Not only an overkill, but also completely absurd. “We’re going to kill 200 000 Syrians to teach you not to kill Syrian people”.
Bombing is quite a bit different from invading.
If we really wanted to we’d just do it. The UN has no actual power to restrain us, and America has little respect for international laws or treaties that it finds inconvenient.
Seconded. The public is tired of war, but would tolerate a carrier lobbing bombs, drone strikes, etc.. provided they are not endangering troops, or staging an invasion. The percentage of people who are against any form of action is significantly smaller than those who simply want our troops home or out of harms way.
I’m puzzled. Saddam used chemical weapons against his “citizens,” which itself did not provoke a directed military response of any sort whatsoever.
The US is not in a position to act unitalerally in the present climate. Politically, they USG needs a UN mandate after the cluster fuck that was Iraq.
I realize chemical weapons are older than nuclear, but there’s a newfound fear of chemical weaponry. This probably started in our wars with Iraq where US soldiers were in danger from chemical attacks (it was assumed). Saddam’s use of chemical weapons against other Iraqis, and the theorized ‘yellow rain’ attacks in SE Asia hadn’t raised many eyebrows in the US.
We gave Saddam a laurel and a hearty handshake.
Unfortunately, there are no good options.
What good would it do to target Assad , or disable his airforce?
The real problem is how to keep control of the chem weapons amidst all the chaos.
Once Asad is gone, gangs of uncontrollable militias, many of whom are jihadist muslims, will overrun every army base in the country. In the resulting confusion, chemical weapons will be grabbed by the militias, and find their way to the black market.
The gangs/militias themselves may not even want the chemical weapons or know how to use them, but they will happily barter them to anybody who has some cash , or even just a shipload of AK 47’s and bullets.
Iran will be interested in buying them, and El Quaida, won’t be far behind.
Obama’s statements of “unacceptable” activity are just vague warnings. And the threats to use military “options” have mostly been stated second-hand, by Hillary, not directly by the Commander-in-chief himself. The wording is vague, and seem to be aimed less at Assad and more at the US public, so they won’t be surprised if the US military makes a few small moves. Maybe launch a few drone attacks on Asad’s personal bunker, or send in a few planes from aircraft carriers and destroy Asad’s air force on the ground.
But the only way to keep chemical weapons out of the hands of the people who are likely to use them would be a massive ground operation. It would take huge numbers of American boots on the ground, laying seige to dozens of known sites ,( and many more still-unknown) where the the chemicals are stored.
And that simply won’t happen.
As terrible as it sounds, the world (but not the Syrian people) would be better off if Assad somehow manages to survive. He, like N. Korean dictators, would probably keep tight control over his weapons of mass destruction, and limit his reign of terror to his own country.
Once he is gone, the chaos will spread.
And now:-- a GQ question:
If a bomb with chemical weapons has been loaded onto a Syrian plane on the runway about to take off, and an American drone or jet attacks the plane, how dangerous is the explosion?
Well the Pilot and the personnel in the immidiet vicinity will have a lousy morning and the area will need to be decontaminated.
However, I do not think an aircraft or drone would be used, they do not have the necessary reaction times, For imminent release of WMD, I believe current policy is to use nuclear missiles which can get there in time and pretty much gaurentee elimination.
I am getting a feeling of deja vu about all this talk about chemical weapons. Or let’s use the worn out, Weapons of Mass Destruction term to add recent historical perspective.
This morning on my way home from work it was reported on the radio that Assad had already mixed and loaded chemical weapons into bombs or shells and that his military was just waiting for the go-ahead order. And that the shelf life of these weapons would require that they be used within 60 days.
Is there really confirmed intel of high confidence that this is the situation? Or are we all being set up again for the boogie man with WMD that must be stopped, right now?
Must act now! The time for debate or diplomacy has ran out. We are almost guaranteed to get involved militarily soon. I think I’ve been to this dance before.
It just seems too pat, too much of a forgone conclusion and a repeat of a recent history page that we are all famiar with.
George Tenet (CIA Director, a Clinton appointee, kept on by the Bush administration): It’s a slam-dunk!
GWBush: Ok, bombs away!
…
In other news (or opinion, at any rate):
Yeah, what ^he^ said about people who mock ‘duck and cover’. There’s a small ring where you won’t have time for ‘duck and cover’ before you’re vaporized, a somewhat larger ring where you’ll be vaporized just after you do it, a still larger ring where you’ll die in horrible agony over minutes to days (by radiation, burn, or flying-debris-induced injuries, or some combination of those) even if you do, and finally a truly huge ring, where most people will be, where ‘duck and cover’ or sheer luck are what makes the difference between ‘the quick and the dead’.
At a million bucks per attempt, that sort of thing can get rather expensive, even by Uncle Sam’s rather lax reckoning of ‘expensive’.
So we intervene, and assist another anti-American, Muslim regime to power.
Makes perfect sense to me! I guess we haven’t learned much from Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt…:eek:
Because the current regime is pro-American Christian regime. :rolleyes:
Nothing could be further from the truth. Death or survival from acute radiation syndrom is extremely painful. As for either dying instantly or not having symptoms until you can get treatment or drugs, for starters there is no effective treatment for acute radiation poisoning. As for not being left suffering, have a look at the following pictures if you have the stomach for it. Warning, these are all very graphic images.
http://s2.hubimg.com/u/5456437_f260.jpg
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2008/images/0324nuclear_film_victim.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EerwhDuCczs/UCCNg3oAH8I/AAAAAAAABdg/BocS1T3SVvQ/s1600/Hiroshima3.jpg
http://zamolxismd.org/m/www.torrentsmd.com/imagestorage/265554_6af.jpg
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/page568.gif
http://www.newint.org/features/2008/06/01/412-16-hiroshima.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/03/30/article-1165768-0155A344000004B0-783_468x321.jpg
http://scrapetv.com/News/News%20Pages/Everyone%20Else/images-4/hiroshima-victim.jpg
http://www.gensuikin.org/panel/16-1.jpg
http://newscenter.iupui.edu/images/original/stunned-survivors-watching-vacantly-over-the-injured.jpg
Yeah, you can’t use nukes against the very people you’re trying to protect.
Yes but that’s only for the cruise missiles that come out of vending machines. My understanding is the ones that are already out there on ships and planes and etc. are already paid for and simply need to be addressed to whom it may concern.
The ones out there are paid for, but their replacements aren’t. If you shoot your wad, you have to go to the vending machines for new ones, or do without next year.