Chemical Weapons

[Barney_Rubble]

Haha! "Academical Ali". Brilliant. Pity the tags are no more...

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Still bemused that you think the primary objective is to do with weapons NV. Can't get my head around it. It's like you've had a blow to the head or something.

 

Your defence of your stance is fine, and well argued, but the idea that the US give two shits about some Syrians being gassed is just naïve tosh.

 

The same goes for the Russians. Both their primary objectives have nothing to do with what is best for Syria or Syrians and everything to do with long-game geopolitics.

Re-read what I said, Stu. I didn't say it was because they care about Syrians being gassed (although, I'm not sure even Obama can look at rows of dead kids and not feel a twinge of humanity... but that's beside the point). I said the chemical weapons issue. My baseless guess, as I called it, if I had to make one, would be that it's because Obama made a threat about a big ol' red line. As both General Zinni and General Hayden said, now he has spoken about that red line, he has to back it up. Second threats only have credibility if first threats are backed up with action.

 

I'll explain why I'm reluctant to buy into the theory that they're going in solely to further their own interests. Again, I'm not ruling it out totally, or at all actually, because I have already said that I err on the side of there being something in it for themselves as a secondary objective. I am, however, reluctant to jump in with both feet into something that doesn't really make a huge amount of sense. It's more a, 'yeah, but it's the Americans' than 'here's solid reasoning why they might want to go into Syria'. Anyway, my reasoning...

 

First, I don't think there's much in it for them. As I've said, a 'significant interest'. There's a possibility there is, I just don't see it. Second, they didn't need chemical weapons as an excuse for action. When have the Americans ever given a flying fuck about valid and just reasons for war? If they wanted to go in for a specific benefit to them, they have had plenty of opportunity to do so. It's not as if there's not a dirty great line of dead kids they could have already pointed to. Thirdly, I don't believe they can achieve anything significantly beneficial to themselves without a proper war effort, which will almost certainly bring other factors in the region into play and cause them far, far more issues than benefits. Finally, whilst I think he has handled this like a pissed school-kid playing politics, I'm not even convinced Obama has the stomach for it. If they don't go in, and Assad gives up his weapons, how can we say it was solely for their own benefits. Surely they'd still just go in?

 

I'd say that's far from being naive. My eyes are wide open to all possibilities, but without evidence - and I don't personally consider, 'yeah but it's the Americans' to be evidence - I'm not willing to jump to any conclusions. Conclusions either way, Stu. I think that's pragmatic and objective, rather than biased and reckless. Like I said, I'd never support a unilateral military attack by the Americans on Syria, and certainly not if their sole objective was to, I dunno, steal land or pipeline or oil or whatever.

[Skidfingers McGonical]

Still bemused that you think the primary objective is to do with weapons NV. Can't get my head around it. It's like you've had a blow to the head or something.

 

Your defence of your stance is fine, and well argued, but the idea that the US give two shits about some Syrians being gassed is just naïve tosh.

 

The same goes for the Russians. Both their primary objectives have nothing to do with what is best for Syria or Syrians and everything to do with long-game geopolitics.

 

 

As with most things political, I gotta go with Monty here about you on this subject (one you have debated very well indeed)

[Skidfingers McGonical]

.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

As with most things political, I gotta go with Monty here about you on this subject (one you have debated very well indeed)

But Skids, as explained above, I didn't say the things Monty attributed to me. I'm many things, but naive about American foreign policy isn't one of them. If I remember correctly, I once extensively detailed both CIA involvement in other countries, and aggressive US wars around the world, on this very forum (I was probably arguing with Stronts, you know what that does to me). I'm under no illusions about their capacity to be murderous cunts. I'm not sat here, with a framed picture of John J. Pershing, Old Glory hanging above my desk and the Star-Spangled Banner playing in the background.

 

If the claim is that they're going in for reasons solely beneficial to them, my one simple question since the start of the thread has been, 'what significant benefit is it to them?', but there hasn't been a sensible suggestion of a significant benefit. I'm open to that suggestion, no doubt. Surely not taking it as fact without something to back it up isn't 'naive', it's sensible. If they had massive interests in the country, I'd have raised the point myself at the beginning of the thread. It's not something I've failed to consider.

 

The Russians absolutely do have significant interests in Syria. They have several billions in arms deals, billions in export trade per year, and tens of billions in investments in Syria. They also do gas and oil deals worth billions. Aside from their embassy and consulate in Syria, their only naval base in the Mediterranean is in Syria. That's genuinely important for them. It's absolutely in their interest to keep Assad in power, and their significant interests protected.

 

The US does about £0.010b worth of imports and exports, or they did before the rebels started being rebellious, which is 0.1% of Syria's trade, and I don't even have the time to work out how many zeroes before the decimal point in the US's trade business with Syria, but we can safely say it's fuck all. The best way for them to protect that trade is to allow the Syrian regime to crush the rebels. The best way to grow it is to do more business with Assad and keep some people alive. Aside from how stupid it would be, If they want benefit they should be selling weapons to Assad.

 

I think we're probably going to agree that they're not going to spend hundreds of millions or even tens of billions on bombing Syria, and dealing with the potential fallout, to protect those meagre interests. Maybe the argument can be made that it's because they don't have significant interests in the country that they're not worried about getting involved. I'd say it's more likely that they want to have a say in who eventually takes over the country if the rebels win, but if it's money or interests they want in the region, Assad is probably their best bet. It's worked okay for Russia, anyway.

 

If the reason for going into Syria is going to be some export trade or whatever, surely the answer to my question about the Americans going in regardless of what Assad does with his CW is a resounding 'yes'? If that happens - Assad signs the CWC and gets rid of his CW, but the Americans still bomb Syria - we can all interlock arms, and rock merrily whilst singing anti-American songs. If Assad does, but America don't... what?

[Stu Monty]

NV. Why can't you see that flipping all those Russian "significant" interests is a significant interest for the US?

You're saying "Russia get loads of good shit from Assad, it well in their interest to help him out" without noting that if Assad were to be replaced by someone else that someone else might buy his arms and do his energy deals somewhere else.

I simply don't agree with your idea of significance and even if I couldn't think of a single benefit (and people have mentioned a fair few) the default position regarding the actions of every country would be to presume that you just aren't aware of the significant interests. They will be there otherwise the nation wouldn't spend money on halting the progress of Assad in regaining his country.

Also, the idea that they'll bomb anyway doesn't stand up. Even the US need a valid pretence to act on these highly visible situations, no matter how bullshit it might be.





 

[Jose Jones]

But Skids, as explained above, I didn't say the things Monty attributed to me. I'm many things, but naive about American foreign policy isn't one of them. If I remember correctly, I once extensively detailed both CIA involvement in other countries, and aggressive US wars around the world, on this very forum (I was probably arguing with Stronts, you know what that does to me). I'm under no illusions about their capacity to be murderous cunts. I'm not sat here, with a framed picture of John J. Pershing, Old Glory hanging above my desk and the Star-Spangled Banner playing in the background.

 

If the claim is that they're going in for reasons solely beneficial to them, my one simple question since the start of the thread has been, 'what significant benefit is it to them?', but there hasn't been a sensible suggestion of a significant benefit. I'm open to that suggestion, no doubt. Surely not taking it as fact without something to back it up isn't 'naive', it's sensible. If they had massive interests in the country, I'd have raised the point myself at the beginning of the thread. It's not something I've failed to consider.

 

The Russians absolutely do have significant interests in Syria. They have several billions in arms deals, billions in export trade per year, and tens of billions in investments in Syria. They also do gas and oil deals worth billions. Aside from their embassy and consulate in Syria, their only naval base in the Mediterranean is in Syria. That's genuinely important for them. It's absolutely in their interest to keep Assad in power, and their significant interests protected.

 

The US does about £0.010b worth of imports and exports, or they did before the rebels started being rebellious, which is 0.1% of Syria's trade, and I don't even have the time to work out how many zeroes before the decimal point in the US's trade business with Syria, but we can safely say it's fuck all. The best way for them to protect that trade is to allow the Syrian regime to crush the rebels. The best way to grow it is to do more business with Assad and keep some people alive. Aside from how stupid it would be, If they want benefit they should be selling weapons to Assad.

 

I think we're probably going to agree that they're not going to spend hundreds of millions or even tens of billions on bombing Syria, and dealing with the potential fallout, to protect those meagre interests. Maybe the argument can be made that it's because they don't have significant interests in the country that they're not worried about getting involved. I'd say it's more likely that they want to have a say in who eventually takes over the country if the rebels win, but if it's money or interests they want in the region, Assad is probably their best bet. It's worked okay for Russia, anyway.

 

If the reason for going into Syria is going to be some export trade or whatever, surely the answer to my question about the Americans going in regardless of what Assad does with his CW is a resounding 'yes'? If that happens - Assad signs the CWC and gets rid of his CW, but the Americans still bomb Syria - we can all interlock arms, and rock merrily whilst singing anti-American songs. If Assad does, but America don't... what?

 

I think your post has highlighted exactly what America's interest in Syria is.  Foreign Policy is not solely about actual monetary interests, as in this case with Russia.  It is very often about weakening the strategic power of another country.  In this case I believe the US would be very willing to fuck the whole country of Syria over just to purely weaken Russia's position.  Long term power games and also just fucking about because that has been the default system for so long.  It's not called the Great Game for nothing.

[Coro]

melodrama

 

Nah, what I originally replied to was you claiming there has been no hint of the opposition having chemical weapons. The briefest of google searches shows that is a ridiculous statement to make.

 

From there it's all downhill and I'm sorry I cannot continue on this trajectory with you.

[Bjornebye]

this thread has been really good guys. i've not really contributed as you cover so many opinions on a more educated level. really insightful thread gents you should be proud. 

 

incidentally if the UN smelt the chemical missile ive just let off in the bathroom then we would all be fucked. 

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

NV. Why can't you see that flipping all those Russian "significant" interests is a significant interest for the US?

 

I think your post has highlighted exactly what America's interest in Syria is.  Foreign Policy is not solely about actual monetary interests, as in this case with Russia.  It is very often about weakening the strategic power of another country.  In this case I believe the US would be very willing to fuck the whole country of Syria over just to purely weaken Russia's position.  Long term power games and also just fucking about because that has been the default system for so long.  It's not called the Great Game for nothing.

Right, so now it's about weakening Russia's trade and influence in the area. Why wasn't this raised at the beginning of the thread? That's a serious question that I'd like an answer to, if that's cool? If that's a credible claim, and even remotely likely, why wasn't it the first thing suggested in this thread? It's almost as if it's just now been thought of and ran with because it's the latest semi-plausible sounding thing that has cropped up. It's not the cold war anymore, lads. Russia has had ties with Syria going back many decades, including for most of the cold war. Why have they waited until 2013, when there's virtually no appetite for war in the US in order to start 'prodding by proxy'?

 

It's not a case of not being able to see it, Stu. I've been waiting for somebody to bring it up Russia (or at least the argument of weakening their military strength in the area, because it being about trade is pretty daft in my view) since the start of the thread. Nah, it's not a case of not seeing, it's a case of, in my judgement, it not being a realistic claim. Going to war with Syria to damage the Russians. Really? The Russians aren't going to give that base up without a fight. It's certainly not going to let a few pissant rebels take over the country and decide Russia's standing in the area. If the rebels were much of a threat, I'd not be surprised to see Russian aircraft bombing the fuck out of them. The Russians having their trade dented isn't going to topple them. Certainly not enough to have any impact on America's influence over them. If it was, the Americans would have done it when they were a genuine threat to them.

 

It has taken Russia the best part of half a century to build ties with Syria to the point they were at, America dropping some bombs isn't going to suddenly allow everything to default to them. Look, say you're right and this is some Obama plan to hurt Russia. It's not going to be achieved by a short campaign, and all assets just default to the US on a computer screen. *blink, blink, blink, congratulations, you captured Syria'. It's not Civ 5.

 

You're saying "Russia get loads of good shit from Assad, it well in their interest to help him out" without noting that if Assad were to be replaced by someone else that someone else might buy his arms and do his energy deals somewhere else.

You spoke about what I couldn't see, can't you see how ropey this sounds? Has there ever been a conversation in the White House, where the president was sat in the oval office (presumably stroking his cat, with his face shrouded in darkness) and floated the idea that 'if we attack Syria, maybe someone else might buy their arms from someone else'?

 

Come on. There'll be multiple reasons for doing it, if they did it at all, the most obvious of which is that he opened his big fat stupid gob about red lines and now looks like a fucking pussy if he doesn't back it up. Also that they'll be able to impact on which part of the rebels takes over, the ultra mental terrorist cunts or the bit mental cunts.

 

He doesn't even seem to have much of a stomach for it, judging by the fact he has shipped it out to congress in the first instance, then broke of fightypunchythreats as soon as they said they'd give up weapons; so the intention was to take their pocket money and slap them on the wrist. Punitive strikes, if you will. There's little international support for it, and they played their hand so poorly that not even their devoted ally, we the British, are ready to fire a bullet for them. It's so ropey for them that they might not even get the pocket money either.

 

Best to drop the Tom Clancy spy-thriller theories about the Russians, in my opinion, and look at what's actually happening there. He had every single opportunity to bomb Syria. He didn't need to fuck about with congress or promises of 60 day wars with 30 day extensions. He he all pretext he needed to don a Rambo bandana, smear war-paint on his cheeks and charge in with his bowie knife between his teeth. If the need and benefits were great enough for the Americans to take unilateral actions, and the desire of the leaders were so strong, they'd have done it already. Do you accept any logic in that? Throw me some sort of bone here.

 

Again, I'm under no illusions about America's history of being murderous cunts, and again I full accept the technical possibility that all logic, reason and evidence will end up being thrown out of the window and there'll be a wicked plot that supports one of the theories in this thread, or all of them, or something else totally. However, when there's an obvious, logical reason - like Obama's loud mouth leading him to threaten punitive strikes to save face - then I'll go with that one rather than the latest edition of 'this is what's really going on'.

 

I simply don't agree with your idea of significance and even if I couldn't think of a single benefit (and people have mentioned a fair few) the default position regarding the actions of every country would be to presume that you just aren't aware of the significant interests. They will be there otherwise the nation wouldn't spend money on halting the progress of Assad in regaining his country.

You don't agree with my assessment on what's significant, that's fine. I totally accept that; we can disagree on that. My own personal view is that there's nothing significant enough to be gained without a serious war effort. There's likely going to be a second civil war even if Assad is toppled, and even that doesn't look particularly likely at the moment. So simply bombing some targets in Syria will do jack-all for the US interests, or Russian interests, or anything besides give the sworn enemy of the US - the indoctrinated barbarians - a slightly stronger foothold.

 

Also, the idea that they'll bomb anyway doesn't stand up. Even the US need a valid pretence to act on these highly visible situations, no matter how bullshit it might be.

 

Not having that, at all. There are plenty of reasons for the US to act. I asked you before, when have the Americans ever needed a genuine pretext for war? They've got had it before now, they've certainly got it now and didn't need to go to congress. He could have blasted those fuckers into orbit by now had he wanted to. I think he might well have even been able to do it legally. Where are they? Sat negotiating with Russians. Is it a PR bluff on the path to American imperialism and hegemony? Maybe, I guess we'll have to see.

 

Why doesn't somebody just say, 'look, I don't trust the Americans, and I don't trust their motives for going in. BUT I've no idea what their motives actually are, and it's a suspicion based solely on some of the things they've done in the past, but that's my baseless opinion'. I've already stated my own baseless opinion, and called it exactly that, so I don't really see the need to move from one invented story to the next, to the next, to the next.

 

I've already accepted the possibility for something underhand. Why isn't that enough? I've accepted that, Stu. I've accepted it. Not sure what else I can do, I'm certainly not going to drift from it being pipelines, to being police training, to being Israel, to being an attack on Iran, to it being Russia. That would be lunacy. I'm not going to do it whilst there's more logic to look at things that have actually happened, like Obama being a loud mouth, and put my baseless assertion in that camp. It just makes sense to me.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Nah, what I originally replied to was you claiming there has been no hint of the opposition having chemical weapons. The briefest of google searches shows that is a ridiculous statement to make.

 

From there it's all downhill and I'm sorry I cannot continue on this trajectory with you.

I admire your higher ground taking abilities almost as much as your ability to contribute constructively to an adult conversation. Do they have a dictionary on that imaginary pedestal you've put yourself on, you feckless halfwit? If they do, I suggest you look up the word 'having'. If you think your empty bluster about somebody maybe trying to buy something for somebody else is the same as having sarin, you're a bigger empty vessel than I thought. Now, get your insult about how stupid I am out of the way, say something about 'flouncing', threaten to beat me up again, then fuck off back the the FF and get all shouty at somebody else. Grown ups are talking.

[dennis tooth]

When it turns out to have been comitted by the rebels what will you say then NV?

 

You have more confidence it was Assad than the intelligence agencies and the UN.

[Coro]

Hardly putting myself on a pedestal, am I really but anyway, I'm guessing those chaps caught trying to buy sarin weren't the only ones and going out on a limb I'd say there were probably others trying the same thing but with more success. Maybe the grown ups can shed more light.

[dennis tooth]

Speaking for the United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria, Carla Del Ponte said, 'there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated. This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities'.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Speaking of the UN in such a way as they backtracked immediately and distanced themselves from her comments, or at least that translation. Anyway, we still look forward to the evidence being released from when she said that back in May. Did you think that was something new?

 

If anybody wants to read a proper translation of it, they can from the Telegraph, where she said 'according to testimonies...'.

 

Yeah.

[dennis tooth]

Hardly putting myself on a pedestal, am I really but anyway, I'm guessing those chaps caught trying to buy sarin weren't the only ones and going out on a limb I'd say there were probably others trying the same thing but with more success. Maybe the grown ups can shed more light.

 

He's a funny dude, he puts himself on a pedestal constantly then accuses anyone who disagrees with him of putting themself on a pedestal. Presumably it is because to respond to his noncesense by his logic one must be on one to be able to debate any point with him.

 

His  rant to you shows how desperate he has become as do his increasingly longwinded justifications for the shit he's chatting.

 

Why would Assad, 3 days after UN chemical weapons teams arrive in his country, in a war he is winning, launch chemical weapons against the civilian population, (Who I might add, despise the islamic fundamentalist rebels and given the choice would take Assad everytime) for no discernable military or other noteworthy gain and everything to lose?

This is not Saddam but a medically trained strategist.

He's even agreed to have them destroyed but the Numero war juggernaught will not be stopped. 

 

The rebels however are desperate but no talk of red lines if it was them I suppose the US will be bombing them will they? And of course, Numero will agree that they should be bombed if it was them.

 

And even, if I take up Numero's mong position for the sake of argument, you deal with a stockpile of chemical weapons by bombing it, thats what you do with chemical weapons to make them safe you see, you set fire to them. Or bomb some administrative building, that will learn them and deal with the chemical weapons.

 

 

Of course, he is allowed to chat all this shit because he's criticised the USA in the past.

Plus hes got more evidence than the UN and all the intelligence agencies in that copy of the  Guardian rolled under his arm as he slips through morning traffic with ease on his sedgeway knowingly. Hes much better than the rest of us so dont you mouthy upstarts get to uppity with him.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

What a crank. You've claimed I've said that twice now, amongst other mentally unhinged bollocks. I've said nothing about bombing stockpiles of chemical weapons. I even picked somebody up for saying it.

[dennis tooth]

Nor have you outlined any strategic action that will resolve this involving bombs.

108 people killed, youve said a lot given the deathcount.

[dennis tooth]

What a crank. You've claimed I've said that twice now, amongst other mentally unhinged bollocks. I've said nothing about bombing stockpiles of chemical weapons. I even picked somebody up for saying it.

 

Do you agree that they should bomb the rebels if, as everything appears to suggest,  it was the rebels?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Do you agree that they should bomb the rebels if, as everything appears to suggest,  it was the rebels?

No, because I want them to kill babies. However if, as nothing suggests, they were responsible for the large scale attack on the 21st, and have the means to carry out similar chemical weapons attacks, then I would tentatively support a multi-lateral, legal, well planned operation to rid them of chemical weapons, assuming all diplomatic efforts had been made to get them to give them up. I only want babies killed with conventional weapons.

[dennis tooth]

"We still have to deepen our investigation, verify and confirm (the findings) through new witness testimony, but according to what we have established so far, it is at the moment opponents of the regime who are using sarin gas."

 

Wow, she must be crazy listening to what people on the ground have to say instead of western governments.

Its a wonder shes been able to be a UN Chief Prosecutor and gotten so far wanting to do things like investigate or talk to people on the ground. Its not like shes a pompous paid up member of the GF who has criticised the USA in the past like you numero.

Shes just a Member of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic.

[dennis tooth]

Do you have a solution/strategy?

Or do you just rinse and repeat?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Dennis, you've already established how stupid I am, how much of a useless, characterless buffoon I am, a person who is only capable of regurgitating what I read in the Guardian, why are you getting so worked up about my stupid, idiotic opinion?

 

Now, being such an original thinker, why don't you copy and past something else and get on with it rather than posting months old interviews which the actual UN have backtracked from?

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Do you have a solution/strategy?

Or do you just rinse and repeat?

As solution to what? A strategy for what? Sorting out 'the rebels' who definitely carried out the attack? No, I don't. Post another article telling me what you think, you original thinking maverick, you.

[dennis tooth]

No, because I want them to kill babies. However if, as nothing suggests, they were responsible for the large scale attack on the 21st, and have the means to carry out similar chemical weapons attacks, then I would tentatively support a multi-lateral, legal, well planned operation to rid them of chemical weapons, assuming all diplomatic efforts had been made to get them to give them up. I only want babies killed with conventional weapons.

 

Right, you're planning to rid well financed, mainly foreign Islamic fundamentalist fanatical rebels, who (On this premise if not in your head) are facing defeat and death and have launched chemical attacks on civilians with a multi lateral, legal, well planned operation, in a sovereign country, how exactly?