, military aid, or war in general are brought to the UN Security Council[5] , a 12 member group consisting of 5 permanent members: US, UK, France, China, and Russia. The permanent members of the council have a special privilege: if any one of them vetoes a motion, it fails automatically. As I said, the US has brought several motions to the UN, which I linked above. All of them have failed, and all of them have failed because Russia (and China) have vetoed them using their veto powers. So the US has long been interested in helping the Syrian rebels-- why is Russia concerned with vetoing efforts to help them? This is what it's all about: the politics of power. Realpolitik. Syria, ruled by Bashar al-Assad (who functions basically as a dictator) is Russia's only ally in the Middle East region. The Russians sell a lot of arms to the Syrian government, and importantly the Russian's only naval base in the Mediterranean is based in Tartus, Syria. So, for geostrategic reasons alone, we can see that Russia is interested in keeping the friendly Syrian government in power. Though this isn't the Cold War, Russia is a competitor, so to some extent the US is interested in seeing the Syrian government fall because it would reduce the influence of a competitor in the region. Another ally of Syria is Iran. You see, al-Assad is an Alawite-- a sect of Shiite Islam. Iran is majority Shiite Islam. The history is too long to recount here, but basically: Islam is divided into two major branches, Sunni and Shiite, which are not friends with each other[6] . Iran and Syria are the only countries in the Middle East with Shiites in power, and Iran is the only country that actually has a majority of its citizens Shiites. It's in Iran's interest to keep the Syrian government in power, as they are the only other Shiite buddy in the region. This, too, is a reason why the US wants the Syrian government to fall; one of our longstanding goals is to remove the Iranian theocracy and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Removing a friend of Iran reduces their power and influence. Recently to this end of stopping Iran, the US has spent several years encouraging international adoption of economic sanctions against Iran.[7] Then, there is Israel to consider. Syria borders Israel to its north, and the two have had quite a lot of tension before; during the Six-Day War[8] , Israel occupied the Golan Heights and effectively annexed it, in contravention of international law. The two have not been on good terms. In 2006, Israel got into a short war with its other neighbor to the north, Lebanon, during which time Syria threatened to join the war on Lebanon's side[9] . Naturally, Israel would rather the Syrian government fall. As the US is an ally of Israel and Israel in turn provides an ally to us in the region, it's in our interest to help Israel's interest. Looking more broadly, there are regional issues. As I mentioned earlier, Syria's government is Shiite, while the majority of the Middle East is Sunni. Another element is that the majority of Syria is also Sunni; the Shiites comprise 10-20% of Syria's population, while Sunnis are 60-70%[10] . However, Bashar al-Assad and his father before him (also a dictator) are Alawite Shiites, and so Shiites have reigned supreme in Syria, building up resentment among the Sunni citizens because of decades-long minority rule by a group that the Sunnis consider to be heretical. This tension in the Middle East as a whole, Sunni vs. Shia, and in the country of Syria specifically, have provided sectarian lines for the population to divide themselves among. And because people in other countries want to see their particular side win, this means that foreign-based sectarian groups[11] have rushed to help their side win the war, making it a regional proxy for the division between Sunni and Shia. Those groups, by the way, include Hezbollah[12] , a Shia paramilitary group who has long been an enemy of Israel, as well as the Al-Nusra Front[13] , a Sunni Islamist paramilitary group who are associates of Al-Qaeda. Obviously, this situation could easily cross borders outside of Syria and develop into a regional war. Since the US depends on the Middle East for oil, this would obviously be a bad situation for the US. BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! And as always, it involves oil (and natural gas). Qatar, a small country next to Saudi Arabia, (and coincidentally a good US ally) sought a few years ago to build a natural gas pipeline from itself up to Turkey[14] , and from there on to Europe. Turkey (also a good US ally) was also interested in this deal, as it would make Turkey a key player in Europe's energy sector by being the transit conduit for a large component of Europe's oil and gas, which would go through the proposed Nabucco pipeline[15] connecting Turkey to Europe. However, this all fell through. Instead, Iran, Iraq, and Syria[16] came to a deal to transport gas from the South Pars gas field[17] in Iran through Iraq and then to port in Syria, from where it could be sold to Europe, bypassing Turkey. The kicker? The South Pars gas field is shared between Iran and Qatar, so if Iran got a pipeline in place first, there would be no need for a pipeline from Qatar to Turkey, meaning both Qatar and Turkey don't get the money and influence they desire. So, obviously, Turkey and Qatar are interested in seeing the Syrian government change its mind, and unsurprisingly, have both condemned the Syrian government and encouraged support for the rebels[18] . So, being that Turkey and Qatar are both allies of the US, it is once again in US interests to help their allies. But the US is interested in the Turkish-Qatari gas line for an entirely separate reason as well. Russia is a big natural gas exporter. In fact, they supply much of Europe with its natural gas[19] , to the point where they are a monopoly in most Eastern European countries, and double-digit percentages to France, Germany, and Italy. This dominance has also given them monopoly-pricing, which has caused friction between Russia and other European countries. In 2009, this got so bad that Russia cut all gas deliveries to Europe for 13 days[20] , creating an energy crisis in Europe that was only resolved after Ukraine (the main country Russia's pipelines go through) basically folded to Russian demands. Now, this is obviously terrible for our European allies, as they have little or no options when it comes to Russia's demands. So, Europe has been trying to diversify its natural gas suppliers.[21] Unfortunately, it has not done so successfully so far. Guess who was one potential supplier? That pipeline from Turkey. Europe badly needs another supplier of gas, though, so they'd likely be willing to accept gas from the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline even though that would involve buying gas from Iran, helping its economy. This is bad for the US, precisely because we sought economic sanctions on Iran to stop Europe from buying oil and helping its economy. So, once again it is in the United States' interest for Syria to change its mind on the pipelines. Additionally, since Russia is a rival, reducing its control over European energy markets is a strategic goal for the US in and of itself, so helping our European counterparts also helps us. Helping them, of course, means overthrowing the Syrian government. Tl;dr The US has strategic and geopolitical reasons for needing to overthrow the Syrian government. Inevitably, this also includes trade deals regarding oil."

[Edited on September 9, 2013 at 3:19 PM. Reason : .]

9/9/2013 3:17:04 PM

Quote :

"What's the point of that?"

because they don't want assad to win (nor do they want the rebels to win)? I don't know, I'm just throwing out ideas.

9/9/2013 3:25:21 PM

^^The problem with all that is if the US/Europe really needed Assad out that badly, they would have done it by now. I mean, we invaded Iraq on the shakiest of pretenses: a rogue dictator with the potential to give WMDs to terrorists. For nearly 2 years now, Assad has been a rogue dictator whom we know has the largest stockpile of WMDs in the ME (no one disputes this) and is actively collaborating with a terrorist group (Hezbollah, and no one disputes this either). Besides that, he had already slaughtered or displaced millions of his own citizens with conventional weapons (and probably chemical ones). Yet up until now, we've (the west) largely ignored the Syrian civil war entirely, other than paying lip service to aid for the rebels which never really materialized, at least not substantially. It doesn't follow that we've actually been itching to lob cruise missiles at this guy for years, and this most recent tragedy is just the ticket we've been waiting for. While I don't doubt that there are many regional and global players who would like Assad gone, the situation on the ground just isn't ripe for any sort of orderly transition to a government that would be friendly to the west.

9/9/2013 3:44:59 PM

^^^Israel and Syria don't have as tense of a relationship as that post suggests, though. For the most part, Syria has ceded the Golan Heights to Israel. Sure, they're not besties, but it's always been a case for Israel where the devil they know is/has been preferable to the devil they don't know. Somehow, however, that has position has shifted within the past few weeks, with AIPAC now in full support of military force, which leads me to believe that this has more to do with Iran than is being led on.

[Edited on September 9, 2013 at 3:47 PM. Reason : ]

9/9/2013 3:46:57 PM

Quote :

"i mean, just taking out a few troop positions would help the rebels"

or it could very easily hurt the rebels. If we only have very limited strikes then Assad gets to stand in front of the world and say that he was victorious in standing up to the US, it may even encourage him to escalate things since now the US is "illegally" bombing him and its in his rights to protect his sovereign nation.

it seems like we need to have a diplomatic approach to secure weapons (which might not be an option if Assad isn't in control of them) or large scale strikes at least to kill his air force.

9/9/2013 4:32:04 PM

Lol. Putin/Russia solve this issue with diplomacy, while the US still beats the drums of war.

Nobel Peace Prize winner vs Putin, ex KGB, and Putin comes out looking like the savior here? This country must be viewed as nothing more than a joke by the international community at this point.

9/9/2013 9:46:52 PM

gotta sell some more missiles and shit. business is slowing down in iraq and afghanistan.

9/9/2013 10:10:03 PM

Those chickens are a long, long fucking way from being hatched at this point.

9/9/2013 10:10:03 PM

Taking away their chemical weapons they claimed they never even used isn't "solving" this problem. It's just a scapegoat for failure to secure military action.

It's as close to doing nothing as you can get, which is what most people wanted anyway.

It's obvious the reason for bombing Assad wasn't just chemical weapons, I haven't read any discussion on what the real motivations were.

9/9/2013 10:48:29 PM

Must be related to the Arab Spring, but I am confused as to why the US is aiming to basically give support to the radical arabs instead of supporting the dictators.

9/10/2013 4:55:37 AM

^^ read 8 posts above your post...

^ 9 posts up.

[Edited on September 10, 2013 at 9:03 AM. Reason : really?]

9/10/2013 9:02:11 AM

Quote :

"I haven't read any discussion on what the real motivations were."

From BobbyDigital, this is pretty good.

http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueAskReddit/comments/1lw8yg/why_does_the_president_seem_so_personally/cc432ts

I can understand and agree with most. Mainly, that there are several general loose factions:
- shia
- shiite, with Syria and Iran being the shiite governments
- Israel, US, and allies
- Russia, backing the shiite people loosely

Then there's the stuff about oil and pipelines. I'm not sure how much I buy into that actually. Basically, Syria wouldn't agree to some deals involving pipelines, and a new government likely would. This is the leverage that Western Europe wants over Russia due to their gas imports. But somehow, if Syrian cooperation doesn't work, it's possible that Western Europe may want some pipeline through Iran (how, this was confusing), and that would be bad for the US. So it's in the interest of both Western Europe and the US (because Iranian sanctions) to see Assad fall. But Russia has access to the sea through a Syrian base...

I don't buy into all that. It seems like over-thinking. I think the real story is about alliances and networks of friends/enemies. Through that logic, the US wants to see Assad fall and Russia wants to see him stay.

The important story is that Syria is already a proxy war, with all these middle east factions sending troops into the nation, and Russia arming them. So it's not so much a "civil" was, as opposed to a sandbox for all these regional forces to brawl.

Even if you're in favor of the US getting into proxy wars, this isn't our proxy war, so we should stay the fuck out.

[Edited on September 10, 2013 at 9:11 AM. Reason : ]

9/10/2013 9:10:25 AM

Can't wait for Fox News to flip flop yet again on this whole thing and start calling Obama weak for not launching a strike while letting Putin score the diplomatic victory. Between this and the gay hating , Putin is going to be the Right's new favorite person.

9/10/2013 9:18:44 AM

I'm honestly happy about the idea of this diplomatic solution.

I understand the reasoning behind policing the world of WMDs. But if you're going to do that, diplomacy has to be a real part of it. Iran needs an option to give up its nuclear program with sanctions lifted. If we can hold a parade of international forces walking out of Syria with chemical weapons, then do it.

9/10/2013 9:47:48 AM

Quote :

"Iran needs an option to give up its nuclear program with sanctions lifted."

Weren't they already given that option? Why should they give up their program?

9/10/2013 9:55:55 AM

Quote :

"Lol. Putin/Russia solve this issue with diplomacy, while the US still beats the drums of war. "

not surprising, that's how it was during the cold war

9/10/2013 10:32:42 AM

Thing are moving forward pretty rapidly now,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24031203

Quote :

"France will put a resolution to the UN Security Council to place Syria's chemical weapons under international control so they can be destroyed, Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius says. He said the resolution would threaten "extremely serious" consequences if Syria breached its conditions. The move follows Russia's announcement of a plan to put the chemical weapons under international control. Syria has said it accepts the Russian proposal, though details are sketchy. "We held a very fruitful round of talks with [Russian] Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday [Monday], and he proposed an initiative relating to chemical weapons. And in the evening, we agreed to the Russian initiative," Russian news agency Interfax quoted Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem, who is in Moscow, as saying."

...

Quote :

"Lol. Putin/Russia solve this issue with diplomacy, while the US still beats the drums of war. "

Quote :

"not surprising, that's how it was during the cold war"

Are you people mentally challenged or did you only start paying attention to this 2 weeks ago? For 2 years Russia has stonewalled, blocked, vetoed every single UN resolution condemning Assad's actions against his own people. Their answer to any form of diplomatic resolution has been "nope, sorry, no way, not a chance in hell, talk to you later". Even during the immediate aftermath of the attack, they outright denied that Assad could have been involved and that it had to be the rebels who did it. Now, out of the fucking blue, they magically decide to come to the table with something tangible. You really think Obama's words and actions the past 2 weeks had nothing to do with that? Only the sort of simps who spend all day nodding feverishly to Rush and the pundits on Fox News would conclude that Putin/Russia somehow comes out looking better than Obama/US in all of this.

[Edited on September 10, 2013 at 11:09 AM. Reason : :]

9/10/2013 11:08:36 AM

"Let's blow shit up!"
-Murricah

9/10/2013 11:12:29 AM

^^ you need to learn your cold war history, the US was the bad guy

9/10/2013 11:50:29 AM

oh man this thread just got interesting.

grab the popcorn for shrike v dtownral.

9/10/2013 12:13:37 PM

Quote :

"^^ you need to learn your cold war history, the US was the bad guy"

.

After realizing how big it's dick was after dubya dubya too...America have been fucking with everyone.

9/10/2013 12:21:17 PM