The plant infrastructure was supplied to Saddam by West Germany, later America supplied satellite imagery of Iranian positions to Saddam to help his army target the Iranians effectively.
1 Like
Itâs impractical for the USA to attempt to defend Syrian civilians inside an active war zone; a punitive strike that does not change the course of the war is virtually pointless.
Rather than launching limited strikes, provide an easy means for people who donât want to be collateral to the fighting to flee the country, and spend the money on providing humanitarian aid to those who have left.
The rebels are aligned with al Qaeda, and Assad is an unpalatable ruler, so Itâs not particularly in the US interest to see either side of the current conflict in Syria win.
The best thing for the US to do is actually to let the two sides grind each other down in a state of continuous attrition; continue to prop up the weaker side until the resources of the stronger side are drawn out and expended.
In the end game, If Assad eliminates the Rebels, then at least we avoid a power vacuum. If the rebellion overthrows Assad, they will be weaker, having expended effort and lives fighting the Syrian army, and will be easier to deem them âterroristsâ and crush in any subsequent US/UN âpeace-keeping invasionâ that might be necessary. Save the weapons for that point.
Since the USA shouldnât encourage the deaths of civilians while this takes palce, allow civilians to flee the war zone and provide support for them inside Turkey, Jordan and other neighbouring states.
Let the two sides duke it out, and then crush whoeverâs left.
1 Like
You DO realize that Obama was not president, back when Saddam was gassing his civilians, ri-i-ight? Are you seriously claiming the US is not allowed to change policies, when a new administration is elected�
If this was about anything BUT the chemical weapons, a) there would be no vote, the Marines would already be landing, and b) The planned response would be at least 5x as strong.
2 Likes
Just go to whitehouse.gov and stream it from there.
1 Like
Discriminate crimes against humanity require world superpower intervention semi-immediately.
Any other world superpower stepping up to defend against these crimes against humanity?
No?
Yo, U.S.A., letâs go, now.
Steeeee-rike one, two, three; criminal against humanity, the bell tolls for theeâŚ
Use your intelligence, look around, eye things and decide, an eye for an eye?
P.S. Well-played, Mr. President.
P.P.S. No matter who did this, actualized, discriminate chemical weaponization unleashed upon people is unacceptable. And weâre the mf USA, Sir. What can we do, in kind, w/o the collateral dmg? You know better than I know, Mr. President. Happy huntingâŚ
P.P.P.S. I suggest space lasers, from space, zapping everyone involved with the decisions surrounding gassing innocents, you?
I think they are very craftily doing something that they probably should do and that benefits everyone; which they would never normally do, in a climate where everyone seems to have just had confirmed their long building suspicions that they only always do what benefits them and not everyone.
Itâs kinda genius.
1 Like
This is such a complicated issue, so I really donât know what to think if it yet. I do know that chemical weapons / wmd use especially heinous and requires a reaction of some kind from the free world. Itâll be fascinating to see how this plays out.
4 Likes
You are very wise to reserve judgement.
I often try to frame my thinking in an historical perspective. Distanced analysis and revelations of what seems secret to us provide a perspective that only a living record can complete. If people analysing events 500 years from now donât think what you did is stupid, it probably isnât stupid.
But this is so⌠Melodramatic.
2 Likes
Yes, but throwing bombs in Syria is like tackling New Yorkâs crime problem by throwing huge rocks off the roof of the Empire State Building.
âThe gang violence is completely unacceptable! Something must be done, and weâre the ones who must do it!â
âBut the rocks will hit innocent passers-by, wonât they? And how will they stop gang violence?â
âThereâs always collateral damage, it canât be helped. And no, taking action will not stop gang violence as such, but we did send a signal to deter the bad guys!â
Either way, it donât make sense.
7 Likes
Yeah but what is the right thing? If my neighbour was gassing his kids, I would have to do something about it.
1 Like
While I am not explicitly against US (or other) intervention in Syria, the long build-up to action has neutered any possible significant effectiveness a strike might have. One would expect US aims are to eliminate major chemical weapons stockpiles with surgical strikes, or to take out significant human or collateral assets, knowing the likely consequences of âterroristâ aligned rebels who may come to power post-Assad. External forces should have been more prepared to act immediately, and have lost the opportunity to accomplish anything significant.
I swear that Obama is a secret plant by the Republicans
Well, it does say âU.S. President Barack Obama ÂŽâ in the caption â and generally when American politicians have that âÂŽâ after their namesâŚ
1 Like
Why is âbombing the refugees and then ignoring themâ the only option weâre given?
For a couple of billion dollars (because we know we can trust our government on cost estimates) we could do something useful for them! Like giving them land and setting up ecocommunes for at least a couple hundred thousand families, or just giving them a better place anywhere that they could homestead at. Heck, we could pretty much fix Detroit and give it to them, since nobody else seems to want it.
Theyâve been through hell, and theyâre the most motivated people in the world. They should be given options other than âhaving bombs flung their wayâ, right? I know Iâd want some options in their shoes.
They donât HAVE to be refugees. They could lead wonderful, productive lives just like anyone. Instead weâre being told the only thing we can do is bomb them and destroy some of their friends and most of their things?
Iâm starting to see why my wife could never bear to watch the news and loved Neil Gaiman. . . It was because he wrote realistic, comforting comedy for her, wasnât it?
This is just so MAD. I have no words to do this feeling justice, . .I just. .
2 Likes
Oh please. When it comes to that relationship, itâs the other way around.
2 Likes
Turkey and Jordan? How is creating another Palestine a good plan?
Why not fly them back to the US? I hear thereâre plenty of empty houses in Chicago going cheap.
So, whatâs a person who hates the slaughter of innocents supposed to think?
Seems like this is similar to when the former Yugoslavia disintegrated, Sarajevo was under siege, and the âinternational communityâ took years before doing anything. Here a bunch of Syrian civilians are getting killed and nobody even wants to do so much as to lob a few missiles at Damascus from the safety of the Mediterranean. Suddenly, weâve got conspiracies floating around about the US taking over the Middle East. Conspiracies about the US âdoing what Israel tells them to.â People talking about how itâs against âinternational lawâ to take unilateral action (funny how nobody gives a shit about âinternational lawâ except in cases like this). People talking about how all the rebels are allies of Al-Qaeda, so we shouldnât help them, we should just let them all kill each other.
So this indiscriminate killingâs been going on over 2 years now, with no end in sight. Drawing a line on the use of chemical weapons seems completely arbitrary, but at least itâs a call to action. I donât want any US âboots on the ground,â but Iâd like to see Assad and his government killed and his weapons destroyed for what heâs done. Because Iâm vindictive like that.
Do you all think that we should all sit back and watch the mass slaughter of Syrian civilians without doing anything except wringing our hands and saying how awful it all is?
3 Likes
Itâs not written in stone that we have to do anything. Military intervention has at best a very questionable track record.
Change that comes from within a population, no matter how long that takes, is more enduring.
As far as inviting hundreds of thousands of refugees into the the US and giving them a place to live is concerned, that would cause a cry of foul from all the folks already in the US who are struggling.
I say let Syria figure out itâs own solution. If the conflict leaves the borders, then we do something but only with the rest of the world.
1 Like
Ahh, but letâs think through the POTENTIAL, shall we?
We know that intrinsically motivated people are more productive at most any task that cannot be automated, true?
And we know that refugees are just people who happen to be among the most motivated and anti-war people out there, right?
So, other than outlay costs, a self governing eco-villiage or similar construct is, at the least, far more sustainable than our current pay for refugees. And put the top two together, let them self-govern and let them be creative and they can out-produce the heck out of everybody and more than make it up to us.
And once theyâre self-sufficient, then they can help US out. We deserve that opportunity too, right? Why not let them lead the way and then give us our lives back, too?
At the very least, youâre right, the best option is to do nothing but I think there are better options out there for creative people. Not everybody wants to be a jerk about helping people, some of us would pay quite a bit just to NOT BOMB them!
And really, once we run the numbers weâd be making a profit.
I think maybe we should start thinking ahead, rather than repeating history over and over again.
I made a website yesterday in protest. I know it isnât that eventful but it helped me feel better emotionally.
5 Likes
Will someone tell me why the POTUS is getting approval from congress for this war? I know only congress has the power to declare war (as dictated by the Constitution) but it seems the rule has conveniently been forgotten for at least the last couple decades. Why start following the Constitution now?
