Intervention in Syria NOW

[Corso]

This demonstrates why NATO doesn’t seem to work, IMO. By the time they cast votes and have meetings and blah blah blah, they move ahead months if not years too late.

I don’t want US ground troops involved in another mess over there. I suppose if all of NATO went, we’d have to…but let’s not go in alone.

I believe Brazil is still an active member of NATO.

I always thought it was odd to have such “lines” in war. Strange how chemical weapons were banned after WWI, but not nukes after WWII.
The “winners" always make the rules.

[colker]

When are Brazilian troops landing?

Lame. Google Nato.
Armies are professional. Don´t worry, no one will be drafted.
Yes, I am brazilian and i post a lot about international conflict. So?

[colker]

This demonstrates why NATO doesn’t seem to work, IMO. By the time they cast votes and have meetings and blah blah blah, they move ahead months if not years too late.

I don’t want US ground troops involved in another mess over there. I suppose if all of NATO went, we’d have to…but let’s not go in alone.

I believe Brazil is still an active member of NATO.

I always thought it was odd to have such “lines” in war. Strange how chemical weapons were banned after WWI, but not nukes after WWII.
The “winners" always make the rules.

Brasil is southern Hemisphere so it would be hard to join the North Atlantic Tract. Any other excuses? It would be better not to have an army if you can´t protect women and children in need.

[djg714]

NATO
copied from website.

Albania (2009)
Belgium (1949)
Bulgaria (2004)
Canada (1949)
Croatia (2009)
Czech Republic (1999)
Denmark (1949)
Estonia (2004)
France (1949)
Germany (1955)

Greece (1952)
Hungary (1999)
Iceland (1949)
Italy (1949)
Latvia (2004)
Lithuania (2004)
Luxembourg (1949)
Netherlands (1949)
Norway (1949)
Poland (1999)

Portugal (1949)
Romania (2004)
Slovakia (2004)
Slovenia (2004)
Spain (1982)
Turkey (1952)
The United Kingdom (1949)
The United States (1949

"NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means".

[colker]

NATO
copied from website.

Albania (2009)
Belgium (1949)
Bulgaria (2004)
Canada (1949)
Croatia (2009)
Czech Republic (1999)
Denmark (1949)
Estonia (2004)
France (1949)
Germany (1955)

Greece (1952)
Hungary (1999)
Iceland (1949)
Italy (1949)
Latvia (2004)
Lithuania (2004)
Luxembourg (1949)
Netherlands (1949)
Norway (1949)
Poland (1999)

Portugal (1949)
Romania (2004)
Slovakia (2004)
Slovenia (2004)
Spain (1982)
Turkey (1952)
The United Kingdom (1949)
The United States (1949

"NATO’s essential purpose is to safeguard the freedom and security of its members through political and military means".

Nato was about to protect Ucrania a while ago and there wasn´t any problem.
If an international refugee crisis is created in Europe due to war in Syria, it´s a good reason as any for Nato to intervene.

[bigbill]

Nato was about to protect Ucrania a while ago and there wasn´t any problem.
If an international refugee crisis is created in Europe due to war in Syria, it´s a good reason as any for Nato to intervene.

Because Ukraine is in a special relationship with NATO.

[colker]

Because Ukraine is in a special relationship with NATO.

And also because protecting members is a notion that goes beyond a direct attack to member´s borders. Ukraine falls and Poland would be next.
Another example that´s not Nato action but equivalent: when of the invasion of Iraq other armies than US were present. The attack that justified the invasion was on US soil but european nations responded to the agression on the UN security council.
So , the argument "it´s not my women and children so i don´t care" is not effective in the real world, praise God.

There are english vessels on the ormuz strait. Any intervention in the middle east will not be a US only affair.

[vertical_doug]

Sorry to get realpolitik here, but I definitely liked Afghanistan more when the Soviets were stuck there in the 80's. Russia being stuck in Syria suits the US now.

[colker]

Sorry to get realpolitik here, but I definitely liked Afghanistan more when the Soviets were stuck there in the 80's. Russia being stuck in Syria suits the US now.

They were not using gas on women and children in Afhganistan. A high moral ground is always a good thing to have, just in case.. you never know when you will need it.

[djg714]

America first......the slogan that won the election.

[bigbill]

They were not using gas on women and children in Afhganistan. A high moral ground is always a good thing to have, just in case.. you never know when you will need it.

Yes they did.

[Cookietruck]

Sorry to get realpolitik here, but I definitely liked Afghanistan more when the Soviets were stuck there in the 80's. Russia being stuck in Syria suits the US now.

exactly. just hit russia with more sanctions for the use of chemicals again.

on another note i see russia is saying they don't support assad unconditionally, but i figure that is just them trying to appease gov't angry with the latest attacks.

[colker]

Why NATO? Would you send your kids to that fight?

If they were professional soldiers, yes.

[bigbill]

exactly. just hit russia with more sanctions for the use of chemicals again.

on another note i see russia is saying they don't support assad unconditionally, but i figure that is just them trying to appease gov't angry with the latest attacks.

There should be some kind of accountability for the chemicals that Russia took custody of. It should be pretty simple to see if the chemical used was of a type that was transferred to Russia. Then pull the string to find out how they were accounted for. Some accountability and a little red ass for the people involved might get some things done.

[EightySixer]

As far as the weapons being a rebel stash that was hit by artillery, the Russians reported that. FWIW.

yeah, I read a few more articles after I wrote that. The Syrians who were hit reported chemical weapons being dropped, I trust them much more than anything issued by Russia.

And what, exactly, are you proposing be done?

This is the million dollar question. I think Assad has to go, but how, and at what expense?

[davids]

This is the million dollar question. I think Assad has to go, but how, and at what expense?

And in my mind: To be replaced by what? No one has a good track record with Nation Building in the Mideast.

Still waiting for Colker to set aside his emotions and give me a reasoned response...

[choke]

I guess I shouldn't be surprised...but I am....that the media has already decided that the Syrian Govt is guilty without any investigation. It's well known that the Al-Nusra Front has chem weapons. It seems to me that Assad has little reason to use CW since the Syrians seem to be winning and the rebels would stand more to gain by using them in the hopes of getting sympathy and help - even intervention - from the West. Frankly it has all the marks of a false flag operation to me, but obviously I'm in the minority with that opinion.

This is not our fight, although God knows we helped create the conditions and parties.

Intervention is a lose-lose-lose-lose-lose. I can't see a way in that has a peaceful - let alone democratic - outcome.

I have to agree 100%. We have no business being there...period.

For what it's worth, it's my understanding that almost all chemical weapons are binary in nature (for safety purposes), and the two sub-components are almost never stored together. The notion that bombs hit some type of storage depot where the weapons were being stored by rebels is pure russian propaganda.

You're correct that many are binary, but not about the components being totally separate. In the case of an artillery shell for instance, both parts are inside the shell and separated by a divider, which is broken after the shell is fired. It's totally possible that an explosion (as in a bomb being dropped on stored munitions) could cause a rupture of the divider and the components could be mixed.

[colker]

And in my mind: To be replaced by what? No one has a good track record with Nation Building in the Mideast.

Still waiting for Colker to set aside his emotions and give me a reasoned response...

It´s the rationale you want but sometimes it´s about decent x obscene genocide. Syrian civillians should not be massacred untill someone comes up w/ a long term plan, politically and economically.
UN intervened in the ex Yugoslavia to stop the genocide. Plans come afterwards.
Fact was: it´s a russian influence territory. Anything there goes w/their approval. Wasn´t for this, the troops would already be there. New facts though: seems like the Pentagon is already telling everybody they will do something. Even if it´s just bluff it signs to what i said in the first post: public opinion had enough.

[Cookietruck]

You're correct that many are binary, but not about the components being totally separate. In the case of an artillery shell for instance, both parts are inside the shell and separated by a divider, which is broken after the shell is fired. It's totally possible that an explosion (as in a bomb being dropped on stored munitions) could cause a rupture of the divider and the components could be mixed.

from what i've read, this is exactly how US soldiers in Iraq were infecting themselves with the old and outdated chemical weapons (from the Iran Iraq war if i remember correctly) that were showing up in IED's. procedure was to blow up the IED so that it couldn't be reused and then take the remainder of the device to be disposed of, many gassed themselves on the drive back to the base...sarin gas.

edit: actually, i think there were also instances where US soldiers blew up ammunition stores not realizing there were some chemical devices in there, and ended up with mustard or sarin exposure.

there was a pretty good NYtimes article about that could probably be found pretty easily...

[Paul]

IMG_9125.jpg