ApfelGanja Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 - The UK and USA claim that Assad may use his stockpile of chemical weapons against the rebels (personally, I find this unlikely, for many reasons). Lawrence Wilkerson (a retired US Army Colonel and former Chief of Staff to Colin Powell) is skeptical and believes that these claims are 'politicized' to get to Iran, which is the USA's true target. This is similar to the baseless allegations that Iraq had nuclear weapons back in the invasion of 2003. Wilkerson believes an invasion of Syria will heavily destabilise the region and will end up being just another Iraq. Afghanistan or Vietnam. He thinks it would be best for the Syrians to sort themselves out. - Thousand of US troops (8,000 to be exact + 8 jet bombers) arrive near Syrian shore aboard the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower aircraft carrier suggesting an imminent ground intervention. The USS Dwight D. Eisenhower has joined the USS Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group, which holds about 2,500 Marines. The move comes after NATO made a significant strategic decision Tuesday to deploy Patriot Air and Missile Defense Systems in Turkey on the border of Syria where opposition groups have the stronghold. The defense would be able to protect Turkey from potential Syrian missiles that could contain chemical weapons, as well as intimidate Syrian Air Force pilots from bombing the northern Syria border towns, which the armed rebels control. Syria is thought to have about 700 missiles. “The protection from NATO will be three dimensional; one is the short-range Patriots, the second is the middle-range Terminal High Altitude Air Defense [THAD] system and the last is the AEGIS system, which counters missiles that can reach outside the atmosphere,” Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said. DEBKAfile’s anonymous military sources claim the THAD and Aegis arrived at the Syrian coast aboard the USS Eisenhower. “The United States now stands ready for direct military intervention in the Syrian conflict when the weather permits,” the news source wrote. In unrelated news, my father met Mikhail Gorbachev (former General Secretary of the USSR 1985-91) today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajnl Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 - The UK and USA claim that Assad may use his stockpile of chemical weapons against the rebels Considering they themselves admitted to having chemical weapons and considering chemical weapons are just as bad as nuclear weapons, I think its a good thing to stay on the safe side of this one. I wouldn't put it past some guy to go crazy/nuts and either use a chemical weapon on the rebels. Or use it on another country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApfelGanja Posted December 9, 2012 Author Share Posted December 9, 2012 Considering they themselves admitted to having chemical weapons and considering chemical weapons are just as bad as nuclear weapons, I think its a good thing to stay on the safe side of this one. I wouldn't put it past some guy to go crazy/nuts and either use a chemical weapon on the rebels. Or use it on another country. Maybe so but look what happened in Iraq. The US claimd that Hussein had nukes, went in, found out he doesn't (which they probably knew already) and are now sitting in Iraq with their policy of Afghanistisation and 'Iraqisation' which will probably fail just as badly as Vietnamisation. But then again Assad actually does have chemical weapons. The reason I believe he will not use them (I may be wrong here) is that Assad knows that if he uses those chemical weapons, the UN will pass a resolution to invade him, and even if they don't, the US will probably have him removed via some covert op and some money changing hands as they have done many times before. The whole world will condemn him and as I mentioned before, he'll be in trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajnl Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) Maybe so but look what happened in Iraq. The US claimd that Hussein had nukes, went in, found out he doesn't (which they probably knew already) and are now sitting in Iraq with their policy of Afghanistisation and 'Iraqisation' which will probably fail just as badly as Vietnamisation. But then again Assad actually does have chemical weapons. The reason I believe he will not use them (I may be wrong here) is that Assad knows that if he uses those chemical weapons, the UN will pass a resolution to invade him, and even if they don't, the US will probably have him removed via some covert op and some money changing hands as they have done many times before. The whole world will condemn him and as I mentioned before, he'll be in trouble. Yeah but what I mean is that if some1 goes a bit crazy or just makes a stupid decision to use them, then we have no choice but to invade. If I remember correctly they had intel that there could be nukes, but obviously that intel was incorrect. The bottom line is that them having chemical weapons is extremely dangerous, especially in a country like that. If, for example, they use a chemical weapon against any US military force, America's policy is to retaliate with a nuclear weapon. Think about what would happen if America used another nuclear weapon. That could start World War 3. Edited December 9, 2012 by ajnl Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApfelGanja Posted December 9, 2012 Author Share Posted December 9, 2012 (edited) Yeah but what I mean is that if some1 goes a bit crazy or just makes a stupid decision to use them, then we have no choice but to invade. If I remember correctly they had intel that there could be nukes, but obviously that intel was incorrect. The bottom line is that them having chemical weapons is extremely dangerous, especially in a country like that. If, for example, they use a chemical weapon against any US military force, America's policy is to retaliate with a nuclear weapon. Think about what would happen if America used another nuclear weapon. That could start World War 3. I don't think Syria will dare attack US forces or Turkey. Both have a much bigger, better led, better trained, better equipped armies and could defeat them in a matter of days (or weeks). But yes I see your point. Edited December 9, 2012 by ApfelGanja Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajnl Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 I don't think Syria will dare attack US forces or Turkey. Both have a much bigger, better led, better trained, better equipped armies and could defeat them in a matter of days (or weeks). But yes I see your point. Agreed, but just a scary thought haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApfelGanja Posted December 10, 2012 Author Share Posted December 10, 2012 Agreed, but just a scary thought haha Sh** can hit the fan at any time. The ME is a highly destabilised region, no thanks to US and Soviet intervention on behalf of Israel and Egypt/Syria/Jordan respectively for the last 65 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guardian Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 That isn't such good news... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApfelGanja Posted December 11, 2012 Author Share Posted December 11, 2012 That isn't such good news... News from over there rarely are, especially with the US sitting around (no offence) waiting to pounce. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajnl Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 News from over there rarely are, especially with the US sitting around (no offence) waiting to pounce. I love how it is always the USA's fault Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApfelGanja Posted December 15, 2012 Author Share Posted December 15, 2012 I love how it is always the USA's fault Not always, and not only the US, but wading into countries they have no belonging in isn't exactly angelic. I do not wish to write a massive essay on why I think this and give evidence and analysis because I do not wish to offend anyone, as many FA members are American I believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajnl Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Not always, and not only the US, but wading into countries they have no belonging in isn't exactly angelic. I do not wish to write a massive essay on why I think this and give evidence and analysis because I do not wish to offend anyone, as many FA members are American I believe. So if Syria would use chemical weapons on the rebels, we should just sit back and watch? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApfelGanja Posted December 16, 2012 Author Share Posted December 16, 2012 So if Syria would use chemical weapons on the rebels, we should just sit back and watch? No. But they haven't used them, and although I may be wrong, I have a feeling they won't dare use them. Assad knows what's coming for him if he uses even one chemical bomb. And since he hasn't used them yet, I see no reason to go in. Funny, the US used chemical weapons in Vietnam. Loads of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leader RedBaird Posted December 16, 2012 Leader Share Posted December 16, 2012 ... the US used chemical weapons in Vietnam. Loads of them. The chemicals used by the USA in Vietnam were herbicides to clear 'jungle' and CS dust (similar to tear gas) in enemy tunnels. These are not chemical weapons in the sense that they are not used to kill people. The chemical weapons it is feared that Assad might use are designed to be lethal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApfelGanja Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 The chemicals used by the USA in Vietnam were herbicides to clear 'jungle' and CS dust (similar to tear gas) in enemy tunnels. These are not chemical weapons in the sense that they are not used to kill people. The chemical weapons it is feared that Assad might use are designed to be lethal. Yes Agent Orange was meant to be used as a defoliator but still killed almost half a million people and caused many thousands of birth defects and such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.