|
i poo poo trains posted:Am I the only person confused by the wording in this article? The article claims simultaneously that unnamed U.S. officials say that the Syrian military has prepared chemical weapons and that unnamed U.S. officials are stressing there's no evidence that Syria's stockpile has been weaponized. Which one is it? Those types of web articles are typically updated by copy/pasting paragraphs around. It's not uncommon for quickly changing stories to get accidentally muddled. That would be my guess, as that's a clear contradiction that any journalist would emphasize.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
It was actually the first article I found minutes after getting this text message from MSNBC's sms breaking news service.quote:Syrian military loads precursor chemicals for sarin nerve gas into aerial bombs that could be used on its citizens, U.S. officials tell NBC News
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
It's my understanding that the part about there being no evidence - that's what U.S. officials were telling NBC yesterday. But on Wednesday, they told NBC that Syria has gone ahead and weaponized the chemicals and put them into bombs. The "no evidence" part is not explicitly referred to as background, but that's what it is. It's just not crystal clear in the wording. Edit: quote:As recently as Tuesday, officials had said there was as yet no evidence that the process of mixing the "precursor" chemicals had begun. But Wednesday, they said their worst fears had been confirmed: The nerve agents were locked and loaded inside the bombs. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 02:29
|
|
|
A student posted:It was actually the first article I found minutes after getting this text message from MSNBC's sms breaking news service. It was the lead story on the NBC Nightly News. I was going to post about it but you beat me to it. Stratfor's naval map shows a couple ships in the Mediterranean. reagan fucked around with this message at 02:53 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
At least currently, though, it seems NBC is the only outlet running with this breaking news. So it remains to be seen if they jumped the gun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 02:45
|
|
|
octoroon posted:At least currently, though, it seems NBC is the only outlet running with this breaking news. So it remains to be seen if they jumped the gun. CNN is has also broken the news: quote:According to one U.S. official, Syrian forces have begun combining chemicals that would be used to make deadly sarin gas for use in weapons to attack rebel and civilian populations. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/03/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?iref=obnetwork http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/05/bracing-for-a-chemical-weapon-attack/
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 02:50
|
|
|
And now its front page news on nbcnews.com.... I guess if Assad uses these weapons he is just hoping that the US/NATO wont actually follow through on their threats to attack him in retaliation? I just dont understand the logic behind using these weapons since it might make his closest allies (Russia/Iran) give up on him. Although, I guess we aren't exactly dealing with a logical person here...
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
Kaal posted:CNN is has also broken the news: You're right. I would have expected that to pop up on their frontpage or breaking news twitter, weird. e: Nevermind, those look like old reports, not the same thing NBC is reporting. speng31b fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I guess if Assad uses these weapons he is just hoping that the US/NATO wont actually follow through on their threats to attack him in retaliation? I just dont understand the logic behind using these weapons since it might make his closest allies (Russia/Iran) give up on him. Although, I guess we aren't exactly dealing with a logical person here... The civil war in Syria has been grinding forward for more than a year now. Syrian society is beginning to fall apart, and the governing coalition is beginning to fracture. Many atrocities have been committed, and threatening chemical warfare may not seem like a particularly outrageous step. Actually going forward and committing it is a different matter. But it's important to remember that these are people who have their back against the wall, and have been living in hell. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/05/opinion/wolfe-syria-rape/?hpt=hp_c2
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
Chamale posted:If Russia really wants to salvage relations with the new Syria, their only option would be to take out Assad by themselves. Russian corporate interests were driven out of Libya after the revolution because Putin had supported Gaddafi for too long. Like OwlBot 2000 said, it's not going to happen but it should. Arming, advising, and backing the rebels themselves would be the only way Russia's influence could survive a post-Assad purge. And they should have done that 6 months ago. I've said before, but Russia's realpolitik has been getting really rusty over the past decade. They really should have played Assad like the U.S. played Mubarak if they wanted to avoid getting kicked out of the entire country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
Zeno-25 posted:That's pretty much an invasion fleet. I can only imagine what sort of assets other NATO members are assembling in the Mediterranean, preparing for a big multinational UN coalition operation or whatnot. Not to say it's not a real threat towards Asad, but by comparison Desert Shield '91 involved staging nearly one million Coalition troops, two carrier battle groups and two battleships. Even the '03 Iraq invasion was 300k. The US parks Amphib groups off hotspots all the time (ie West Africa, Horn of Africa) as a general 'don't make us break something you'll regret' message to whoever is stirring up trouble. Hopefully this is all just an effort by Asad to get a better escape bargain out of the West rather than an actual suicide by nerve gas. Even if he got an amnesty & exile deal to another country it's not a guarantee that he would get off scot free, as Charles Taylor will tell you. Russia is the only place he could reliably live out his days a free man, and they want less and less to do with him every day. Going to Iran or Sudan would likely just postpone his appointment with a revolutionary militia/international court/Western JDAM.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
Did anyone else notice that the Youtube video showing the gassing of two rabbits is age-restricted, but many gory videos of people injured in Syria are uncensored?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
Maybe not a fullblown invasion, but could that many men destroy and/or extract the chemical weapons without being overrun?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:09
|
|
|
octoroon posted:At least currently, though, it seems NBC is the only outlet running with this breaking news. So it remains to be seen if they jumped the gun. Young Freud posted:I've said before, but Russia's realpolitik has been getting really rusty over the past decade. They really should have played Assad like the U.S. played Mubarak if they wanted to avoid getting kicked out of the entire country. Someone else said that their other client states would panic if Russia turned against Assad in a major way. Part of those client relationships is Russia having positioned itself as a counter to U.S. hegemony. But there's not a lot of room to maneuver in doing that. But I dunno. SpaceMost posted:Maybe not a fullblown invasion, but could that many men destroy and/or extract the chemical weapons without being overrun?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:12
|
|
|
My best guess as to what a NATO response to a chemical weapon attack would look like is a MASSIVE bombing campaign. Probably done mostly by the US from carriers, and maybe some land based aircraft if the host countries allow it. Targets would probably be known chem weapon sites, military installations, government buildings, AA/SAM sites, parked aircraft/runways, and most likely decapitation strikes would be attempted against Assad himself and other high ranking officials. I think thats it though, theres no way I see a ground invasion happening. The insurgency we would have to deal with afterwards would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
SpaceMost posted:Maybe not a fullblown invasion, but could that many men destroy and/or extract the chemical weapons without being overrun? Certainly. What you'd see would be naval aviators taking out the SAM sites, with special ops folks flying in to seize the depots, followed by Marines to secure them as well as the ports. Then you'd see the 75th Rangers and the 101st Airborne flying or jumping in to supplement the initial force, and more units being mobilized to be ready to deploy if Assad began to mount a defense. Charliegrs posted:My best guess as to what a NATO response to a chemical weapon attack would look like is a MASSIVE bombing campaign. Probably done mostly by the US from carriers, and maybe some land based aircraft if the host countries allow it. Targets would probably be known chem weapon sites, military installations, government buildings, AA/SAM sites, parked aircraft/runways, and most likely decapitation strikes would be attempted against Assad himself and other high ranking officials. I think thats it though, theres no way I see a ground invasion happening. The insurgency we would have to deal with afterwards would make Iraq look like a cakewalk. The problem with an air campaign is that bombing chemical depots represents a real threat to the surrounding areas; some gas will inevitably escape. Unless all of the depots are away from residential areas, the US would become complicit in the deaths of hundreds or thousands of innocents. Kaal fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
SpaceMost posted:Maybe not a fullblown invasion, but could that many men destroy and/or extract the chemical weapons without being overrun? My guess is that the 2,500 Marines would be used to establish a beach-head for a larger peacekeeping force. Like Charliegrs said, there would be a massive bombing campaign that could be done from those carriers and land bases as far as Kansas that would give us air dominance to do whatever the gently caress we want, but you still need ports to ship in ground forces.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:23
|
|
|
SpaceMost posted:Maybe not a fullblown invasion, but could that many men destroy and/or extract the chemical weapons without being overrun? The most recent estimates that I've heard for a force to enter Syria and take control of the gas is 75,000. NY Times
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:24
|
|
|
Was the USS Iwo Jima group there before or after they began fiddling with the weapons? If they were there before, then doesn't that pretty much mean this is premeditation?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:36
|
|
|
Premeditation? What do you mean? I'm a pretty anti-imperialist kind of guy but I do see the prudence in parking some assets next to a country with chemical weapons gripped in civil war.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:39
|
|
|
Durgat posted:Was the USS Iwo Jima group there before or after they began fiddling with the weapons? If they were there before, then doesn't that pretty much mean this is premeditation? The Ready Group has been there for months supporting all the different conflicts in the region. The group has been deployed since March and is already overdue to return. Specifically they were deployed to the Mediterranean in November to provide support to Americans in Israel due to worsening tensions in the region. Also Fox News has jumped on board. I expect to see more to follow: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12/05/syria-mixes-chemical-weapons-into-bombs/ edit: The weaponization story has spread to all the major news outlets now. The movement of the USS Eisenhower has been picked up by the Albany Tribune and the Examiner among others, but they're still relying on Russia Today's article. Given American policy on limiting information on the movement of US carrier groups, I would expect to see this delayed until tomorrow unless there are further developments. Given that the USS Eisenhower is already deployed to Persian Gulf, and the seriousness of the situation, I find the story to be extremely plausible. Kaal fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
I think we pretty much always have a sizable force in the Mediterranean and Persian gulf areas. It makes sense too, since its one of the most unstable parts of the world. I always laugh when I read on conspiracy websites about how we have 3 CARRIERS IN THE PERSIAN GULF THAT MEANS WE ARE BOMBING IRAN/SYRIA/ETC ANY DAY NOW!!11 when 99 percent of the time it means we are just replacing one of the 2 carriers we always keep there so it can go back home for repairs and resupply.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
Charliegrs posted:I think we pretty much always have a sizable force in the Mediterranean and Persian gulf areas. It makes sense too, since its one of the most valuable parts of the world. Fixed that for you. Of course, it begs the question did that area become unstable because it's so valuable?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
It also pays to have a pile of Marines hanging out off the coast in case you need to perform some noncombatant evacuation operations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-combatant_evacuation_operation
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
Smashurbanipal posted:This happens every time iyaayas shows up in D&D, but it's not his fault.  But yeah, if you read exactly what I said I was only comparing the Block 60 Vipers (which as mlmp08 said, are top of the line) with Iran's indigenously "produced" twin-tailed F-5 (which also like he said, is not top of the line.) The discussion has moved on so I won't belabor the point, but for future reference if you're going to put words in my mouth don't accuse me of being a LockMart shill; I think my posting about them in other areas of the forums speaks volumes about how I feel about that company: iyaayas01 posted:And it can never be said enough, gently caress LockMart. SpaceMost posted:Maybe not a fullblown invasion, but could that many men destroy and/or extract the chemical weapons without being overrun? All depends on how much risk you are willing to take with the force, but probably not, no. And there is a standing requirement for a ESG to be on station in the Med...but not a CSG (that requirement went away after the end of the Cold War), so the deployment of the Eisenhower is noteworthy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Fixed that for you. Lol nice fix. And yeah, I think it does have a lot to do with how valuable a natural resource that part of the world just happens to be sitting on top of. Having a lot of oil seems to be a blessing and a curse for the countries that have it. And by blessing I mean a blessing for a very few in the government and a curse for the regular population who lives in poverty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 04:42
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Certainly. What you'd see would be naval aviators taking out the SAM sites, with special ops folks flying in to seize the depots, followed by Marines to secure them as well as the ports. Then you'd see the 75th Rangers and the 101st Airborne flying or jumping in to supplement the initial force, and more units being mobilized to be ready to deploy if Assad began to mount a defense. That would be an awful strategy because that would leave a large number of troops essentially behind enemy lines and separated from resupply/reinforcement. If you are going to have that many troops essentially jump into a battle zone and potentially be cut off, you'd better have plans for them to link up with an advancing ground force or be prepared to spirit them out quickly. Young Freud posted:My guess is that the 2,500 Marines would be used to establish a beach-head for a larger peacekeeping force. I think the 2,500 Marines constitutes a SAR force to grab downed pilots or go on the occasional special operations support role. The playbook I see in the case of chemical weapons being deployed is similar to Libya, maybe just amped up--a large air campaign linked up with rebels on the ground who provide target information and critical info like BDA (bomb damage assessment). If chemical weapons are deployed, I can't see Obama saying "Ooooo Sarin, I'd love to send America's ground forces into THAT."
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 04:51
|
|
|
Vladimir Putin posted:That would be an awful strategy because that would leave a large number of troops essentially behind enemy lines and separated from resupply/reinforcement. If you are going to have that many troops essentially jump into a battle zone and potentially be cut off, you'd better have plans for them to link up with an advancing ground force or be prepared to spirit them out quickly. That is, of course, exactly what would happen if Assad resisted. It's classic paratrooper strategy. The hope would be that he would see reason once American boots were on the ground, and blame it on a "rogue general". The alternative options would be waiting until you could assemble a Turkey-based NATO coalition, which means that chemical weapons would have spread around the country, or simply bombing every weapons site and accepting the collateral damage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
So using bombs and killing the gently caress out of everybody was A OKAY and nobody did a drat thing, but oh no, don't use the gas? Aren't these the same Islamist rebels that gave Assad's father trouble, anyways?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
Kaal posted:That is, of course, exactly what would happen if Assad resisted. It's classic paratrooper strategy. The hope would be that he would see reason once American boots were on the ground, and blame it on a "rogue general". The alternative options would be waiting until you could assemble a Turkey-based NATO coalition, which means that chemical weapons would have spread around the country, or simply bombing every weapons site and accepting the collateral damage. Accepting the collateral damage would probably be a safer decision for an American politician than putting American boots on the ground with Sarin in the mix. e: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Chemical weapons such as Sarin can't really be targeted at enemy combatants in a good-faith attempt to avoid civilian casualties. I mean, there's not much evidence to suggest that the bombings were, but they could have been. At the very least it's a big difference in terms of optics, and if the line has to be somewhere chemical weapons are a pretty clear choice. speng31b fucked around with this message at 05:07 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:05
|
|
|
Kaal posted:That is, of course, exactly what would happen if Assad resisted. It's classic paratrooper strategy. The hope would be that he would see reason once American boots were on the ground, and blame it on a "rogue general". The alternative options would be waiting until you could assemble a Turkey-based NATO coalition, which means that chemical weapons would have spread around the country, or simply bombing every weapons site and accepting the collateral damage. I see it more likely that the US sends over an assload of B-52's and dump trucking bombs everywhere while being fed target info by opposition fighters who have intimate knowledge of the local terrain. The Syrians can do their own fighting while being given an essentially a big red "throw bombs here" button. Afterwards, they can deal with the mess themselves. And really, do you want to send American troops into a country where chemical weapons are being launched willy nilly? The people planning Desert Storm II had a loving heart attack trying to plan for the invasion force being exposed the chemical weapons. Pon de Bundy posted:So using bombs and killing the gently caress out of everybody was A OKAY and nobody did a drat thing, but oh no, don't use the gas? Aren't these the same Islamist rebels that gave Assad's father trouble, anyways? Hey, everything has loving rules.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
Pon de Bundy posted:So using bombs and killing the gently caress out of everybody was A OKAY and nobody did a drat thing, but oh no, don't use the gas? You have to understand what that gas can do to really get it. Bombs and bullets are horrifying in their own way, but there's a reason that gas is considered a step beyond.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:10
|
|
|
Pon de Bundy posted:So using bombs and killing the gently caress out of everybody was A OKAY and nobody did a drat thing, but oh no, don't use the gas? Aren't these the same Islamist rebels that gave Assad's father trouble, anyways? There's a magnitude of difference here. We're talking about "wipe out entire massive population centers in a day" kind of destructive power.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
I don't trust the West to do what is right for Syria, or that they even give a poo poo about Syria in the least. For all we know, this gas is a huge fabrication, just like Iraq was.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
I'm actually quite curious, so please forgive me if this is ignorant of any mitigating information. Given Iran's history of being on the receiving end of chemical warfare, how could they ever then stay an ally of, or harbor someone who had gassed his own people? Multiple people have brought up that Russia would wash their hands of Assad, but Iran would still be an option, and I guess I just don't understand how that could acceptable whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
Pon de Bundy posted:I don't trust the West to do what is right for Syria, or that they even give a poo poo about Syria in the least. For all we know, this gas is a huge fabrication, just like Iraq was. Hell, the "Syrian Civil War" is probably just an imperialist false flag operation. Have you guys seen wag the dog? Have you???
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
Pon de Bundy posted:I don't trust the West to do what is right for Syria, or that they even give a poo poo about Syria in the least. For all we know, this gas is a huge fabrication, just like Iraq was. From the NY Times, July 23rd, 2012 Syria Threatens Chemical Attack on Foreign Force Edit: Although you're right not to trust NATO to do what's right for Syria. Zeroisanumber fucked around with this message at 05:22 on Dec 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:20
|
|
|
automatic posted:Hell, the "Syrian Civil War" is probably just an imperialist false flag operation. Have you guys seen wag the dog? Have you??? There are people on these forums who have seriously unironically posted exactly this. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
If Assad did begin gassing rebel positions/towns, how many people would die before the outside world could react? Thousands? Tens of thousands?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 20:10 |
|
|
Gonktastic posted:I'm actually quite curious, so please forgive me if this is ignorant of any mitigating information. Given Iran's history of being on the receiving end of chemical warfare, how could they ever then stay an ally of, or harbor someone who had gassed his own people? Multiple people have brought up that Russia would wash their hands of Assad, but Iran would still be an option, and I guess I just don't understand how that could acceptable whatsoever. This is geopolitics, Iran doesn't care if their only friend was beating people to death with pink dildos. Pon de Bundy posted:I don't trust the West to do what is right for Syria, or that they even give a poo poo about Syria in the least. For all we know, this gas is a huge fabrication, just like Iraq was. I don't think it's a fabrication. For one, the "West" has been trying it's loving hardest to stay the gently caress away from Syria despite everything that is happening. Chemical weapons being used would force the world to act. Right now you couldn't pay the US to get involved in this poo poo storm. Iraq on the other hand, was the US itching to find any reason to invade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 05:22
|
|