My hunch is that embedded into these so called Syrian rebels would ne the CIA or some hired guns like Blackwater, Haliburton types that are among those who died in the chemical attacks and that is why D.C. is so up in arms. Big whoop. All is fair in war and if we are arming rebels and helping them out, what is the difference between chemical attacks and bullets when the current regime is being protective of its turf?
Originally posted by red g jacks
i can understand that. the thing about striking that worries me is a) a few strikes escalating into something more and b) possibly seeding future blowback.
The problem with enforcing any law, be it international or not, is that it may escalate if the criminal resists, and you may get blowback from the people you are criminalizing. I can't say I've ever seen someone say we shouldn't arrest murderers because their gangs might fight back.
The issue is, do chemical weapons pose enough of an international threat to justify taking those risks, those risks will exist no matter what.
Originally posted by red g jacks
i guess i'm just weary of the whole idea of intervening in other countries affairs in general and in that region in particular. i get that chemical weapons are bad though i do sort of think we are very selective in deciding when red lines have been crossed. we sat back while genocide went down in sudan, we let nukes proliferate in countries which aren't allowed to have them, and we aren't motivated to strike by thousands of innocent syrians slaughtered by conventional means.
well, sure, but it isn't a humanitarian intervention. At some point, people decided that chemical weapons were a thing different from other weapons, and their use must be stopped.
Originally posted by red g jacks
i've heard that the ban of the use of chemical weapons is one of the few successful international norms... but since we're apparently so hit or miss at enforcing these norms i'm tempted to think that the success is incidental and not particularly dependent on our actions.
yes and no. I mean, Saddam used them in the Iran-Iraq war, the Israelis use white phosphorous, the USSR used them in Afghanistan, there are even accusations of the American military using napalm as recently as the first Gulf War.
I mean, yes, it is successful, there are no armies who have standard chemical units as part of their main combat forces, but that doesn't mean it isn't used. However, this lack of standardization of the weapons I can only attribute to the international ban. Why else wouldn't America have a standard chemical weapons unit? Sure, compared with modern artillery the argument can be made that they aren't the most effective, but there are still situations where chemical agents would be far more useful, yet the most powerful armies in the world refuse to use them as standard practice. I don't feel this is "coincidental" to them being banned, and I'd offer the example of depleted uranium to show this: not banned, has long term toxic effects, kills and disfigures generations of civilians, still in common use. The military isn't known to tie its own hands for moral reasons, as can be seen with the American refusal to join a ban on landmines or cluster bombs.
Originally posted by Sheldon
what is the difference between chemical attacks and bullets
srsly?
Originally posted by SamZED
No. Not unless you pay for a cup of coffee that is.[B] Never claimed it started as a foreign conspiracy, i know it didn't. That why I said "not any more" because that's exactly what is right now. Its Asad's forces vs mercenaries, rebels play a minor role at this point. Personally know families who joined the revolution, most of them say "fcuk it, not worth it" want it to stop and are more affraid of the mercanries than they are of Asad. Will go as far as say it would've been all over by now if it wasnt for mercenaries from Jordan, Turkey etc adding fuel to the fire.
From what I've seen, jihadists spearhead the attacks and are often the deciding factor in many rebel victories, but the majority of the actual troops taking part in the fighting are from the FSA or affiliated groups. What complicates the matter is that a lot of non-jihadist rebels realize that Qatar and Saudi Arabia give priority to Salafists when giving out money and equipment, so you have entire brigades of secular or non-jihadist rebels who start waving black flags, growing their beards long, and making half-hearted promises to impose strict sharia. Similar things happened in China and Yugoslavia during WW2, where in both cases the non-Communist forces were actually shouldering the greatest burden, but through a combination of clever propaganda, ideological zeal, and (though I'm not drawing connection to the present situation) lots of support from Soviet Russia, the Communists came out looking more effective and got the lion's share of material support from the Allies.
A new study of images apparently from the Syrian attack last month concludes that the rockets delivering toxic sarin gas to neighborhoods around Damascus held up to 50 times more nerve agent than previously estimated, a conclusion that could solve the mystery of why there were so many more victims than in previous chemical attacks.The study, by leading weapons experts, also strongly suggests that the mass of toxic material could have come only from a large stockpile. American, British and French officials have charged that only the Syrian government and not the rebels was in position to make such large quantities of deadly toxins.
Very interesting. One of the experts seems to think that both the opposition and the government would be capable of this, while another says that such a feat would be "beyond the opposition in its wildest dreams."
I think the easiest group to rule out would be the Islamists, for the simple reason that if they had access to that much nerve gas and had the technical skill to load it onto rockets they'd already be engaged in a full on offensive against the government forces, Hezbollah, and (most likely) Israel. There's still the chance that this is a false flag perpetrated by the secular rebels, but for me that strains credibility.
I still stand by my position that this was Al-Assad testing the resolve of his international critics and seeing how much he could get away with when he thinks he's winning anyway.
Originally posted by Supra
And why the fck don't we have a weapon to destroy those Chen weapons from the air....
We don't....but France does. Ballistic missile equipped with a low yield ERW warhead.
They want this more than anyone, they have a large army, and they not only invented but have gone the further with ERW's than any other country. When France has a weapon so frightening in concept that the US, USSR, and China abandoned it in the middle of the Cold War, maybe France should swing its nuts around when the US may not particularly want to?
Originally posted by Darth JelloI got some French in me! In with the Irish and Sicilian.
We don't....but France does. Ballistic missile equipped with a low yield ERW warhead.They want this more than anyone, they have a large army, and they not only invented but have gone the further with ERW's than any other country. When France has a weapon so frightening in concept that the US, USSR, and China abandoned it in the middle of the Cold War, maybe France should swing its nuts around when the US may not particularly want to?
BACK ON TOPIC: I agree wholeheartedly with the tact Eric errr Supra proposes. We eliminate his army's ability to function, and then rationally negotiate reasonable terms of surrender.
See, I don't know if I agree that it's America's responsibility. If there's going to be a full scale military intervention to force Al-Assad to the table, it would be better for Jordan and Turkey to do it, seeing as they have an actual direct interest in ending the war with Assad out of power in addition to humanitarian concerns.
Originally posted by Omega VisionThat makes sense as well. And France is more well-equipped than us, apparently. The real issue of the modern world is the lack of international collaboration, and national or even communitarian collaboration for that matter.
See, I don't know if I agree that it's America's responsibility. If there's going to be a full scale military intervention to force Al-Assad to the table, it would be better for Jordan and Turkey to do it, seeing as they have an actual direct interest in ending the war with Assad out of power in addition to humanitarian concerns.
Reason being: Humans only act on the precipice. We will most likely only cooperate and change when we're forced to, when we've no options left. If we weren't the kinds of beings who put things off, we wouldn't have so much to catch up on.
Originally posted by Oliver Northgood point. i guess the answer for me would be dependent on the efficacy of our intervention in preventing future chemical attacks. if the efficacy is relatively high, maybe it's worth the risk. if it's simply a matter of principle which might not in the end be that effective, then i'd say not.
The problem with enforcing any law, be it international or not, is that it may escalate if the criminal resists, and you may get blowback from the people you are criminalizing. I can't say I've ever seen someone say we shouldn't arrest murderers because their gangs might fight back.The issue is, do chemical weapons pose enough of an international threat to justify taking those risks, those risks will exist no matter what.
well, sure, but it isn't a humanitarian intervention. At some point, people decided that chemical weapons were a thing different from other weapons, and their use must be stopped.didn't they ultimately decide that based on humanitarian considerations? and didn't the world ultimately also decide those other things i listed are unacceptable and must be stopped? maybe i don't actually get why it's so different.
yes and no. I mean, Saddam used them in the Iran-Iraq war, the Israelis use white phosphorous, the USSR used them in Afghanistan, there are even accusations of the American military using napalm as recently as the first Gulf War.well to be honest i didn't mean to suggest that the lack of chemical weapons use wasn't based on the international ban. more that maybe it isn't dependent on us attacking regimes that break the norm. i mean the only example i can think of is saddam who we did eventually go after, though not for his use of chemical weapons.I mean, yes, it is successful, there are no armies who have standard chemical units as part of their main combat forces, but that doesn't mean it isn't used. However, this lack of standardization of the weapons I can only attribute to the international ban. Why else wouldn't America have a standard chemical weapons unit? Sure, compared with modern artillery the argument can be made that they aren't the most effective, but there are still situations where chemical agents would be far more useful, yet the most powerful armies in the world refuse to use them as standard practice. I don't feel this is "coincidental" to them being banned, and I'd offer the example of depleted uranium to show this: not banned, has long term toxic effects, kills and disfigures generations of civilians, still in common use. The military isn't known to tie its own hands for moral reasons, as can be seen with the American refusal to join a ban on landmines or cluster bombs.
Originally posted by Omega VisionI was referring to the counter air-strike capabilities of the French missile Darth Jello spoke of.
Not at all.
Of course the United States military is Numero Ono. If the issue here was more about delivering the most hurt than we win be default, but for certain things, like beefing the rebel's defenses, you need to install the best tech. Of course, now that I think about it, it's silly to waste time defending when the most efficient way to take Assad out is to just lay the smack down on his resources.
What Each of the Allies' Intelligence Says About the Syrian Chemical AttacksThe British say that there have been 14 Syrian chemical attacks since 2012 and that the last, the most horrific, killed “at least 350” Syrian civilians. The Americans count fewer attacks, but put a stunningly higher, quite precise number on the casualties: 1,429.
[...]
All [agencies] come to the same bottom line: all the attacks involved sarin gas, only the Assad government had control over the chemical agents, and, whether they were premeditated or the result of “sloppiness,” as one senior American official put it, the results were devastating.
[...]
[The] very public way that the Americans, French, British and Israelis have felt it necessary to publish their evidence — even where it differs — underscores the huge post-Iraq sensitivities involved in justifying the need for new military involvement in the Mideast. And until the most recent gas attack in Syria, reliable assessments of the use of chemical weapons proved particularly difficult.
[...]
[A] look at the intelligence judgment made public by the United States, Britain, France and Israel suggests that the United States was reluctant — and slow — to conclude that small-scale chemical weapon attacks began in Syria last year. And even today, Washington cannot agree with its allies on exactly how those attacks began.
The Israelis were the first to press the case, declaring in an April 23 presentation at a security conference that it had clear evidence that Syrian forces had used chemical weapons on a small scale. But no sooner had a senior official of Israel’s military intelligence unit laid out his case than Secretary of State John Kerry, seeing the reports, called Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, apparently out of concern that such a declaration would force Obama’s hand. Kerry told reporters that the Israeli leader “was not in a position to confirm” the intelligence assessment. American officials said later they had concerns about the chain of custody on hair, blood and urine samples from some of those attacks, and feared the evidence might have been tinkered with by the opposition.
Now the British say that in their judgment, the Syrian government “used lethal C.W. on 14 occasions from 2012,” adding that “this judgment was made with the highest possible level of certainty following an exhaustive review.” They added, “A clear pattern of regime use has therefore been established.”
While the United States eventually came to a similar conclusion, it was with only a moderate level of confidence —meaning that some of the nation’s 16 intelligence agencies disagreed. Those internal debates were not resolved until the Aug. 21 attack, on which all the agencies agreed.
It is the French who have been the most specific. They argued in their Monday assessment that the Aug. 21 attack involved “massive use of chemical agents” against civilian populations in several suburbs of Damascus. It was followed by “significant ground and aerial strikes” with conventional munitions that were aimed at the “destruction of evidence” in those areas.
The French also warned that “our services possess information, from a national source, that leave one to think that other actions of this nature could again be conducted.”
[...]
American officials admit they were caught off guard by a string of smaller attacks starting in March, with no established way of gathering evidence of chemical weapons use.
But in the Aug. 21 attack, there were so many dead and so much forensic evidence that only Russia has argued that it was the rebels themselves who launched the attack — and they have offered no details to back that claim.
[...]
[The] French have offered a detailed accounting [of Syria's chemical weapon stockpile, among the largest in the world], including “several hundreds of tons of sulfur mustard” and “tens of tons of VX,” among the most toxic chemical agents. The French also speak of “several hundreds of tons of sarin,” and in the closed-door sessions U.S. intelligence officials tell lawmakers they believe that the Syrian forces are using sarin exclusively in their attacks.
Unit 450, the secretive Syrian air force organization that controls the country’s chemical weapon stockpiles, is a highly vetted outfit that is deemed one of the most loyal to the Assad government[.]
[...]
According to a French intelligence assessment of Syria’s chemical weapons program, Unit 450 “is in charge of the filling of chemical ammunitions, as well as the security of chemical sites and stockpiles.” The Israelis bombed missiles in a convoy just outside one of the center’s crucial sites in January.
Only Assad and senior members of his Alawite clan are authorized to employ the deadly arsenal[.]
[...]
But no one can agree on a motive for Assad in the Aug. 21 attack. Some American officials believe that the intent was to continue low-level chemical attacks that would prove hard for the West to prove, and the American assessment said “regime officials were witting of and directed the attack.” The British are more circumspect: “There is no obvious political or military trigger for regime use of C.W. on an apparently larger scale now.”
It is a good article in general, but I've highlighted a couple of points:
- It seems claims of rebels using chemical weapons were created by the American government as a way to delay or avoid military action
- America has 16 intelligence agencies?
- It appears the only argument left suggesting the Syrian military didn't use CW is to say "why would they?"
just to be "balanced", a ~30min interview with a reporter from McClatchy, Mark Seibel, who does his best to question each part of the government's story. It is 24 hours old, so I'm not sure how outdated it is (today is sept 5th), as a lot of this stuff moves quickly. He does a good job of casting doubt on the "facts" being presented, but in most cases, such as suggesting the rebels might have used the CW, he isn't presenting an alternative story, rather, just suggesting why the case from the American government isn't 100% absolute. Anyways, really good interview:
part 1
YouTube video
part 2
YouTube video
idk, my thoughts are, unless the American, British, Israeli and French governments are all bold face lying about their intelligence (which is something I would absolutely believe, though just think is less likely), it seems like the attack was part of (though clearly the largest of) many such CW strikes made by the Syrian forces, with or without Assad's explicit consent/orders. That there are inconsistencies in the stories or that the governments may be lying in order to garner support for their policy goals is both expected and unfortunate, however, unlike Iraq, I think there is some kernel of truth to the idea that Assad's forces are using WMDs, regardless of how that message is being put forth to the people of America/etc.
Actually, I think it is really unfortunate (I'll probably cover this more in a proper reply to red g) that the main arguments being made for intervention are still cloaked in the idea of humanitarianism rather than international law and order. Agree or disagree about intervention, I think it is much harder to be cynical about a politician saying "we are only intervening to end the CW attacks and have no other interests", rather than trying to explain why it is only now, after 100 000 deaths, we choose to do something, and hey, ignore all those other times we did nothing (Rwanda, Bahrain, Burma, Congo, etc, etc, etc). Calculated realpolitik has to resonate with some people, no?
[also, just to throw it out there, while I'm being more swayed day-by-day, I'm really not behind intervention]
Also this...
I wont post any more, not trying to spam, just think there is a meaningful issue addressed in the video that might be germane for conversation.
Originally posted by Supra
Not one country has actually signed anything with the US including and most importantly UK..UK said no.
This is why you shouldn't answer week old posts as if they're new, especially on a current events topic.