Egyptian Violence - Page 6

The_Pac_Mule · 08-28-2013, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Looks like I won't be getting out the Reserves any time soon...

I recently got out of the Marine Corps because of my leg, but now that it's starting to do better and I'm getting back into things I'd like to be able to reenlist in the Marine reserves myself. Right now with the downsizing they won't let me back in, but I get the feeling if this all goes downhill I might have a chance back in.

AEON · 08-28-2013, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Pac_Mule

I recently got out of the Marine Corps because of my leg, but now that it's starting to do better and I'm getting back into things I'd like to be able to reenlist in the Marine reserves myself. Right now with the downsizing they won't let me back in, but I get the feeling if this all goes downhill I might have a chance back in.

There's a ton of Marines (notice I didn't say ex-Marines) in the Army Reserves - ever considered that option?

The_Pac_Mule · 08-28-2013, 09:29 PM

Quote:

There's a ton of Marines (notice I didn't say ex-Marines) in the Army Reserves - ever considered that option?

I did think about it, but I just have too much pride being a Marine. I wouldn't feel right wearing a different uniform. Not that it matters because my friends father is a national guard recruiter and he said he tried to get someone with the same reenlistment code (medical discharge) and similar situation as me and wasn't able to.

LJT · 08-29-2013, 05:51 PM

A government proposal here in the UK that would have allowed military intervention has been voted down by parliament. A bitter blow I imagine for Cameron who seems unreasonably gung ho about the whole situation.

Personally I am a bit conflicted most of the reports seem to lean towards Assad's regime being responsible, but the intelligence folks seem to be very cautious about linking it directly to him. While the use of chemical weapons on anyone deserves the harshest of penalties, i'm still wary of military involvement. Some people seem to be indicating that airstrikes will have limited effect on Syria's military, they are already moving things around, no one also knows whether it will deter him from using chemical weapons. Which then kinda leads to boots on the ground.

A large part of the rebels against Assad are also made up of Al Qaeda connected groups and others of that ilk. Iraq and Afghanistan have hardly been our highpoints in military intervention, yet I find this situation hard to ignore, and I don't like the idea of being isolationist in regards to such atrocities, the problem is I can't see what good we can achieve.

AEON · 08-29-2013, 06:42 PM

^ I think everyone is being very cautious (and rightly so). This thing can get very out of hand very fast...

digitize · 08-29-2013, 08:44 PM

I have no idea what I think is best here. My instinct is generally to be very much against these sorts of interventions, because, even with the best of intentions, they can be a disaster. But Obama's campaign in Libya shows that a limited and targeted attack can have a good effect without completely disastrous side-effects. And what Assad is doing is disgusting, even without the chemical attacks.

That being said, the prospect of radical Islamists taking over isn't much better. Any military intervention seems far less palatable if al-Qaeda is the main beneficiary, and a military intervention could easily cause the sort of resentment towards the West that would drive people to either radical Islam or Assad. As The Economist said today, "A Western attack that pleases al-Qaeda; pretty good evidence of a lack of good options."

Cameron losing his vote in Commons complicates things significantly. Hollande still seems supportive of a potential attack. Obama is mildly under fire from Congress, but he probably can do a limited police action without Congressional approval, and I actually think he could get such approval, despite the lack of approval from the American people (although I wouldn't be surprised if that is changing). It seems like Angela Merkel might agree with an attack in principle, but election seasons tend to be bad times to attack countries.

So, yeah, I don't know what to think.

Vlad n U 2 · 08-30-2013, 03:43 AM

Forgive me for my ignorance, but is it proven that Assad was behind this?

LuckyNumber7 · 08-30-2013, 06:55 AM

No. In fact, I don't think we hear enough about the idea of the opposition using chemical weapons and the idea that we should cut off support for terrorists because of that. In a perfect world Assad would be gone and the people would find a new leader. It's not going to happen that way.

AEON · 08-30-2013, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7

No. In fact, I don't think we hear enough about the idea of the opposition using chemical weapons -

I brought up the possibility a few days ago...

Quote:

Originally Posted by AEON

Since you mentioned Syria and there have been reports of another chemical weapon attack - do you think it is feasible that Islamic "freedom fighters" would use gas on the citizens and then blame it on Assad in order to provoke the West to come in on their side?

LuckyNumber7 · 08-30-2013, 10:49 AM

The Assad side of things DOES accuse the opposition of using chemical weapons! The media only tells one story -- the glorious freedom fighters. The story the people want to hear.

Irvine511 · 08-30-2013, 12:10 PM

the media it seems has been pretty clear that these "rebels" are basically AQ-ish Islamists who, while certainly being slaughtered by Assad, aren't exactly kind and loving people either.

really, there's no good option here.

i do think the usage of chemical weapons is unacceptable, and that should have consequences, but i don't see realistically what can be done other than what Obama has said he will do, and i don't see that being all that productive either.

i do think the British vote against action is difficult, but also understandable -- among the many, many sins of the Iraq War is the difficulty it is now to marshall support for smaller actions like these. the American people have no taste for any boots on the ground anywhere, nor do they want any real engagement in anything to do with the Middle East.

AEON · 08-30-2013, 12:36 PM

C'mon Grid Solar Parity...

Vlad n U 2 · 08-30-2013, 10:06 PM

Has anybody seen this?

Breaking news: Rebels admit gas attack result of mishandling chemical weapons - Dothan Christianity | Examiner.com

I can't be 100% sure of its accuracy but seeing as there's little to no evidence of Assad being responsible, it may very well be true.

LuckyNumber7 · 08-31-2013, 02:18 AM

As much as I believe that the rebels are as guilty as the government and that aiding them is a terrible course of judgment, that story smells so incredibly fabricated.

Vlad n U 2 · 08-31-2013, 02:28 AM

The fact that it's not being reported on mainstream news outlets is making me a little doubtful, but there's too much room for error to readily believe anything new.

LuckyNumber7 · 08-31-2013, 03:10 AM

Any news report from a non-major source that says "a report that is sure to be blockbuster" or whatever it says... well, regardless of what it could be... it's a poor choice of words.

Vlad n U 2 · 08-31-2013, 04:54 AM

You just didn't realise the article's actually a plot for a new film.

LJT · 08-31-2013, 07:13 AM

Basically we are pretty sure the use of chemical weapons comes from the government, it's a question really of whether it was on Assad's express orders, some sources seem to be saying it may have come from his brother Maher, who has a reputation of being a thug and bit more erratic, who has control of his own army division I believe.

Anyway I don't think anyone buys the glorious rebel nonsense, I think we are fairly cognisant they are a disparate group of Islamists and some other factions as well, who are just as likely to descend into civil war if left in charge. I don't see doing nothing as compromising our morality anymore than our morality has already been compromised by our decades of dubious involvement in the Middle East.

LJT · 08-31-2013, 07:17 AM

woops meant to post this in the should we bomb syria thread.

OK I actually think I was responding to both threads, reading both at the same time so I kinda grouped them into one in my head.

Pearl · 08-31-2013, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

Has anybody seen this?

Breaking news: Rebels admit gas attack result of mishandling chemical weapons - Dothan Christianity | Examiner.com

I can't be 100% sure of its accuracy but seeing as there's little to no evidence of Assad being responsible, it may very well be true.

Examiner.com is not a legitimate news outlet. It is made up of citizen journalists who have little or no reporting or research experience. Usually, their "news" is based on their personal beliefs and they can fill their articles with unfounded stories, like Obama being a Socialist born in Kenya.

I also checked that "reporter's" profile. He's a just a minister with no experience in news.

You could also tell Examiner.com is not legit due to its overabundance of ads.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-29-2013, 05:51 PM	#104
LJT Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS Join Date: May 2005 Location: Belfast Posts: 5,191 Local Time: 03:36 AM	A government proposal here in the UK that would have allowed military intervention has been voted down by parliament. A bitter blow I imagine for Cameron who seems unreasonably gung ho about the whole situation. Personally I am a bit conflicted most of the reports seem to lean towards Assad's regime being responsible, but the intelligence folks seem to be very cautious about linking it directly to him. While the use of chemical weapons on anyone deserves the harshest of penalties, i'm still wary of military involvement. Some people seem to be indicating that airstrikes will have limited effect on Syria's military, they are already moving things around, no one also knows whether it will deter him from using chemical weapons. Which then kinda leads to boots on the ground. A large part of the rebels against Assad are also made up of Al Qaeda connected groups and others of that ilk. Iraq and Afghanistan have hardly been our highpoints in military intervention, yet I find this situation hard to ignore, and I don't like the idea of being isolationist in regards to such atrocities, the problem is I can't see what good we can achieve.

08-29-2013, 06:42 PM	#105
AEON Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: California Posts: 4,052 Local Time: 07:36 PM	^ I think everyone is being very cautious (and rightly so). This thing can get very out of hand very fast...

08-29-2013, 08:44 PM	#106
digitize ONE love, blood, life Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: New York / Dallas / Austin Posts: 14,119 Local Time: 08:36 PM	I have no idea what I think is best here. My instinct is generally to be very much against these sorts of interventions, because, even with the best of intentions, they can be a disaster. But Obama's campaign in Libya shows that a limited and targeted attack can have a good effect without completely disastrous side-effects. And what Assad is doing is disgusting, even without the chemical attacks. That being said, the prospect of radical Islamists taking over isn't much better. Any military intervention seems far less palatable if al-Qaeda is the main beneficiary, and a military intervention could easily cause the sort of resentment towards the West that would drive people to either radical Islam or Assad. As The Economist said today, "A Western attack that pleases al-Qaeda; pretty good evidence of a lack of good options." Cameron losing his vote in Commons complicates things significantly. Hollande still seems supportive of a potential attack. Obama is mildly under fire from Congress, but he probably can do a limited police action without Congressional approval, and I actually think he could get such approval, despite the lack of approval from the American people (although I wouldn't be surprised if that is changing). It seems like Angela Merkel might agree with an attack in principle, but election seasons tend to be bad times to attack countries. So, yeah, I don't know what to think.

08-30-2013, 03:43 AM	#107
Vlad n U 2 Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 28,387 Local Time: 01:06 PM	Forgive me for my ignorance, but is it proven that Assad was behind this?

08-30-2013, 06:55 AM	#108
LuckyNumber7 Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 19,701 Local Time: 10:36 PM	No. In fact, I don't think we hear enough about the idea of the opposition using chemical weapons and the idea that we should cut off support for terrorists because of that. In a perfect world Assad would be gone and the people would find a new leader. It's not going to happen that way.

08-30-2013, 10:49 AM	#110
LuckyNumber7 Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 19,701 Local Time: 10:36 PM	The Assad side of things DOES accuse the opposition of using chemical weapons! The media only tells one story -- the glorious freedom fighters. The story the people want to hear.

08-30-2013, 12:10 PM	#111
Irvine511 Blue Crack Supplier Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: the West Coast Posts: 34,383 Local Time: 10:36 PM	the media it seems has been pretty clear that these "rebels" are basically AQ-ish Islamists who, while certainly being slaughtered by Assad, aren't exactly kind and loving people either. really, there's no good option here. i do think the usage of chemical weapons is unacceptable, and that should have consequences, but i don't see realistically what can be done other than what Obama has said he will do, and i don't see that being all that productive either. i do think the British vote against action is difficult, but also understandable -- among the many, many sins of the Iraq War is the difficulty it is now to marshall support for smaller actions like these. the American people have no taste for any boots on the ground anywhere, nor do they want any real engagement in anything to do with the Middle East.

08-30-2013, 12:36 PM	#112
AEON Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: California Posts: 4,052 Local Time: 07:36 PM	C'mon Grid Solar Parity...

08-30-2013, 10:06 PM	#113
Vlad n U 2 Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 28,387 Local Time: 01:06 PM	Has anybody seen this? Breaking news: Rebels admit gas attack result of mishandling chemical weapons - Dothan Christianity \| Examiner.com I can't be 100% sure of its accuracy but seeing as there's little to no evidence of Assad being responsible, it may very well be true.

08-31-2013, 02:18 AM	#114
LuckyNumber7 Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 19,701 Local Time: 10:36 PM	As much as I believe that the rebels are as guilty as the government and that aiding them is a terrible course of judgment, that story smells so incredibly fabricated.

08-31-2013, 02:28 AM	#115
Vlad n U 2 Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 28,387 Local Time: 01:06 PM	The fact that it's not being reported on mainstream news outlets is making me a little doubtful, but there's too much room for error to readily believe anything new.

08-31-2013, 03:10 AM	#116
LuckyNumber7 Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 19,701 Local Time: 10:36 PM	Any news report from a non-major source that says "a report that is sure to be blockbuster" or whatever it says... well, regardless of what it could be... it's a poor choice of words.

08-31-2013, 04:54 AM	#117
Vlad n U 2 Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 28,387 Local Time: 01:06 PM	You just didn't realise the article's actually a plot for a new film.

08-31-2013, 07:13 AM	#118
LJT Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS Join Date: May 2005 Location: Belfast Posts: 5,191 Local Time: 03:36 AM	Basically we are pretty sure the use of chemical weapons comes from the government, it's a question really of whether it was on Assad's express orders, some sources seem to be saying it may have come from his brother Maher, who has a reputation of being a thug and bit more erratic, who has control of his own army division I believe. Anyway I don't think anyone buys the glorious rebel nonsense, I think we are fairly cognisant they are a disparate group of Islamists and some other factions as well, who are just as likely to descend into civil war if left in charge. I don't see doing nothing as compromising our morality anymore than our morality has already been compromised by our decades of dubious involvement in the Middle East.

08-31-2013, 07:17 AM	#119
LJT Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS Join Date: May 2005 Location: Belfast Posts: 5,191 Local Time: 03:36 AM	woops meant to post this in the should we bomb syria thread. OK I actually think I was responding to both threads, reading both at the same time so I kinda grouped them into one in my head.