U.S. says air strikes cripple Syria chemical weapons program

[Morch]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

I guess we did learn one thing from Iraq. Don't get your hands  dirty, use proxies.

I am not the only one confused by facts. 

In guess Russia's support of  Assad is different from US support of Sisi and before that Mubarak. Since you are so keen on facts can you discern the difference between Mubarak/Asis and Assad/ Saddam ?

Could it have anything to do with their relationship to Israel or was it because they treated their people differently? Was Saddam better to his people when he was our ally and used chemical weapons on his people that we gave him, while we provided cover for him?  and later on got so bad we had to go in and :liberate them?

I guess there will be dancing in the streets when we do to Syria what we did to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Lebanon  . 

 

Could you deflect a bit more? Topic is about Syria, you go on about Iraq. Reply is about Iraq, you switch to Egypt (while already priming the Israel ace card). Last I checked there was no massive US military presence in Egypt, and the US did not assist Sisi butcher his own people (same goes for Mubarak). Find the differences between this and Russia's involvement in Syria.

 

I've no idea what dancing in the streets you're on, but then again, your ramblings don't really seem to have much of a point or connection to facts. Never mind being on topic, even.

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts have been removed.

[sirineou]

8 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Could you deflect a bit more? Topic is about Syria, you go on about Iraq. Reply is about Iraq, you switch to Egypt (while already priming the Israel ace card). Last I checked there was no massive US military presence in Egypt, and the US did not assist Sisi butcher his own people (same goes for Mubarak). Find the differences between this and Russia's involvement in Syria.

 

I've no idea what dancing in the streets you're on, but then again, your ramblings don't really seem to have much of a point or connection to facts. Never mind being on topic, even.

 The subject of our exchange is the causes, and  my assertion is that it is not the liberation of the Syrian people but the threat Syria poses to Israel, an for that I provided historical context. But if you want to believe that we are there to protect Syrians from Assad and his Russian supporters,  go right ahead , people put all short of condiments on their food to make it more palatable.

Personally I am tired of paying for it!

Edited April 15, 2018 by sirineou

[sirineou]

Someone please tell me How much this is costing me. Or even more how much this is costing My Daughter, because we are borrowing money to pay for this things and our children will have to pay for it. How much does a Tomahawk missile cost? 

   One more question, if these raids were to destroy chemical a bacteriological weapons producing facilities , what would explosions and the destruction of containment areas do to the Syrian population?

Edited April 15, 2018 by sirineou

[Morch]

28 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 The subject of our exchange is the causes, and  my assertion is that it is not the liberation of the Syrian people but the threat Syria poses to Israel, an for that I provided historical context. But if you want to believe that we are there to protect Syrians from Assad and his Russian supporters,  go right ahead , people put all short of condiments on their food to make it more palatable.

Personally I am tired of paying for it!

 

Err no. The subject of the exchange was how do current events resemble US involvement in Iraq. That you want to spin it as being about Israel, is understandable, but not quite on topic. You have provided no "historical context" - but when on rambling about Saddam, Sisi and Mubarak - without any reference as to how supposed US stance was similar to its position and actions in Syria.

 

There was nothing whatsoever claimed (in my posts) about "protecting Syrians from Assad and his Russian supporters" - so the "go right ahead" bit,  is something of your own making, not mine.

[Morch]

32 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Someone please tell me How much this is costing me. Or even more how much this is costing My Daughter, because we are borrowing money to pay for this things and our children will have to pay for it. How much does a Tomahawk missile cost? 

   One more question, if these raids were to destroy chemical a bacteriological weapons producing facilities , what would explosions and the destruction of containment areas do to the Syrian population?

 

About $1.2-1.5 million a pop, depending on make. Could have found that out easy enough if you actually cared, rather than trying to score a point.

 

As for the second point - not necessarily. Production and storage doesn't mean that stuff was kept in volatile form. Or, as someone mentioned, certain storage facilities would hold precursors, rather than the finished product. Then, given the heads up, a lot of stuff would be cleared out before the attack. On top of this, there are ways to control the level of damage and the manner in which it is delivered.

Edited April 15, 2018 by Morch

[sirineou]

19 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Err no. The subject of the exchange was how do current events resemble US involvement in Iraq. That you want to spin it as being about Israel, is understandable, but not quite on topic. You have provided no "historical context" - but when on rambling about Saddam, Sisi and Mubarak - without any reference as to how supposed US stance was similar to its position and actions in Syria.

 

There was nothing whatsoever claimed (in my posts) about "protecting Syrians from Assad and his Russian supporters" - so the "go right ahead" bit,  is something of your own making, not mine.

Perhaps you need to bo back and reread the exchange for historical context as I believe what happen or did not happen to other countries in the area as it pertains to the subject is history and thus historical context and other than the fact that proxies are used rather than overt direct involvement is similar to what happen in Iraq as far as destabilization  is concerned. 

Edited April 15, 2018 by sirineou

[sirineou]

4 minutes ago, Morch said:

About $1.2-1.5 million a pop, depending on make. Could have found that out easy enough if you actually cared, rather than trying to score a point

Perhaps you are familiar with the Socratic method to stimulate critical thinking.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Perhaps you need to bo back and reread the exchange for historical context as I believe what happen or did not happen to other countries in the area as it pertains to the subject is history and thus historical context and other than the fact that proxies are used rather than overt direct involvement is similar to what happen in Iraq as far as destabilization  are concerned. 

 

If what you posted passes for "historical context", then  we must have a misunderstanding as to the term's meaning. What I see is a confused line of reasoning jumping from one thing to another. None of your "examples" corresponds to the situation in Syria. Especially not the bits trying to equate US support to current Russian involvement.

 

Making all of Syria's predicament about "destabilizing" by the US is a cool story. However, it does not account for other factors, such as Assad's own dropping of the ball or his brutal rule. The US played a role, but making it into the main agency of the country's destruction is a bit much. At the very least, you could account for other parties having a part in this as well. You choose not to.

 

Once more - how is the current situation in Syria, especially in reference to the OP, similar to Iraq? There is no invasion, there is no attempt to remove Assad, there isn't even support for the Kurds's ambitions.

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Perhaps you are familiar with the Socratic method to stimulate critical thinking.

 

Yeah....pursued some not very useful degrees in my younger days. How does the above relate to your post?

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, Morch said:

 

If what you posted passes for "historical context", then  we must have a misunderstanding as to the term's meaning. What I see is a confused line of reasoning jumping from one thing to another. None of your "examples" corresponds to the situation in Syria. Especially not the bits trying to equate US support to current Russian involvement.

 

Making all of Syria's predicament about "destabilizing" by the US is a cool story. However, it does not account for other factors, such as Assad's own dropping of the ball or his brutal rule. The US played a role, but making it into the main agency of the country's destruction is a bit much. At the very least, you could account for other parties having a part in this as well. You choose not to.

 

Once more - how is the current situation in Syria, especially in reference to the OP, similar to Iraq? There is no invasion, there is no attempt to remove Assad, there isn't even support for the Kurds's ambitions.

 Of course there is an attempt to remove Assad but more to the point to  weaken him ineffective.

   As far as Assad's dropping the ball , I believe I attempted to show  that others in the are have/had similarly dropped the ball but the only ones standing are the ones who play ball.

So in that context and to my poin, Yes indeed Assad dropped the ball.

  As far as the similarities between Iraq and Syria, I believe I answered it before and dwelling on it any more would be  beating a dead horse.

[sirineou]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yeah....pursued some not very useful degrees in my younger days. How does the above relate to your post?

Personally I consider critical thinking useful, what you think?

Asking me the above question suggests that you should had payed more attention during your Philosophy classes. 

Edited April 15, 2018 by sirineou

[maximillian]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Obvious troll is obvious:

 

Syria chemical weapons program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_chemical_weapons_program

 

Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Syria's_chemical_weapons

 

 

 

Bombing a chemical weapon facility could set large amounts of toxic gases free that could kill thousands. Just crazy !

BTW, what happened to FoxNews ?  Have they turned from Saulus to Paulus ?

Great guy this Tucker Carlson.

 

 

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, sirineou said:

 Of course there is an attempt to remove Assad but more to the point to  weaken him ineffective.

   As far as Assad's dropping the ball , I believe I attempted to show  that others in the are have/had similarly dropped the ball but the only ones standing are the ones who play ball.

So in that context and to my poin, Yes indeed Assad dropped the ball.

  As far as the similarities between Iraq and Syria, I believe I answered it before and dwelling on it any more would be  beating a dead horse.

 

There is an attempt to remove Assad? Seriously? Do tell. Assad's been in place since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War. Had the US really wanted him out, why wasn't he removed prior to the Russian intervention (which rendered the proposition unrealistic) and when he was most vulnerable? Weaken Assad "ineffective"? How exactly is that going?

 

You have demonstrated nothing. Assad is still in place. And, of course, you have not actually "answered" much regarding similarities between Iraq and Syria, even if you truly believe you have.

[Morch]

9 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Personally I consider critical thinking useful, what you think?

Asking me the above question suggests that you should had payed more attention during your Philosophy classes. 

 

I don't see anything in your current posts resembling critical thinking, or promoting such. Sorry.

[Morch]

 

@maximillian

 

To address your first point, quoting from a previous post above:

 

Quote

not necessarily. Production and storage doesn't mean that stuff was kept in volatile form. Or, as someone mentioned, certain storage facilities would hold precursors, rather than the finished product. Then, given the heads up, a lot of stuff would be cleared out before the attack. On top of this, there are ways to control the level of damage and the manner in which it is delivered.

 

 

[sirineou]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

There is an attempt to remove Assad? Seriously? Do tell. Assad's been in place since the beginning of the Syrian Civil War. Had the US really wanted him out, why wasn't he removed prior to the Russian intervention (which rendered the proposition unrealistic) and when he was most vulnerable? Weaken Assad "ineffective"? How exactly is that going?

 

You have demonstrated nothing. Assad is still in place. And, of course, you have not actually "answered" much regarding similarities between Iraq and Syria, even if you truly believe you have.

I suggest that the civil war was instigated with the purpose in mind to remove/ render ineffective not only Assad , ( I don't believe western forces care about Assad or what he does to his people ) byt to remove the Syrian treat from the theater.

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't see anything in your current posts resembling critical thinking, or promoting such. Sorry.

Just because you don't see it it does not mean it is not there. 

[sirineou]

26 minutes ago, maximillian said:

Bombing a chemical weapon facility could set large amounts of toxic gases free that could kill thousands. Just crazy !

BTW, what happened to FoxNews ?  Have they turned from Saulus to Paulus ?

Great guy this Tucker Carlson.

 

 

Wow, Did Carlson find reason?  I am impressed!

[Morch]

19 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I suggest that the civil war was instigated with the purpose in mind to remove/ render ineffective not only Assad , ( I don't believe western forces care about Assad or what he does to his people ) byt to remove the Syrian treat from the theater.

Just because you don't see it it does not mean it is not there. 

 

So you suggest the Syrian Civil War was instigated. Fine. But that doesn't actually make it so (at the very least, not to a degree allowing to make the US solely responsible), nor does it bear much relevance to Iraq, spins aside. And, of course, Assad was not actually removed, not even when he was at his weakest.

 

As for the second comment, just because you claim it, doesn't mean it is there.

 

 

[Jonmarleesco]

16 hours ago, rooster59 said:

'... missile attacks struck at the heart of Syria's chemical weapons program ...'

Or, as has been stated numerous times, alleged  chemical weapons. 

 

Iraq's WMDs were not alleged, but the U.S. found them to be amazingly elusive.

[Trouble]

16 hours ago, ezzra said:

Here's a simple prediction, there will be more attacks by, Assad army on just about everybody, more chemical attacks, shelling, bombing, killing, maiming, death and destructions all around and all that with the approval of Iran, Russia and other Arab countries who do nothing to stop this,

There will be more tough talks from Trump, threats of actions and retaliations etc, etc, with each side balming the others of faking everything, nothing happend they will say, it's all fake,   in concussion, nothing will change and people will continue to be gassed and die horribly while the world watches on....

While you are probably correct in the assumption there will be more attacks by the Syrian Army, the fact that Western powers have been arming rebels to the Assad government in my mind has totally exacerbated the problem.  We partly used rebels to fight ISIS but always with the idea of regime change as well.  By giving rebels the means to carry on a rebellion, the Western powers seem to think that there is something wrong if Assad's government fights back.  Each one of the rebel groups, and there are many, are trying to not only overthrow the government but carve out fiefdoms for their individual groups, not something in my mind that will lead to a stable Syria. I honestly don't trust the rebel groups to bring about more inclusive governance in Syria when the struggle is really for power and dominance of a particular group. 

 

Regarding the supposed chemical weapons attack, I am always just a little skeptical.  I can't understand the thinking of Assad's government or army in launching such an attack that, in effect, does so little damage and causes the Western powers to step up and retaliate in a massive fashion. Might it be a rebel tactic?  No one should think any rebel group is above such tactics. 

 

In the end, hopefully ISIS will be driven from the region, but the Assad government will remain in place.  With Russia and Iran as allies Assad will eventually win against the rebels and regain control over most if not all of Syria.  After all the USA and other Western powers are not going to put troops on the ground to fight the Syrian Army.

[FritsSikkink]

15 hours ago, Morch said:

 

No, that's what you assume I see. You considering partisan, agenda-driven sources to be objective is laughable.

Think out of the box, I am not an USA citizen. In other countries you have many parties (which all suck btw).

Here a Freudian slip about the goal of the US:

 

 

[halloween]

12 hours ago, sirineou said:

Someone please tell me How much this is costing me. Or even more how much this is costing My Daughter, because we are borrowing money to pay for this things and our children will have to pay for it. How much does a Tomahawk missile cost? 

   One more question, if these raids were to destroy chemical a bacteriological weapons producing facilities , what would explosions and the destruction of containment areas do to the Syrian population?

Fact 1: nobody except you has made any mention of bacteriological weapons. Your concern for the Syrian population doesn't seem to be shared by their government.

Fact 2: the weapons industry employs a lot of people, who pay taxes and buy goods and services from others, who pay taxes,........... There are also technological advances applicable to other industries from weapons research. The price paid for a missile does not reflect the cost to the society that produces it.

Fact 3: you are a citizen of a democracy. If you don't like your elected leaders actions, vote for someone else.

[Peterw42]

This isnt a John Wayne movie where the good guys wear white and the bad guys wear black. There are 6-8 players, 127 factions, 3-4 alliances. They are fighting each other and at the same time aligned with each other against other common enemies.

 

There may be chemical weapons, they may have been used by any of the players in the name of other players. They may be no chemical weapons just like the Saddam's WMDs or Bin Laden is in Afghanistan.

 

I didnt give Trump my permission to act on my behalf, or on behalf of the rest of the world. 

 

The US should stop considering themselves to be the world police.

 

The Syrian war is 3-4 wars in one, a civil war, an ethnic war, a religious war and more recently a cold war. There is no simple right or wrong, goodies and baddies etc. 

Its not something that fits neatly into a 30 second news report "who won the superbowl", Trump the international referee has stepped in and identified foul-play and awarded a penalty.

 

 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Peterw42

[wump]

Can somebody please fill me in. If you bomb a chemical weapons facility or storage, how come the chemicals (poisonous gas) don't get released? Not a troll question, I am seriously wondering.

[Morch]

6 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

Think out of the box, I am not an USA citizen. In other countries you have many parties (which all suck btw).

Here a Freudian slip about the goal of the US:

 

 

 

There's thinking outside the box, and then there's nonsense like basing arguments on Sean Spicer. You can't be serious. The guy was a joke since he took the position, in which he didn't last. There are numerous slips of the tongue and whatnot he made over his short career as WH spokesperson. That you decide this one's "Freudian" doesn't carry much weight. All the more so since you seem fixated on linking bits from dubious sources and platforms.

 

What does citizenship or multiple parties got to do with this?

Edited April 16, 2018 by Morch

[Morch]

5 hours ago, wump said:

Can somebody please fill me in. If you bomb a chemical weapons facility or storage, how come the chemicals (poisonous gas) don't get released? Not a troll question, I am seriously wondering.

 

From a previous post up topic:

 

Quote

not necessarily. Production and storage doesn't mean that stuff was kept in volatile form. Or, as someone mentioned, certain storage facilities would hold precursors, rather than the finished product. Then, given the heads up, a lot of stuff would be cleared out before the attack. On top of this, there are ways to control the level of damage and the manner in which it is delivered.

 

[Morch]

13 hours ago, Jonmarleesco said:

Or, as has been stated numerous times, alleged  chemical weapons. 

 

Iraq's WMDs were not alleged, but the U.S. found them to be amazingly elusive.

 

Syria chemical weapons program

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria_chemical_weapons_program

 

Destruction of Syria's chemical weapons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Syria's_chemical_weapons

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Syria's_chemical_weapons#Alleged_violations

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Syria's_chemical_weapons#Non_disclosure_of_sites

 

Use of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War

 

List of Syrian Civil War barrel bomb attacks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syrian_Civil_War_barrel_bomb_attacks

[Morch]

12 hours ago, Trouble said:

While you are probably correct in the assumption there will be more attacks by the Syrian Army, the fact that Western powers have been arming rebels to the Assad government in my mind has totally exacerbated the problem.  We partly used rebels to fight ISIS but always with the idea of regime change as well.  By giving rebels the means to carry on a rebellion, the Western powers seem to think that there is something wrong if Assad's government fights back.  Each one of the rebel groups, and there are many, are trying to not only overthrow the government but carve out fiefdoms for their individual groups, not something in my mind that will lead to a stable Syria. I honestly don't trust the rebel groups to bring about more inclusive governance in Syria when the struggle is really for power and dominance of a particular group. 

 

Regarding the supposed chemical weapons attack, I am always just a little skeptical.  I can't understand the thinking of Assad's government or army in launching such an attack that, in effect, does so little damage and causes the Western powers to step up and retaliate in a massive fashion. Might it be a rebel tactic?  No one should think any rebel group is above such tactics. 

 

In the end, hopefully ISIS will be driven from the region, but the Assad government will remain in place.  With Russia and Iran as allies Assad will eventually win against the rebels and regain control over most if not all of Syria.  After all the USA and other Western powers are not going to put troops on the ground to fight the Syrian Army.

 

"Regarding the supposed chemical weapons attack, I am always just a little skeptical.  I can't understand the thinking of Assad's government or army in launching such an attack that, in effect, does so little damage and causes the Western powers to step up and retaliate in a massive fashion. Might it be a rebel tactic?  No one should think any rebel group is above such tactics."

 

The rebels in question, which held up for years, surrendered the day after the chemical attack. The retaliation by Western powers did not, in fact, damage Assad's regime all that much. Rather similar to how things went down last time this was on. A massive retaliation? Perhaps. Massive effect? Not really. As for "rebel tactic" - not that they are beyond this, but what would be the point of carrying a "false flag" operation, then surrendering right afterwards?

 

 

 

[Ron19]

Off topic posts and answers have been removed.