"THEY" are going to attack...........

[c1ue]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

the great shia-sunni conflict is being played out. look at where there are large shiite populations.

You mean like Iraq? The same nation that fought Iran?

Yes, there is a Sunni/Shiite divide being pushed by certain elements, but to say that this is going to erupt in a generalized Reformation/Counter Reformation type conflict - I don't see it. Geopolitical interest still seems to hold sway rather than religion.

[jk]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

You mean like Iraq? The same nation that fought Iran?

yes like iraq, which under saddam fought iran, but now where the shia majority grants overflight rights for iranian shipments to syria; where the shia are now in control but still struggling with the sunnis in the west, and the kurds in the north. like bahrain, another shia majority iirc governed by sunnis, and where the saudis sent tanks when the shia decided to try an "arab spring" of their own. like syria, where the shia alawites have been ruling a sunni majority and sunni extremists are prominant among the "rebels." and, btw, the syrian ruling shia provide the major transit for supplies from shiite iran to the shiite hezbollah. and i also mean saudi arabia, where the shia minority are mostly concentrated in the oil rich eastern province. yeah, those are the places i have in mind.

Yes, there is a Sunni/Shiite divide being pushed by certain elements, but to say that this is going to erupt in a generalized Reformation/Counter Reformation type conflict - I don't see it. Geopolitical interest still seems to hold sway rather than religion.

no, such a conflict is not going to erupt. it has already erupted. years ago. what's going on in syria right now is a sunni attempt to break the shiite crescent which runs from iran through most of iraq to syria and on into lebanon.

[dcarrigg]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Cameron just lost the vote in the House of Commons. Looks like the UK won't be joining the venture. I imagine the Brits are sick of war as well.

And Merkel pulled out after saying she'd join. She wants UN Security Council proof of WMDs. I wonder if Colin Powell's free?

This time it might be America and France only. Put away the freedom fries. We're going back to the future.

[c1ue]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

yes like iraq, where the shia majority is now in control but still struggling with the sunnis on the one hand, and the kurds on the other. like bahrain, another shia majority iirc governed by sunnis. like syria, where the shia alawites have been ruling a sunni majority and sunni extremists are prominant among the "rebels." and, btw, the syrian ruling shia provide the major transit for supplies from shiite iran to the shiite hezbollah. and saudi arabia, where the shia minority are mostly concentrated in the oil rich eastern province. yeah, those are the places i have in mind.

The problem with your narrative is that the Shiite pipeline going from Iran to Syria to Hezbollah had nothing to do with Sunnis. It was created for dealing with Israel.

I'm also interested to see where you see Iran's hand in the Shiite minority in Saudi Arabia - as opposed to Iran's hand in messing with a neighbor who is also a major rival. Is Iran acting out of religious motivation, or simple 'big boy on the block' in the Middle East motivation - which is what its traditional role is?

From my view - the religious angle is purely an excuse. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia want to be the 'leader of the Arab world' - and will act accordingly.

no, such a conflict is not going to erupt. it has already erupted. years ago.

Yes, Sunni/Shiite has been in conflict for hundreds of years.

Once again, the point?

For that matter, Saudi Arabia has been unhappy with Iran ever since the Revolution.

Prior to that, the King of Saudi Arabia was cordial with the King of Iran.

[dcarrigg]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Cameron just lost the vote in the House of Commons. Looks like the UK won't be joining the venture. I imagine the Brits are sick of war as well.

And Alan Grayson just came out with this on Sat. Radio:

WASHINGTON -- Citing his responsibility to represent the views of his constituents, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) said Thursday that he can't support an attack on Syria that his voters strongly oppose.

"One thing that is perfectly clear to me in my district, and I think is true in many other districts from speaking to other members, is that there is no desire, no desire on the part of people to be the world's policeman," Grayson said on SiriusXM's "The Agenda with Ari Rabin-Havt," which aired Thursday morning. "For us to pick up this gauntlet even on the basis of unequivocal evidence of chemical warfare by the Syrian army, deliberately against its own people -- even if there were unequivocal evidence of that -- that's just not what people in my district want."


That doesn't mean that opposition is universal, Grayson allowed. "I did notice, for what it's worth, that the manufacturer of the missiles that would be used has had an incredible run in their stock value in the last 60 days. Raytheon stock is up 20 percent in the past 60 days as the likelihood of the use of their missiles against Syria becomes more likely. So I understand that there is a certain element of our society that does benefit from this, but they're not the people who vote for me, or by the way the people who contribute to my campaign," he said. "Nobody wants this except the military-industrial complex."
Raytheon stock has in fact surged over the past two months, though it's been slightly shy of 20 percent.

[Forrest]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

yes like iraq, which under saddam fought iran, but now where the shia majority grants overflight rights for iranian shipments to syria; where the shia are now in control but still struggling with the sunnis in the west, and the kurds in the north. like bahrain, another shia majority iirc governed by sunnis, and where the saudis sent tanks when the shia decided to try an "arab spring" of their own. like syria, where the shia alawites have been ruling a sunni majority and sunni extremists are prominant among the "rebels." and, btw, the syrian ruling shia provide the major transit for supplies from shiite iran to the shiite hezbollah. and i also mean saudi arabia, where the shia minority are mostly concentrated in the oil rich eastern province. yeah, those are the places i have in mind.


no, such a conflict is not going to erupt. it has already erupted. years ago. what's going on in syria right now is a sunni attempt to break the shiite crescent which runs from iran through most of iraq to syria and on into lebanon.

Ooooh! Nice summary...best consise statement I've heard about the ME. Now, what odds the Muslim Brotherhood will make a stab at Israel once they consolidate the Crescent? I don't necessarily mean a Caliphate, although that's what they are aiming for, but a "Hurrah for us...we've won...now let's wipe out the Jews?" Would they rush into it on victory over the Sunni's, or actually try to consolidate their position?

[Slimprofits]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Support for "military action" soars when the question is phrased in terms of a response to the use of chemical weapons instead of merely to help stop the killing of civilians in general...

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/13336_NBC_Syria_Poll.pdf

Interviews: 700 Adults, including 210 cell phone only respondents Date: August 28-29, 2013

HART RESEARCH ASSOCIATES/PUBLIC OPINION STRATEGIES Study #13336 -- page 3

Q6 Syrian civilians have been killed by their government in response to protests and civil unrest. The U.S is
taking diplomatic and economic measures to try to stop the Syrian government from taking military action
against its citizens. Which ONE statement best describes what you think (ROTATE FIRST THREE
STATEMENTS)
The U.S. should take military action to help stop the killing of civilians.
The U.S. should provide weapons to the forces inside Syria opposing the government.
The U.S. should provide only humanitarian assistance to the civilians injured or forced from their homes.
…OR…
The U.S. should take none of these additional actions.

8/13 6/13 3/12
Take military action to help stop the killing ............... 26 15 13
Provide arms to the opposition ................................. 6 11 11
Provide only humanitarian assistance ...................... 40 42 48
Take no additional action .......................................... 23 24 25
Take some mix of actions (VOL) ........................... 1 1 -
Take some other action (VOL) ............................... 1 - -
Not sure .................................................. ................ 3 7 3

Q8 It has been reported that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons on its citizens. Do you think
the United States should take military action against the Syrian government in response to the use of
chemical weapons or not?
Yes, should take military action .................. 42
No, should not take military action .............. 50
Not sure .................................................. .. 8

Q8X Now, more specifically, if U.S. military action in Syria were limited to air strikes using cruise missiles
launched from U.S. naval ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been
used to carry out chemical attacks would you support or oppose this U.S. military action in Syria?*
Support .................................................. ............... 50
Oppose .................................................. ............... 44
Not sure .................................................. ............ 6
* Data reflects responses among 291 adults interviewed on 8/29

Q9 Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
The use of chemical weapons by any country is a “red line,” that is an action that would require a significant
U.S. response, including the possibility of military action.
Agree .................................................. ........ 58
Disagree .................................................. ... 35
Depends (VOL) ........................................ 3
Not sure .................................................. .. 4

Q10 Is taking military action against the Syrian government in our national interest or not? If you do not know
enough about this to have an opinion, please just say so and we will move on.
Yes, in our national interest ........................ 21
No, not in our national interest ................... 33
Don’t know enough to have an opinion ...... 45
Not sure .................................................. .. 1

Q12 Do you think that President Obama should or should not be required to receive approval from Congress
before taking military action in Syria?
Should be required to receive approval ................... 79
Should not be required to receive approval ............. 16
Depends (VOL) .................................................. ...... 1
Not sure .................................................. ............... 4

Q13 If the United States takes military action in Syria, which one of the following should be the most important
objective of United States military action in Syria? (RANDOMIZE ITEMS.)
Stopping the use of chemical weapons ...................................... 56
Removing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from power .......... 16
Stopping the fighting between government and rebel forces ..... 15
None (VOL) .................................................. ............................. 4
All (VOL) .................................................. .................................. 4
Not sure .................................................. ................................. 5

[jk]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

Both Iran and Saudi Arabia want to be the 'leader of the Arab world' - and will act accordingly.

iranians are not arabs. they each want to be the leader of the muslim world, or - more modestly- they each want to be the top regional power in the middle east.

[charliebrown]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

does it really matter if I die of aphyxiation due to a nerve agent, or die having my body shredded by shrapnel?

[GRG55]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

...From my view - the religious angle is purely an excuse. Both Iran and Saudi Arabia want to be the 'leader of the Arab world' - and will act accordingly.

Yes, Sunni/Shiite has been in conflict for hundreds of years.

Once again, the point?

....

There is no separation of church and state in the Muslim world.

Seems to me it's rather difficult to ignore that the "Arab Spring" has degenerated into a chaotic sectarian mess...

[aaron]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

nerve agent is very painful way to go.
shrapnel, you either die quickly, or you bleed out, or you get morphine.

I thought that the reason nerve gas is banned was because it was not useful for the big armies (powerful).
The only reason to keep the stock piles is to terrorize. Their only use is to kill civilians.

Lobbing the gas was especially done to kill the families living there. It is a tool of extermination, not warfare.

[dcarrigg]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

does it really matter if I die of aphyxiation due to a nerve agent, or die having my body shredded by shrapnel?

A similar question I've often wondered is what makes the chemicals in mustard gas worse than the chemicals in a thermobaric bomb. They're both a chemical mechanism for killing people. And they're both quite effective at exterminating people in an area indiscriminately. I guess it's just that the mustard gas is cheaper?

I ask the same question about jets and drones. What's the difference between a guy with a joy stick killing you a few thousand feet away and one with a joystick killing you a few thousand miles away? Yet drones are somehow scarier. Maybe it's just that they're cheaper again?

That's all I can figure.

[c1ue]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

iranians are not arabs. they each want to be the leader of the muslim world, or - more modestly- they each want to be the top regional power in the middle east.

Quite correct. My point remains unchanged: the issue isn't a religious one per se - it is a straight out power struggle.

One in which the US has thrown its lot with Saudi Arabia - and in the process has alienated a nation which otherwise has every reason to be a US ally.

nerve agent is very painful way to go.
shrapnel, you either die quickly, or you bleed out, or you get morphine.

Really? There's no pain associated with getting bits of your adjacent soldier's bones blown into your body?

That's what modern explosives do.

I thought that the reason nerve gas is banned was because it was not useful for the big armies (powerful).
The only reason to keep the stock piles is to terrorize. Their only use is to kill civilians.

Totally wrong. It was banned because the modern armies in World War I used them so effectively against each other. Being a soldier sucks in the best of times - forcing the troops to wear gas masks - now full NBR - on top of that makes it even worse.

Lobbing the gas was especially done to kill the families living there. It is a tool of extermination, not warfare.

I doubt that. Gases are great for clearing out entrenched troops - which are otherwise extremely difficult to clear out. That's what they were used for in World War I, and what flamethrowers were used for in World War II, with the successor being the napalm bomb in Korea and Vietnam.

Yes, chemical weapons attack everyone in the area - but that's no different whatsoever than throwing down 18 tons of bombs from a single B52, dropping 18000 tons in Desert Storm, or dropping 7 million tons on Vietnam.

A similar question I've often wondered is what makes the chemicals in mustard gas worse than the chemicals in a thermobaric bomb. They're both a chemical mechanism for killing people. And they're both quite effective at exterminating people in an area indiscriminately. I guess it's just that the mustard gas is cheaper?

The difference is - there are few countermeasures vs. thermobaric or cluster bombs, but you can wear NBR vs. mustard.

If combat troops on all sides had to wear NBR in the Middle East - the conflicts would end a lot quicker. From heat prostration, if nothing else.

[Forrest]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

I doubt that. Gases are great for clearing out entrenched troops - which are otherwise extremely difficult to clear out. That's what they were used for in World War I, and what flamethrowers were used for in World War II, with the successor being the napalm bomb in Korea and Vietnam.

Yes, chemical weapons attack everyone in the area - but that's no different whatsoever than throwing down 18 tons of bombs from a single B52, dropping 18000 tons in Desert Storm, or dropping 7 million tons on Vietnam.

Originally Posted by dcarrigg

A similar question I've often wondered is what makes the chemicals in mustard gas worse than the chemicals in a thermobaric bomb. They're both a chemical mechanism for killing people. And they're both quite effective at exterminating people in an area indiscriminately. I guess it's just that the mustard gas is cheaper?




The difference is - there are few countermeasures vs. thermobaric or cluster bombs, but you can wear NBR vs. mustard.

If combat troops on all sides had to wear NBR in the Middle East - the conflicts would end a lot quicker. From heat prostration, if nothing else.

Last edited by c1ue; Today at 08:29 AM.

+1

[touchring]

Re: "THEY" are going to attack...........

A similar question I've often wondered is what makes the chemicals in mustard gas worse than the chemicals in a thermobaric bomb. They're both a chemical mechanism for killing people. And they're both quite effective at exterminating people in an area indiscriminately. I guess it's just that the mustard gas is cheaper?

What's the difference between a 100Megaton plutonium weapon and a thermobaric bomb. They're both a chemical mechanism for killing people. And they're both quite effective at exterminating people in an area indiscriminately. I guess it's just it cost less to use plutonium say to wipe out half a million people.

Jokes aside, I think the main difference between gas and thermobaric is that gas is easier to conceal and for terrorists to use. A 5kg sarin gas canister can definitely kill more people than a 5kg thermobaric.