Discussion in 'The Counter' started by fez, Apr 15, 2018.

  1. fez

    fez Well-Known Member

    Jun 24, 2009
    What is Assad's incentive not to go on using chemical weapons? This is the second time we have bombed a few of his facilities. Didn't teach him a lesson the first time. There is no threat to him or his regime. The US has said we are not looking to overthrow him. So why bother if he will just ignore us?
  2. haertig

    haertig Well-Known Member

    Jun 14, 2008
    [sarcasm]Maybe because we need to test our missiles against real-world defenses to see if they actually work as well in practice as the they do in theory?[/sarcasm]
    iamscottasus likes this.

  3. BlakeHanson

    BlakeHanson Well-Known Member

    May 31, 2015
    This time it was different.
    Notice that there was a delay before we blasted?
    We didn't just pothole an airfield this time...
    The only chemical weapons he will have available to use in the next few years will be a couple jugs of this:
    While the news media was so transfixed on exactly how many cruise missiles were used, the fact that B1 Bombers were used, flew right over their heads:D.
    B1's don't play.
    They change the map emo12.gif .
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2018
  4. carwash

    carwash Active Member

    Apr 23, 2012
    Bristol, Pa
    I'd bet if Jihadis were trying to overthrow our government for the last 30 years & chemical weapons were the most advanced weapons we had, we'd use 'em.
  5. Nod

    Nod Active Member

    Dec 19, 2014
    Do any of you remember when President Reagan bombed Lybia ? When an Air Force General asked him " if they send up planes, how far do we pursue them ?", Regan answered, " All the way back to their hanger" ! That was the last time we heard from Kadafi for many years. I will not be surprised if Trump doesn't do the same thing to Syria. And I hope he does, take out that A holes palace and everything around it.
  6. Electroshot

    Electroshot Well-Known Member Supporter

    May 9, 2012
    From what I see, and I don't have enough of the pieces to really see a full picture, Assad feels protected by Russia and that will embolden them somewhat. I don't fully understand Russia's reason for investing in Syria in the manner that they have, but there has to be a good reason to put that effort into them. It could be simply that they have long standing ties with Iran and want a strategic presence in the area.

    From what I can put together, this strike was to wake Assad up again that Russia isn't the protector that he was believing.

    I see this as a dangerous game as Putin as publicly stated that he would feel like an attack on Syria is equivalent of an attack on Russia. Putin is unlikely to openly conduct a military attack on US assets, but many feel he will up his targeting through cyber warfare and covert operations.
  7. haertig

    haertig Well-Known Member

    Jun 14, 2008
    Seems like every time we take a side in one of these Muslim middle east countries, the side we take initially cheers us. Then, a few years later, they turn against us. It's like clockwork. Does nobody else see this?

    Chemical weapons are bad. Helping those attacked with them is the moral thing to do. But is it the smart thing to do? Unfortunately, killing and oppressing each other is pretty much expected in the middle east. They've been doing that forever. And the way they do it is always horrific to watch in the eyes of the more advanced cultures - knives chopping off heads, videoing and broadcasting the event, throwing acid in the face, launching gays off the top of buildings, stoning women to death because they were raped, strapping bombs to children, using civilians as human shields, specifically targeting rescuers with a second bomb after the first bomb took out a bunch of innocent people, blowing up ancient historical sites, chemical weapons... I don't think there will ever be widespread peace/acceptance/diversity in the middle east. Containing their atrocities to within their own borders might better serve the rest of the world. Granted, this sounds harsh and callous, but we have nothing but bad options to choose from here. We didn't create those options.

    I don't remember anyone rushing in to save us from ourselves, or the many we horrifically slaughtered, in our own Civil War.
    carwash likes this.
  8. Electroshot

    Electroshot Well-Known Member Supporter

    May 9, 2012
    As brutal as our Civil War was, there wasn't widespread creative depravity for the sake of seeing who could be the sickest in killing those who were on the "other side." (Yes, I do know that there were a few really sick people in the Civil War who did some really terrible things. I'm referring to the apparent scale and acceptance of these things in the Middle East.)
  9. TxCajun

    TxCajun Administrator Staff Member Supporter

    Sep 7, 2004
    Chemical weapons are horrible, and have been banned for more than 100 years. Having said that, Assad has dropped thousands of TNT barrel bombs slaughtering thousands of civilians, men, women and children. The death toll there is staggering. Apparently that doesn't cross whatever line we have drawn. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we change our course there, only that it is somewhat ironic that we act on the use of chemical weapons, but not more conventional weapons used against civilians with far greater effect.
    RAT76 likes this.
  10. fez

    fez Well-Known Member

    Jun 24, 2009
    It's probably better pr, regardless of who's in office, to act on chemical weapons as opposed to conventional ones. The public at large seems to be more horrified of seeing the effects of chemical weapons attacks.
  11. BlakeHanson

    BlakeHanson Well-Known Member

    May 31, 2015
    Just for US.....
    Check out:
    Canister shot (grape-shot) from cannons in the Civil War.
    Mustard gas in WW1.
    Flame-throwers in Japan in WW2.
    Radiation poisoning from nukes fallout in WW2.
    Napalm in Korea and Vietnam.
    Cluster bombs in the Persian Gulf War.
    Claymore mines in use today still spray ball bearings in all directions exactly like terrorist bombs.

    All used by US and caused indiscriminate civilian deaths.
    Yeah, we're the humane ones:rolleyes:.
    BTW, none of our ICBM's are aimed at military targets, too big for that, they are aimed at cities with the most civilians.
    Pot: "Hello black kettle".
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2018
  12. haertig

    haertig Well-Known Member

    Jun 14, 2008
    There are always poor innocent people caught up in a war. But if we take out Assad for his chemical weapons, we are in effect assisting ISIS which is intermixed with the rebel side in Syria as I understand it. Syria is monsters vs. monsters, with some presumably good people stuck in the middle. There is really no way we can assist the middle without helping one of the monsters on either side. So I still think our best move is to confine them inside their own borders and wait it out. There will be massive casualties, including some good people. Harsh, but does anyone have a better idea? Like I said, no good choice when there are only bad options to pick from. There is no mandate for us to pick a side and go in there policing the place. We can pray for them, and unfortunately, leave it at that.
    Electroshot and iamscottasus like this.
  13. Nod

    Nod Active Member

    Dec 19, 2014
    Thanks for letting us know that the US is the only one that used these weapons ! Better to be the "BIG BLACK KETTLE" than to be in the bottom of it !!!!!!!
    BlakeHanson likes this.
  14. BlakeHanson

    BlakeHanson Well-Known Member

    May 31, 2015
    That is perhaps the most accurate way I have heard it described.
    When the Soviet Union was at war with weak little Afghanistan, (we're always supposed to be against Russia!) we helped a group of rebels called "al-Qaeda" defend their country against Soviet invasion.
    Yeah, that worked out really well:rolleyes:.

    Anybody remember this good friend of the USA?
    That would be The Shah of Iran.
    You know, back when Iran was a close US ally?
    That's going really swell nowadays:rolleyes:.

    Monster vs monster:fight:, pick one.
  15. iamscottasus

    iamscottasus Well-Known Member

    Feb 21, 2014
    Muslim vs Muslim. Shia vs Suni. It will never end. It will only spill over into other countries. Liberals, you want to be nice to everybody. You better wisen up and keep them out of this country or you won't be able to live a normal life without your succession details in place every day. The fight will come to you. When they don't have each other to fight, you are the next target.

    Syria is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Russia has terrorist attacks too. They are in the fight to keep violent radicalism at bay. The USA has a pattern of regime change then desertion leaving a power vacuum filled by the most violent. Putin's stated interest in Syria is to prevent another power vacuum that most likely will be filled by Iran or ISIS.

    Russia is capable of handling this. We should let them.
    Nod likes this.
  16. fez

    fez Well-Known Member

    Jun 24, 2009
    So do we stay or do we go?
  17. lklawson

    lklawson Well-Known Member Supporter

    Oct 13, 2009
    Huber Heights, OH
    There's not enough political will in the voting populace to support it. The U.S. voter is weary of war. As far as they're concerned, we've been in continuous conflict since Desert Shield. There is a sizable faction who kinda feels "f-it, let them kill themselves; we've spent enough of our lives and treasure trying to make them stop." There's another, even larger faction (called "Democrat") which will specifically oppose pretty much any military action and pretty much anything Trompe does, regardless.

    These people are strongly convinced that Trompe is flirting with WWIII. She Who Must Be Obeyed is very concerned about this and adamantly refused to listen to me telling her that, no, this actually doesn't have a snowball's chance of starting WWIII and no, Trompe isn't going into this alone (Britain? France? No one knows about them?).

    There's no political will to stop mass slaughter by conventional means. WMD's are about all that passes the bar but, of those, only Chemical Weapons are sufficient. Biologicals make them cringe and refuse to act and Nukes makes them curl into a little ball, whimpering and crying.

    Peace favor your sword,
  18. steve76

    steve76 Active Member

    Dec 13, 2012
    Bullhead City, AZ.
  19. lklawson

    lklawson Well-Known Member Supporter

    Oct 13, 2009
    Huber Heights, OH
    Be more specific.
  20. Nod

    Nod Active Member

    Dec 19, 2014
    He means he feels 'deceived' by President Trump !