Syria - hype or war?

[Fangs]

[Superman]

Haven't you heard, it's not going to be a war . . . just a quick bombardment from the air and no boots on the ground. You know, like Pearl Harbor.

Yes, meme's are fun aren't they, I've seen that on facebook too. Too bad it's an inaccurate simile. Pearl Harbor was an unprovoked attack. It was done as a pre-emptive strike in order to pull us into the war. It was no doubt an act of war. The kind of strike that is being considered by us now is a punitive strike. It is in response to an internationally recognized illegal action. They are not the same.

[Superman]

I noticed that CNN just released partial videos of what is being shown to our Congressmen. They are very graphic so I won't provide a link per the forum rules, but it is the top main link on their homepage right now. I definitely think whoever did this has to pay a very high price...whether it is the Assad regime or the terrorists (rebels).

[Beiruty]

Rebels have no chemical warfare capability nor the means to deliver such wmd. From the videos you noted hundreds of able body fighters were shown dead by sairin gas. Who is to be blamed? You decide.

[tbrown]

I noticed that CNN just released partial videos of what is being shown to our Congressmen. They are very graphic so I won't provide a link per the forum rules, but it is the top main link on their homepage right now. I definitely think whoever did this has to pay a very high price...whether it is the Assad regime or the terrorists (rebels).

If you believe in God, they will, without Obama's help.

[sookandy]

Rebels have no chemical warfare capability nor the means to deliver such wmd. From the videos you noted hundreds of able body fighters were shown dead by sairin gas. Who is to be blamed? You decide.

They have been fighting for over two years. Who knows what they have captured. They probably didn't have any DShK's before the war started but they seem to have them now. They have mortars and other heavy weapons. So I don't think you can say they don't have them or the means. I'm not taking sides just pointing out what happens in war. Material is captured and used against the former owners.

[Superman]

Rebels have no chemical warfare capability nor the means to deliver such wmd. From the videos you noted hundreds of able body fighters were shown dead by sairin gas. Who is to be blamed? You decide.

There are rumors that Saudi Arabia has provided it to them. The case makes sense that the rebels are the ones to use them. They were losing...Obama set the red line and they knew it...so why not frame Assad for crossing the red line in order to drag us into fighting their fight for them? I do not put it past them when I see the videos of the rebel fighters eating the heart and liver of a soldier they just killed.

[Superman]

I noticed that CNN just released partial videos of what is being shown to our Congressmen. They are very graphic so I won't provide a link per the forum rules, but it is the top main link on their homepage right now. I definitely think whoever did this has to pay a very high price...whether it is the Assad regime or the terrorists (rebels).

If you believe in God, they will, without Obama's help.

If we were to use your logic, then why do we have so many prisons full of prisoners...or even a justice system at all, if God will eventually take care of them? Your suggestion doesn't make sense.

And I absolutely believe in God. It's because of my belief in Him that I feel the way I do. We are made in His image and he gave us our desire for justice. He also tells us in Romans 13 that we are all to "be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." He even establishes the evil governments. He also says governments "are God's servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer." Feel free to PM me if you really want to discuss the theology, so we don't break forum rules.

[philip964]

My assumption has been that neither side made the nerve agents. Saddam transported the nerve agents to Syria right before we invaded. Assad has the ability to deliver nerve agents to the rebels, the rebels have no way of delivering the nerve agents to Assad. However they have the ability to use them on themselves.

If I remember my WW2 history correctly, German soldier posing as Polish soldiers attacked Germany, prior to Germany's invasion of Poland. It was called the Gleiwitz incident.

But if stopping a dictator from using nerve agents was so critical to Obama, why was he uninterested in stopping Saddam when he repeatedly used nerve agents against his people (the Kurds) and Iran?

[The Annoyed Man]

My assumption has been that neither side made the nerve agents. Saddam transported the nerve agents to Syria right before we invaded. Assad has the ability to deliver nerve agents to the rebels, the rebels have no way of delivering the nerve agents to Assad. However they have the ability to use them on themselves.

If I remember my WW2 history correctly, German soldier posing as Polish soldiers attacked Germany, prior to Germany's invasion of Poland. It was called the Gleiwitz incident.

But if stopping a dictator from using nerve agents was so critical to Obama, why was he uninterested in stopping Saddam when he repeatedly used nerve agents against his people (the Kurds) and Iran?

If you watch the videos linked on the blog I quoted previously in this thread, it SHOWS rebels firing what appears to be a sort of cross between a howitzer and a giant spigot mortar on wheels, and the projectile has a large gas weapon in the warhead. They are firing it across what appears to be at least several hundred meters. They have the means of battlefield delivery, just not larger artillery or aerial delivery assets.

[Beiruty]

I saw a video of Real Chemical WMD rocket that none but Assad's Army could have owned and used. Syria has Bio/Chemical Warfare Divisions in its Army. Are those only for show and tell?

BTW, if the use of Chemical Weapons and/or Bio warfare Weapons is allowed to go unchecked, expect Syria to transfer such weapons to Hizbullah of Lebanon. This really bad news for Lebanon and the Region.

[Beiruty]

My assumption has been that neither side made the nerve agents. Saddam transported the nerve agents to Syria right before we invaded. Assad has the ability to deliver nerve agents to the rebels, the rebels have no way of delivering the nerve agents to Assad. However they have the ability to use them on themselves.

If I remember my WW2 history correctly, German soldier posing as Polish soldiers attacked Germany, prior to Germany's invasion of Poland. It was called the Gleiwitz incident.

But if stopping a dictator from using nerve agents was so critical to Obama, why was he uninterested in stopping Saddam when he repeatedly used nerve agents against his people (the Kurds) and Iran?

If you watch the videos linked on the blog I quoted previously in this thread, it SHOWS rebels firing what appears to be a sort of cross between a howitzer and a giant spigot mortar on wheels, and the projectile has a large gas weapon in the warhead. They are firing it across what appears to be at least several hundred meters. They have the means of battlefield delivery, just not larger artillery or aerial delivery assets.

This device is launching a propane gas tank, (the same you can buy from Walmart), with welded impact fuze and a small explosive. Kind of an incendiary explosive device. A cheap imitation of thermobaric explosive round.

[The Annoyed Man]

My assumption has been that neither side made the nerve agents. Saddam transported the nerve agents to Syria right before we invaded. Assad has the ability to deliver nerve agents to the rebels, the rebels have no way of delivering the nerve agents to Assad. However they have the ability to use them on themselves.

If I remember my WW2 history correctly, German soldier posing as Polish soldiers attacked Germany, prior to Germany's invasion of Poland. It was called the Gleiwitz incident.

But if stopping a dictator from using nerve agents was so critical to Obama, why was he uninterested in stopping Saddam when he repeatedly used nerve agents against his people (the Kurds) and Iran?

If you watch the videos linked on the blog I quoted previously in this thread, it SHOWS rebels firing what appears to be a sort of cross between a howitzer and a giant spigot mortar on wheels, and the projectile has a large gas weapon in the warhead. They are firing it across what appears to be at least several hundred meters. They have the means of battlefield delivery, just not larger artillery or aerial delivery assets.

This device is launching a propane gas tank, (the same you can buy from Walmart), with welded impact fuze and a small explosive. Kind of an incendiary explosive device. A cheap imitation of thermobaric explosive round.

So Beiruty, let me ask you......

1. What about the other video of the purported Muslim Brotherhood guy bragging about A) having poison gas weapons, and B) being willing to use them against the families of the government's supporters?

2. What do you think about (former Assad ally) Hezbollah's claim that Assad used chemical weapons and called it a big mistake for Assad? (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebano ... z2eKF3f1Ua)

3. What about the other video showing allegedly captured rebel chemical weapons labeled from a chemical plant in Saudi Arabia (which supports the rebels)? ........and.......

4. If you had to pick sides, who would you support.......or do you agree with some of us who think we should stay the heck out of it?

Not a challenge, just genuinely curious. You're perspective is at least partly informed by having lived in the region and having dealt with Assad's past support of Hezbollah in Lebanon, so you bring something to the table that the rest of us have not experienced.

For me, there are just too many unknowns, and I can't see America's national interest in any of this. I think it would be extremely unwise to get involved any further in the middle east's problems. They don't like us. They certainly don't respect us. Getting involved......on ether side.......merely creates new enemies from the other side. They will hates if we bomb them. They will hate us if we don't bomb them. Their hatred of us and of the west is generational and will last 200 years or more. The moderates there are afraid to criticize or resist the radicals because the radicals will kill everyone in sight and not give it a moment's thought. The radicals have an interpretation of Quranic scripture which permits them to perform ANY excess in pursuit of their goals, without any spiritual consequences. Indeed, the radicals believe they will actually be rewarded for being murderous. Too often, political loyalties boil down to tribal/clan ties and have nothing to do with patriotism or nationalistic fervor. And culturally, the region seems to respect the rule of men more than they do the rule of law. Leaders who are strong enough to be national leaders are more like warlords than democratically elected public servants.

I have had normally rational people tell me that we should be willing to help the Syrian rebels for the same reasons that the French help us during our revolution. But that is an entirely different kettle of fish. The French didn't help us because they wanted to do the right thing. They helped us because they were in a perpetual and ongoing state of war with Great Britain, and helping us was one field on which to fight that war. Before our revolution, there was the French and Indian War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_and_Indian_War), and THAT was a war between the British American colonies, and the French territory of New France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_France). I repeat, when France "helped" us in our revolution, the outcome was good for us, but we were also merely the pawns in a much bigger story of the ongoing hostilities around the world between France and Great Britain. But one thing is for absolute certain: King Louis of France KNEW why he was being asked to finance and support the aid to the American colonies before he authorized the Marquis de Lafayette to help us.

So if we should help Syria for the same reasons that France helped us, then who is the "Great Britain" in this story? Is it Russia? China? Iran? The administration has failed to give a clear explanation, or to make a case here for that kind of intervention......other than the "you can't let a boogyman get away with being a boogyman, or other boogymen will act like boogymen........." .....and that is just not cutting it.

[Fangs]

http://www.mrcolionnoir.com/news/crazy- ... vaporized/

Saw this on Colion Noir's Facebook. They tried to run...

[Dave2]

http://www.mrcolionnoir.com/news/crazy- ... vaporized/

Saw this on Colion Noir's Facebook. They tried to run...

Yeah... If you're in the target area when you see an incoming missile/bomb/HE-motar round, I don't think the combination of human vision and human-powered propulsion is sufficient to survive. Maybe if you see the launch and immediately realize it's coming your way, you might be able to run around the corner of a building or something. Maybe.

I think this is why we developed tanks that can fire while moving.