Oct 31, 2015 I HIGHLY doubt some lower tier official made the call to use chemical weapons. Conducting airstrikes is one thing but to use chemical weapons that are strictly banned by d--- near the entire globe and is considered a war crime? Yeah, no. I'm pretty sure Assad was the one that made that call. Also, let's not act like the US military and Assad's military are the same size.
Oct 31, 2015 You're going by common sense rather than evidence, but common sense would also suggest that using chemical weapons (it's just a chemical bomb not some magical weapon that would give them some huge advantage in the war) would have absolutely no benefit for Assad especially when the U.S was openly just impatiently waiting for the next 'war crime' Syria commits and even bitching about Syria's chemical weapons and Assad and Russia were desperately trying to calm the U.S down
Oct 31, 2015 Yes for whatever reason it blows my mind that they do it at times that no one is there rather than when they are all there.
Oct 31, 2015 This was going to be my other point. We really have no reason to be over there in the first place. Which is why I said either we send the house at them and wipe them out essentially(let's say that's what trump would probably do) or don't send any at all. Not what I expect from obama. Which is a light hearted attempt to show our dominance and get a bunch of soldiers killed in the process
Oct 31, 2015 He used it as a show of force in hope that the people would stop protesting/rising up against him. The U.S. was already opposed to Assad and were going to support the opposition regardless if he used chemical weapons or not so he really had nothing much to lose in that aspect. There is evidence that chemical weapons were fired by Assad's regime but the specific evidence of him giving that order that you want isn't there and quite frankly is unrealistic. Assad is a dictator who controls a small army within Syria, if Chemical Weapons were going to be used, he certainly had knowledge of it and likely gave that order. And you're right, that is common sense. We kind of created the mess that's happening over there right now so that's our reason. Like I told Alchemist, we can't just pack up and leave and ignore whatever happens. We either deal with it now or later in the future. Yeah and once "we send the house" fight off ISIS so they are no longer such a force in the region but still exist (like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda) then what do we do? Sit stationed in the region for another 10+ years like last time? Like I said earlier, there's no clear cut answer to this problem, the Obama administration is trying to find that middle ground between military action, relying on our allies and diplomatic resolution. I don't like or want troops being sent over there either but if it shows to be a more efficient/effective way of combating ISIS with our special forces coordinating, then so be it. I much rather have a small force operating on the ground coordinating than have thousands of troops deployed (again) and them leading the fight.
Oct 31, 2015 I dunno. Back then he had high level and low level officials from his military betraying him left and right and joining the opposition forces. He hasn't been in control of s--- for a long time. His military has been a mess for a long time. Yes the U.S were already supporting opposition forces but they were threatening to directly attack Syrian forces with air strikes and just waiting for the perfect opportunity. While at the same time going off with whole "Syria has chemical weapons" rhetoric. It very close to it actually happening and Assad and Russia were trying to de-escalate these tensions. And all of a sudden Assad goes and drops chemical weapons as a "show of force in the hope that people would stop protesting/rising up against him" that's amateurish s--- to begin with but it's even more ridiculous when applied to the Syrian conflict. That would just have turned more people against Assad, given the U.S more reason to directly attack Syrian forces and also paint the Opposition forces as some Saviours. There's no common sense in that or evidence for that matter
Oct 31, 2015 I only know the basics of whats going on here, so pardon me if this is a stupid question, but would't it have been wiser to keep ourselves "strictly airforce" in this situation? Just stick with bombs, airstrikes & whatnot? Instead of putting several troops on ground?
Oct 31, 2015 In a perfect scenario, that would have been the ideal plan for the U.S. but the rebels that we were funding to fight ISIS and the Iraq Security Force who we trained for a decade simply weren't meeting anywhere near the standards we expected. We needed to take a new approach so the Obama administration is trying to see if our special forces can help coordinate forces better on the ground. It's really just trial and error, we're trying to see what's the most effective/efficient way to combat ISIS without having to deploy thousands of American troops again.
Nov 1, 2015 More like Obama is realizing now that Russia is dropping bombs on the Syrian rebels, that arming them isn't working. I am completely against having boots on the ground, and the US-led intervention against ISIS. Russia has only been in the ME for a few weeks now and they've accomplished a lot more than USA, who has been fighting ISIS for more than a year. I say USA should withdraw already and let Russia take care of it. If this means Assad gets to remain in power, then so be it. We already saw what happened as a result of taking out Saddam Hussein and Colonel Gaddafi. ISIS controls the desert and less-populated areas of Syria, while the Syrian rebels control the cities and more-populated areas closer to Aleppo and to Damascus; therefore the rebels are a much greater threat to Assad than ISIS. This is why Putin, who is Assad's ally, is intervening and pushing back the rebels (much to USA's annoyance). ISIS is not an immediate threat to Assad at this point.
Nov 1, 2015 There's also political games at play here with the U.S not wanting more Russian influence in the middle east
Nov 2, 2015 Very limited knowledge on the topic but as a whole it seems like this situation is gonna be tough to win in. It's like the force US applies is either gonna be too much or not enough. Wish we would worry about our own though, tired of being blamed for being nosey because we feel the need to police the world. Let someone else be the good guy
Nov 2, 2015 What has Russia done this far that the U.S. hasn't? Like you said, Russia's goal isn't the same as the U.S.'s. The U.S. is concentrating on combating ISIS, Russia's concentrating on trying to save one of its only allies in the region and if they happen to come across ISIS in the process, so be it. This idea that the U.S. can just pull out and Russia will take care of ISIS isn't accurate. All Russia cares about is Syria and maintaining Assad's power. They don't care about ISIS in Iraq or ISIS along Turkish boarders etc. https://news.vice.com/article/russi...-in-syria-but-doesnt-seem-to-be-stopping-them
Nov 3, 2015 Remember USA also wants Assad out, and we know that USA has been arming the Syrian rebels in order to achieve that. We also know that taking out dictators Gaddafi and Saddam proved to be disastrous for Libya and Iraq respectively, so it's safe to say that the same will happen to Syria should Assad be taken out. Knowing this, what Russia is doing is the better alternative than what USA has been doing. ISIS does not pose an immediate threat to Assad, but the Syrian rebels do, that is why Russia is focused on taking out the rebels; pissing off USA in the meantime. I've read that article, and I was reluctantly to believe it because, like we already know, Russia is not primarily focused on taking out ISIS.
Nov 3, 2015 Your point about taking out dictators is well taken but what kind of message does the United States/UN/NATO send by allowing Assad to stay in power? He used chemical weapons on his own people which is a blatant war crime. Are they supposed to just turn a blind eye and be like "okay Assad, you get a pass." And then if another dictator in the region sees this and decides it's ok to use chemical weapons because the west won't take any action, then what? Are we just supposed to keep turning a blind eye? Also, you said in your first post that Russia has already accomplished more (against ISIS) than the U.S. has in a year. Still waiting on an elaboration on that because as the article I quoted in my last post, regardless of Russian airstrikes, ISIS is still pushing foward in Syria.
