Someone explain to me how "limited" air strikes in Syria will deter Assad from using chemical

[indie9197]

weapons in the future? Assad and the government and military are Alawite (Shia) minorities in Syria. The rebels are Sunni. The Alawites know they will all be slaughtered by the rebels when they are overthrown.

The chemical weapons are easily transported and deployed. We have given them weeks to assemble them in position. If somehow we destroy a lot of his conventional weapons, what will stop him from using chemical weapons?

We are making a big mistake by getting involved in this civil war. By intervening, all the civilian deaths will be blamed on us now.

[joshcryer]

1. Even if they did, which isn't certain, he'd still use "conventional weapons."

The ones that have resulted in 100k dead so far.

He wouldn't have interest in using chemical weapons after a strike because then the whole strike idea would be legitimized. It would be very stupid to do because even Russia would probably be on board with acting if it happened again.

However, he can take the current 100 dead a day and turn it into 150-200 dead a day and the world will just turn a blind eye to it. He might even be able to ramp it up to 300 dead a day.

I completely agree that a strike would take the focus away from Assad and on to the United States, and I firmly believe that Assad needs a strike to implement a scorched earth policy against belligerents. Rebel belligerents are notoriously difficult to get militarily, you can do it to an extent with diplomacy, but when you involve the military, they can persist for a very long time. Just look at FARC and Uribe's genocidal level crackdown. FARC is still standing.

[indie9197]

3. We may never know who was responsible for

the chemical attack. In a few years it wont matter. I was just questioning the logic. I also dont understand why 100k dead was not a global outrage.

[2naSalit]

2. Ummm...

It's a red herring?

[uponit7771]

4. "...the civilian deaths will be blamed on us now..." yeap

[99th_Monkey]

8. Hadn't thought of that

but that is a weird wrinkle huh?

[kenfrequed]

5. At this point all we can do is try to destroy his capacity

Something must be done. Without some kind of meaningful action other nations will deem it acceptable to use such weapons. I don't like military action and I particularly don't like unilateral military action, but something must be done.

[eridani]

6. You are speaking as a citizen of a country which refuses to sign treaties

--banning white phosphorus, depleted uranium and land mines, which have slaughters thousands of times as many people as chemical weapons. That is a hell of a lot of gall.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. It doesn't mean that what the poster said is wrong.

If only the pure and virtuous could take action against evil, the wicked could rest easy.

[eridani]

11. Why don't we just stop perpetrating evil instead of bombing others for it? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

12. Why don't we make a strong stand against evil instead of enabling it by looking the other way?

Look, I can cast the decision in emotional language that short circuits real discussion, too!

[eridani]

13. So sending cluster bombs to the rebels is "standing against evil"?

OK, we sent them to the Saudis, but it's obvious who they'll send them to. Cluster bombs have killed 1000s of times as many people as poison gas, and they hang around for far longe.

[Kennah]

14. Our bombs cause democracy to just explode all over the place

[Bolo Boffin]

15. Out of nowhere that one comes.

No, it's not for certain those cluster bombs would be given to the Syrian opposition by the Saudis. Do the Syrians even have the planes necessary to use cluster bombs? Maybe you should stick to facts and reasonable assumptions.

[Dragonfli]

19. Well they didn't buy the WMD from us to use as paper weights so I assume they can use them.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. The Saudis did. Not the Syrian opposition.

Confusing the two issues isn't helping clear anything up.

[eridani]

30. There's nothing confusing about stating the obvious fact that the Saudis are

--directly supporting the opposition, especially the Salafists. "Christians to Beirut; Alawites to the grave!"

[Bolo Boffin]

32. But mixing up the cluster bomb sales with Syrian opposition support is confusing.

You have nothing but your imagination arguing against the facts to support doing so.

[eridani]

37. What else would they be doing with the bombs?

Using them against their internal population is a possibility too. But wouldn't that be a case of a nasty dictator waging war on his own population.

[Bolo Boffin]

38. What would Saudi Arabia do with cluster bombs?

Giving them to people who don't have the planes to drop them is rather low on the list. The Saudis have the planes to use them, so I imagine they would keep the cluster bombs they bought and use them if they have to on Iran.

[Adrahil]

34. Wait a minute.... How are the rebels going to use "cluster bombs?" nt

[newfie11]

16. I totally agree with you. Nt

[99Forever]

18. Different warmonger, same questions:

1) You have solid, undeniable proof of who did this?

If so, post it.

2) Precisely what is your plan to end the "dictatorship?" Not some generalized crap. Step by step. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ACCOMPLISH YOUR GOAL?

3) What is the end game? Exactly.

If you don't tuck tail and run from these questions, you'll be the very first warmonger not to.

By the way, have you enlisted and volunteered to go to the front lines when it happens?

How about your children? Chop chop, time for "courage" brave guy.

[Bolo Boffin]

21. Ending the dictatorship isn't my or Obama's goal here.

So keep your distractions, your straw men, and your insults to yourself.

[NuclearDem]

22. It's apparently the Senate's though.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. No.

Some in the Senate, yes. But the resolution passed out of committee is limited.

[99Forever]

27. Then just what the fuck is you and Obama's goal?

It's just about as clear as The Idiot Son's goal in Iraq.

And no, you cannot silence We the People, no matter how much that fucks up your plans and mood.

Now answer the questions.

[Bolo Boffin]

28. Punishment for violating an international norm.

I don't see any need to answer your questions further. You display no ability to accept answers given and every sign of believing what you want to believe regardless of what is actually said. So why not skip the middleman and go ahead and fill in the answers for me? That's what you will do anyway.

[99Forever]

29. You show no ability to answer questions as asked.

But you knew that, you just barf out MIC talking points.

Same vile shit, different salepersons.

[Bolo Boffin]

33. And you were so kind and gentle in your questions.

I was almost encouraged to answer your questions because of the basic civility you showed me. I was this close.

[99Forever]

35. 'Cuz dropping bombs of people and lobbing ...

... cruise missiles at other nations is what all "civilized people" advocate, right?

Hypocrite much?

[Bolo Boffin]

36. It's fascinating finding out what I really think.

You have a positive gift. You should go into show business.

[99Forever]

40. So you've got nothing.

Should have just said so straight up and saved us both some typing.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. Nothing you would ever listen to. You've assigned me my lines and my thoughts.

Actually saying what I think and believe wouldn't make a dent in what you think I believe. Answering your questions isn't worth the effort.

[99Forever]

43. You had the opportunity to answer...

... in fact you still could, but we both KNOW you won't. You've got nothing. Zero. Zilch. Just like the rest of the warmongers.

[Bolo Boffin]

44. Imagine no prejudgments.

When you do, get back to me.

[99Forever]

45. Imagine no phony excuses.

Don't bother "getting back to me." You've got nothing.

[Bolo Boffin]

48. See, once again, you heard what you wanted to hear.

I asked you to get back to me. You turned that into me getting back to you. How can I communicate with someone who is only using me as a projection point for his worst demons? I can't.

Have a wonderful life.

[kenfrequed]

49. I know.

And those are things that I am ashamed of. Unfortunately there is a difference and that is that there are treaties on chemical and biological weapons. I mean, even the Daily show has made fun of the frustration about being angry that the Syrian government is "killing their people the wrong way."

I would work for a world that illegalized land mines and white phosphorous and probably depleted uranium too. I would prefer that. But does that mean you prefer a world with no rules and no consequences at all?

If you manage to get the mercury and lead out of drinking water are you going to turn around and say "Hey, since we can't get Arsenic out of it why bother? Let's just dump the lead and mercury back in"

No, obviously not.

Personally I would prefer a non-military solution to all of this. I hate war. I really do and if there is a way we can remove these weapons without war then I am all for it. I don't think there is a perfect solution to this situation. Hell, I don't even know if there is a good solution. But this is a problem we have to solve.

[frylock]

25. how do you propose that we destroy his capacity?

how about with boots on the ground?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023601131

[JHB]

47. However, "destroy his capacity" doesn't sound like it's on the table, just "send a mesage"

"Something must be done" is hand-waving talk. Specific things to achieve specific goals must be done. Or not done, particularly if what you're willing to actually do will not accomplish what the goal is supposed to be.

Especially if the odds are pretty low that the lesser measure will accomplish the stated goal.

[kenfrequed]

50. I don't like military options.

The military does have a plan to disable and destroy launchers and means of deployment of Syria's weapons. Is that specific enough for you?

Personally I like to think my vagueness includes the capacity to do something internationally and diplomatically.

[HooptieWagon]

51. The launchers are mobile...

...most likely mounted in pickup beds. And of course a pickup truck is easily concealed in civilian urban neighborhoods. So, even if the US knew where to find them, destroying them without civilian casualties is impossible.

[kenfrequed]

54. And... your solution?

Seriously... what is it?

[HooptieWagon]

55. Let UN deal with it, as they are authorized to (and we aren't)

Focus on humanitarian aid to refugees, the huge numbers of which are overwhelming our allies Turkey and Jordan. And stop the dick-measuring contest with Putin, and sit down and have talks with him. Russia is mainly concerned with keeping Syria a client-state...if US conceeds that, Russia might be willing to replace Assad.

[kenfrequed]

56. All well and good.

But in my mind that is subordinate to removing the chemical weapon capacity of that country. That should be the first thing discussed. The conflict itself is not one we should be too involved in as the rebel faction is little better than Assad.

[Snake Plissken]

7. It's really pretty simple, if you line enough billionaires pockets with War Cheese

the threat of chemical weapons magically goes away

[Alamuti Lotus]

10. It won't; this "limited" talk is just a propaganda offensive to get a foot in the door

Once the usual suspects start to play with their toys in the desert, the narrative will shift (turning on a dime and about-facing if necessary) as the needs of the war agenda require. The shifting, often contradictory nature of the message does not seem to bother the true believers; either they will go on believing that their freedom bombs and happiness missiles will make the world a truly better place, or they never believed such nonsense in the first place and will continue to accept the greater agenda of such things as more important than the 'collateral damage' such programmes leave behind.

If anything, the "message" being sent will be of the opposite to what the powers of arrogance would like. The development of "WMD" as a means of deterrence should be accelerated as a result of this aggressive adventurism, not the discouragement that is trumpeted. Nobody is seriously lining up battle fleets outside of North Korea, and those that are in the cross-hairs of US perpetual militarism should make note accordingly.

[quaker bill]

17. it depends on what the "limits" are.

Chem weapons in storage are not the problem. Decision makers who take them out of storage are the problem....

What do you think the "limits" really are?

There will surely be some destruction of missile batteries, but I do not think that is the only intent.

[Bandit]

20. The Exact same way the Death Penalty stops people from murdering others.

We know how well that works....

[JustAnotherGen]

26. I don't believe it will at all

I think this is an impossible situation and a zero sum game.

[bluestate10]

31. By attacking the delivery devices. Using chemical weapons would be an inefficient

form of warfare if not for the delivery systems such as rocket launchers, helicopters and planes that fire missiles equipped with chemical agent warheads.

[Union Scribe]

39. And what about the actual chemical weapons? nt

[HooptieWagon]

53. How you gonna find them?

The launchers are probably mounted in pickups, which are easily hidden in garages, workshops, tool sheds, covered patios in an urban enviroment. Finding them is tough enough, destroying them without civilian casualties virtually impossible.

[Xolodno]

42. Well....

...the idea is and this is assuming Assad is still of right mind after all this.....he's winning the war. Taking out some of his weapons will make it harder to continue "winning". So its a strong deterrence in that fashion.

However, if Assad thinks or knows that his "winning" is only temporary backing him into a corner will only encourage him to go out with a bang and just gas every enemy he finds. He may know that he is destined to be out of power...but he can make those responsible pay dearly for it.

And that's the main danger...no one, aside from the Russians and Iranians (maybe) know what he's thinking. This could prevent future chemical attacks...or exacerbate them. He's seen what happened in Libya, Iraq, Egypt, etc. that has to play in his decision making.

And if attacks are not authorized and Obama backs down....that doesn't mean he will continue using them. He may think he got away with this one and won't do it again. Or he may think, the international community has no stomach for this and does it more....and with continued pictures on the news of dead children...he's only going to get away with that for so long as well.

There are too many "what if's" in this, yet maybe another reason why Obama sent this to Congress. It's a hard decision and no one really knows if either is the right one.

My view...don't do it. Pressure Russia to end this and find a leader that is acceptable to the current government and the FSA. Send the Assad family to Iran for permanent retirement.

[krispos42]

46. Two major avenues of chemical weapon deployment are through air strikes and artillery barrages.

If we take out significant numbers of bombers and heavy artillery pieces, we've reduced their ability to deploy chemical weapons.

I guess that's one explanation.

[unblock]

52. the same way the death penalty deters capital crimes.

namely, it doesn't.

but it gives comfort to those who see morality in violence.