If it's just posturing to get Assad to... give up his stockpiles, then I get it. But if it's just to scare him in to not doing it then it makes no sense. Like telling him "You can do it this one time, but boy if there's a second... watch out."
And if it's to actually attack and stop him for good... why did they wait until nerve gas was used? The several hundred dead here matter more than the 100,000 before them? They already knew he had the supposed largest stockpile of chemical weapons, and they knew they might get used. Why wait until they're actually used to act against him using them? If the idea is to "save civilian lives" then the sentiment is two years and 10% of a million people too late. Future attacks later or not, ostensibly it's about stopping innocent deaths... so what was the holdup with all those other countless innocent deaths? Do they not get to count unless their death was by sarin?
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If it's just posturing to get Assad to... give up his stockpiles, then I get it. But if it's just to scare him in to not doing it then it makes no sense. Like telling him "You can do it this one time, but boy if there's a second... watch out."And if it's to actually attack and stop him for good... why did they wait until nerve gas was used? The several hundred dead here matter more than the 100,000 before them? They already knew he had the supposed largest stockpile of chemical weapons, and they knew they might get used. Why wait until they're actually used to act against him using them? If the idea is to "save civilian lives" then the sentiment is two years and 10% of a million people too late. Future attacks later or not, ostensibly it's about stopping innocent deaths... so what was the holdup with all those other countless innocent deaths? Do they not get to count unless their death was by sarin?
Jaden and Hitchens pointed this out as well. I suppose we simply find the use of chemical weapons to be especially odious. Hypocritical, I know.
Originally posted by Lord Lucien
If it's just posturing to get Assad to... give up his stockpiles, then I get it. But if it's just to scare him in to not doing it then it makes no sense. Like telling him "You can do it this one time, but boy if there's a second... watch out."And if it's to actually attack and stop him for good... why did they wait until nerve gas was used? The several hundred dead here matter more than the 100,000 before them? They already knew he had the supposed largest stockpile of chemical weapons, and they knew they might get used. Why wait until they're actually used to act against him using them? If the idea is to "save civilian lives" then the sentiment is two years and 10% of a million people too late. Future attacks later or not, ostensibly it's about stopping innocent deaths... so what was the holdup with all those other countless innocent deaths? Do they not get to count unless their death was by sarin?
Because people willing to use chemical weapons indiscriminately are a FAR greater potential menace, both practically and morally. Simple as that. That sort of thing has to be stopped pretty much immediately. Yes, it crosses a moral line. No, that is not in any way hypocritical.
This is not a cover or an excuse. There is no ulterior motive as, if anything, the US doesn't want the rebels to win and there is pretty much no good political angle for any western country to get involved (else we would have intervened a la Libya a while back). It's as straightforward as stopping the maniac regime using chemical weapons, something that causes broad agreement. Chemical weapons have the potential to cause mass death far beyond the current scale, and so anyone trying to make even the smallest use of them has to get stomped into the ground to make it clear that no-one is ever going to be allowed even to consider such things. So, yes, the use of chemical weapons completely changes the situation.
Those doubting the evidence are just squawking- particularly about forensics. The independent medical organisations there have confirmed they are treating people for chemical attacks and not even Russia and China are denying chemical weapons were used- that argument is over. The only detail to be confirmed now is who used them.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
If gibberish is all you have to add, don't bother posting.
Should maybe take your own advice given that your post was full of it.
Stamp on the 'maniac' regime to punish them for using chemical weapons which you then admit that there is doubt it was even them. And you also say forensic evidence is irrelevant despite the fact that it's forensic evidence that would be able to tell you who manufactured it and so who was likely to have supplied it and used it. It would tell you exactly where it was used and how it was delivered and provide yet more evidence of who may be responsible. But na. Videos of victims and doctors who can only say that chemical weapons were used but not by who and, of course, conveniently ignoring Carla Del Ponte's official UN report. That's enough to sanction another highly successful wester 'intervention' in an Arab/Muslim country like iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya etc.
LET'S GO!!!
Oh wait. Who's gonna stomp on these guys
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/the-u-s-and-israel-have-used-chemical-weapons-within-the-last-8-years.html
Nothing hypocritical though
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Those doubting the evidence are just squawking- particularly about forensics. The independent medical organisations there have confirmed they are treating people for chemical attacks and not even Russia and China are denying chemical weapons were used- that argument is over. The only detail to be confirmed now is who used them.
No one is doubting that chemical weapons were used. The little detail of "who used them" is a really big issue given that the international community plans to bomb the people who used them.
Originally posted by UshgarakWhat the other two said.
Because people willing to use chemical weapons indiscriminately are a FAR greater potential menace, both practically and morally. Simple as that. That sort of thing has to be stopped pretty much immediately. Yes, it crosses a moral line. No, that is not in any way hypocritical.This is not a cover or an excuse. There is no ulterior motive as, if anything, the US doesn't want the rebels to win and there is pretty much no good political angle for any western country to get involved (else we would have intervened a la Libya a while back). It's as straightforward as stopping the maniac regime using chemical weapons, something that causes broad agreement. Chemical weapons have the potential to cause mass death far beyond the current scale, and so anyone trying to make even the smallest use of them has to get stomped into the ground to make it clear that no-one is ever going to be allowed even to consider such things. So, yes, the use of chemical weapons completely changes the situation.
Those doubting the evidence are just squawking- particularly about forensics. The independent medical organisations there have confirmed they are treating people for chemical attacks and not even Russia and China are denying chemical weapons were used- that argument is over. The only detail to be confirmed now is who used them.
The very knowledge of Syria's chemical arsenal should have "changed the situation" long ago. Once it became clear that he was willing to fight and kill his own people, his regime should have been stamped down lest they ever used them. Iraq got an invasion based on the belief that there was WMDs--and they weren't in the midst of a civil war that had killed over 100,000. Libya got a no fly zone despite Gaddafi not having any chemicals or WMDs. So on a "moral" level, what is the justification being given for not stepping in over 2 years and far, far more deaths? Why did they have to wait for the actual use of the chemicals everyone knew was there before action was taken?
Originally posted by Master Han
^why did Britain and France wait until Hitler invaded Poland to declare war?
I see what you are trying to say, but the comparison isn't entirely apt. Maybe in the case of war-fatigue among the population the two situations are similar. In the case of WW2, its more that the allies didn't have a negative view of Hitler and saw his annexation of former German territories as sort of a natural fallout from the events of WW1. There was a period where, because of the power of the German economy in the face of worldwide economic depression, Hitler was highly regarded and fascism itself looked very appealing to people.
There are numerous reasons the west is dragging its feet in Syria (the Russia/Iran issue, the strength of Assad's military, no geopolitical or economic gain to be made, no groups to support that can be trusted if they gained power... etc), thinking Assad is a good guy who is leading the way for a new world economic system is not one of them.
/rambling
I first heard about it this Monday on NPR. A guy from there called and told them about it.
I think we need to eliminate Assad's entire operation in a series of well placed and well timed critical strikes. Than have a whole humanitarian team go in and compromise with him like psychologists with a lunatic. Offering him such a vast cornucopia of option that he'll happily settle for something, he'll have nothing else left.
I don't find one cliche dictator insurmountable as much as I find it frightening that we falsely accused Russia of wanting to go Cold War over our intervention, when they actually stated the contrary.
Either they're war mongering, or they're infighting with warmongers. In doing that they've put us in a difficult position.
I think we mainly just made that up to avoid arousing too much animosity from mr. third world anonymous ex-dictator affiliated terrorist who wants to come here and blow some helpless families apart and look at the limbs for I guess a few laughs.
Kinda like our own citizens did at last year's Marathon.
We're at war with neanderthals who are overpopulating this planet.