Syria: a Defining Moment For Chemical Weapons?

Lasrick writes "Oliver Meier describes the long-term significance (even beyond the incredible human suffering) of Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons on August 21, and outlines six major steps for response. Quoting: 'The attack in August is a historic event with wider implications. Its impact on the role of chemical weapons in international security in general will depend primarily on the responses. Looking beyond the current crisis, failure to respond to the attacks could undermine the taboo against chemical weapons. ... First, a unified response by the international community is essential. The strength of international norms depends primarily on great-power support. So far, such a unified response is sorely lacking. Judgments about how to react to the use of chemical weapons appear to be tainted by preferences about the shape of a post-war Syria. This has already damaged the international chemical weapons legal regime.'"

Comments

I never understood the principle.

[nospam007]

weapons that deliver a chemical reaction causing eye, skin and lung damage are bad.

weapons that deliver a chemical reaction causing bits of metal flying through your eye, skin and lung are good.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[mhajicek]

Not that the US follows the Geneva Convention either. Depleted Uranium and white phosphorous are somehow excusable violations.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[etash]

don't pretend to be dumb, it's the low cost, scale and easiness of chem/bio which makes them so awful.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[slick7]

weapons that deliver a chemical reaction causing eye, skin and lung damage are bad.

weapons that deliver a chemical reaction causing bits of metal flying through your eye, skin and lung are good.

Is this the reason the Obamanation regime is trying to bury the Benghazi fiasco?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

People that lead others simply because they are born into a family that has control.
People that kill others just because they don't believe the same crazy shit.
People that think they are better than others because of money or political power.
With so much better things to do why is the world is still fucken nuts !

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why all countries don't just sign a treaty banning all killing during war.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ben who? Ohh, that thing where 4 people died last year that one time.

I'm more concerned about the number of people crushed by vending machines.

Benghazi outrage is not happening GOP, it's never gonna happen.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

There were many more embassy attacks and many more dead under Bush than Obama, but you Republicans didn't care then. Probably still don't beyond politics. Which is likely considering you guys decided that there shouldn't be increased funds for embassy security.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Obamanation = abomination?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Depleted uranium is not a chemical weapon, regardless of the ill effects that are comming up as a result of exposure. The whole point of depleted uranium is that it's high density packs a huge punch of kinetic energy.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

First: These weapons do a lot more that eye, skin, and lung damage.

Second: Bombs that unleash pieces of metal are usually used for specific targets not large populations.

Hope that helps you understand a little better.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[LMariachi]

I thought depleted uranium was used for its mass, not specifically for its long-term toxic effects. Lead is toxic also, after all. And white phosphorus just burns you up faster than conventional incendiaries, what’s the problem there? It’s preferable for people to burn more slowly?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[pianophile]

Benghazi outrage is not happening GOP, it's never gonna happen.

This. Talk about clutching at straws! Hey, GOP, your desperation is showing.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[lxs]

I'm sure that the victims are comforted by the fact that their exposure to deadly chemicals was purely incidental..

Re:I never understood the principle.

[throwaway3637]

Nuclear weapons also just "burn" people. They are not used specifically for their fallout either. What's the problem?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[kthreadd]

Not that the US follows the Geneva Convention either. Depleted Uranium and white phosphorous are somehow excusable violations.

You're missing the point; the US uses these weapons for good, Syria uses it on their own people.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[throwaway3637]

If by for "good" you mean to secure access to things like oil and convert nationalised oil assets to assets for oil programs... then yes "good" is right.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Frankie70]

don't pretend to be dumb, it's the low cost, scale and easiness of chem/bio which makes them so awful.

What's your point - war should be wage only using very expensive and difficult weaponry? Who does that benefit?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[phantomfive]

Given all the lousy things the Obama administration has done, and yet Obama's approval rating remains high, I don't think there's anything he could do to create outrage. In that way he's a lot like Reagan, the 'teflon president,' because no matter how many scandals they went through, people don't seem to care.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[egamma]

Nuclear weapons also just "burn" people. They are not used specifically for their fallout either. What's the problem?

The problem is that nuclear weapons cause too much "collateral damage". As in, not only did the military base cease to exist, but the hospital and schools around it are gone, too. Don't forget the orphanage, the retirement home, and the church/synagogue/mosque/etc.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[throwaway3637]

Ultimately the question is of whether or not a State should be able to assert its authority over the rebels. Many Americans, if not most, are Statists in that they believe the right of their leaders to do that but have been coerced to think that they are the exact opposite which is not at all true. If Americans are not rebelling against their government then why they would support rebellion against another government. It's not as if rebellion will fix the economic problems of the country which is the root cause of the rebellion in the first place. If they are against a non-representative leadership, then if opinion polls are any indication their leadership is not representative of their opinions and ethinicities now is it?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[khallow]

Well, if Bush does it, then it must be ok. I however can't help but not a key difference between those attacks and Benghazi. Namely, that those attacks were much smaller in scale, were over quickly, and for which the US has considerable local protection.

For example, the most similar of the Bush-era attacks involved five gunmen breaking into the consulate at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia and were quickly counterattacked by Saudi "security forces". The Benghazi consulate attacks reported involved hundreds of attackers with no support for US staff from local authorities for about seven hours. And that outcome turned out as uneventful as it did, because someone in Tripoli apparently decided on their own initiative to commandeer an airplane and fly into Benghazi and organize a rescue effort.

Afterward, the Obama administration took it upon itself to blame the Benghazi attacks on a rather offensive YouTube video, but one nobody had heard of before. That was probably because the attacks occurred before the upcoming November elections in the US.

So what makes Benghazi special is the weak tactical situation, the large scale of the attack, and most importantly, the tepid and politically self-serving response of the Obama administration to the attack.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[throwaway3637]

This is blatantly misleading ... Micro nuclear weapons can be strategic and not cause "too much" damage and was ending WWII too much collateral damage considering whole cities were razed by conventional weapons and carpet bombing.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Joce640k]

Second: Bombs that unleash pieces of metal are usually used for specific targets not large populations.

Dresden? Tokyo?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

"don't pretend to be dumb, it's the low cost, scale and easiness of chem/bio which makes them so awful."

Ah the 'C' stands for cheapness. So it's so that poor States can't use Sarin against rich ones that use nukes?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[itsdapead]

What's your point - war should be wage only using very expensive and difficult weaponry? Who does that benefit?

The people who make money from selling "expensive and difficult weaponry", maybe?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[boorack]

Depleted uranium is used because of its pyrophoric properties (in addition to high density). No explosives are needed for it to explode when hitting target. But it is toxic and radioactive crap that causes cancers and birth effects. When oxided, it quickly finds its way to ground water, poisons and irradiates local population for a long time. Just check how Falujah suvrivors are doing these days: 12-fold increase in child cancers, lots of other symptoms remarkably similar to those in Hiroshima. Depleted uranium should be banned for good reasons but it is (still) allowed to use partly because of some technicalities in international law, partly because The Mighty US Army is not going to stop shooting this crap at "liberated targets" and there is nothing on this planet that can force those fucks to abandon it.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[khallow]

12-fold increase in child cancers, lots of other symptoms remarkably similar to those in Hiroshima

Any population would exhibit similar effects just from the increased medical scrutiny. Ie, if you start with a population for which no one is looking for such ailments, and then you start looking in great detail, you will find greatly increased numbers of those ailments. Observation bias is a powerful thing.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[binarylarry]

It's because chemical weapons are only effective against civilian populations. Any well trained military unit will be trained and equipped to deal with them. But it's a horrific way for dictators like assad and hussein to punish unruly subjects.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[cervesaebraciator]

The sad thing is that there's so much to criticize in this administration's foreign policy (e.g. illegal wars in Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, parts of Africa and the destabilization these wars cause, scandalous spying on our allies, etc.). The problem is that, with exceedingly few exceptions, prominent Republicans have no credibility to criticize the President on these issues. If anything, the old Republican establishment's complaint tends to be that the President was not aggressive enough in involving us in illegal wars. Because of this, they like their former presidential nominee have to inflate or even fabricate scandals (see the so-called apology tour in Egypt or the return of the Churchill bust).

I say this as a lifelong Republican: the GOP is currently dominated by short-sighted fools who are completely out of touch with the people, with what it means to govern, and with the real costs of violence. They've forgotten what it means to defend the Constitution, the country, and the people. They recall well, however, the support they receive as faithful supporters of the Military-Congressional-Industrial Complex. Therefore, when the same complaints can be made against Obama (and they can--he was a real coup for the MCI Complex, whether or not the administration sees it in their interests to define a coup), there's no opposition with the credibility to make them.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[wisnoskij]

It is the scale.
Chemical weapons can be taken by the wind and dispersed miles and miles away in any random direction. Killing and maiming everything in their path. And can get into water supplies, and poison stuff for generations.
tactical missiles and grenades will kill indiscriminately for a few meter radius, and as soon as they explode they are not not any more dangerous or bad for the environment than a few plastic cups strewn around.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Peter H.S.]

It is indeed a very complex issue to which there is no easy one line answers. But there is a sort of logic behind why some weapon systems are banned, and others not, or how even legal weapons can be used in an illegal way.

It is not about some weapons being good or bad, or even the amount of suffering they cause at the individuals affected by them. It is all about keeping military actions under control causing the least amount of suffering among soldiers and civilians in relation to the objectives of the military action. A main reason behind this is the axiom, that war directly targeting civilians is illegal.

The problems with weapons of mass destruction, like chemical weapons, are that their effects can't be controlled; they go where the wind blow. Furthermore, they tend to affect civilians much more than soldiers who often are protected against NBC attacks. All in all, using chemical weapons in a city is effectively targeting civilians, not soldiers.

It is in fact difficult to imagine any war, where the use of chemical weapons wouldn't cause disproportional losses among civilians, so returning to the axiom that wars and military actions directly targeting civilians are illegal, it has some kind of logic, that chemical weapons are banned, while targeted weapons like bombs are not.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Creepy]

Unless you're eating the depleted uranium, you probably aren't going to be affected by it. Skin is pretty good at stopping alpha and relatively good at stopping beta radiation (like that stuff you get from the sun). Stomach linings and lungs are not.

White Phosphorus is actually not specifically banned in any treaty except for use against civilian targets. It is used extensively in signaling (i.e. flares), tracer rounds, and to produce large amounts of smoke.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop looking at syria then I guess.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Aonghus142000]

Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just that ignorant? Depleted Uranium is by no stretch of the imagination a chemical weapon and the use of white phosphorus against a human target is a war crime in its own right.

The problem with chemical weapons (Lets call them "War Gasses" to avoid confusion,) is that they are not really effective against a military target. (They can degrade a military unit's effectiveness, but both sides get degraded.) They are, however, wonderfully effective against civilian targets.

The entire purpose of the Geneva Conventions (and the Geneva conventions to the Hague protocols, which are what actually outlaw "the use of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare." Was to avoid civilian casualties (what we call today collateral damage,) and undue suffering of soldiers.)

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Child cancer doesn't go unnoticed anywhere. In less developed nations one might not bother with finding the cause of death after the illness have been untreated.
In any place that isn't Africa the cause of death or cause of illness is figured out and.
The extra medical scrutiny doesn't increase or reduce the number of reported cases of cancer. What it does is that it increases the survival rate by catching the cancer before it is too late to do anything about it.

I don't know shit about medicine, but you don't have to figure out that you are wrong.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[khallow]

Dresden? Tokyo?

; Note he said "usually". And note you give examples that are almost 70 years old. Who's been carpet bombing population centers since? Only example, I know of was during the Vietnam war (technically the Second Indochina War), but that turned out less effective than guided bombs.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[t1oracle]

There is no such thing as a micro nuke. The smallest nukes still have a yield measured in kilotons. The fall out from the blast is not discriminating it will children and soldiers the same. The is no precision with nukes.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Jessified]

Not to mention, we don't seem to have any problem shedding the taboos against torture and killing first responders (Guantanamo and US drone double tap strikes).

Both are war crimes and both are carried out knowingly and intentionally. At this point it would make more sense for Russia to be the human rights watch dog of the world.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[filthpickle]

weapons that kill your own citizens are bad

weapons that you can make a snarky comment on the internet are good.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Second: Bombs that unleash pieces of metal are usually used for specific targets not large populations.

Coventry, London, Berlin, most German industrial cities, virtually EVERY city in Japan other than the five set aside as potential A-Bomb targets (yeah, we put Hiroshima and Nagasaki, among others, on a NO-BOMB list, so we could evaluate the effects of the a-bomb without having to account for the effects of previous bombings).

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Peristaltic]

I thought depleted uranium was used for its mass, not specifically for its long-term toxic effects. Lead is toxic also, after all. And white phosphorus just burns you up faster than conventional incendiaries, what’s the problem there? It’s preferable for people to burn more slowly?

What's your point, Ludwig?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Peristaltic]

You're missing the point; the US uses these weapons for good, Syria uses it on their own people.

Normally, I can spot the implied /irony tag. Tell me that you're being ironic.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Mr. Slippery]

Unless you're eating the depleted uranium, you probably aren't going to be affected by it.

Or breathing it.

"In military conflicts involving DU munitions, the major concern is inhalation of DU particles in aerosols arising from the impacts of DU-enhanced projectiles with their targets. When depleted uranium munitions penetrate armor or burn, they create depleted uranium oxides in the form of dust that can be inhaled or contaminate wounds. The Institute of Nuclear Technology-Radiation Protection of Attiki, Greece, has noted that "the aerosol produced during impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas around the impact sites or can be inhaled by civilians and military personnel." The utilisation of DU in incendiary ammunition is controversial because of potential adverse health effects and its release into the environment." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium#Health_considerations

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they should be, and besides, anyone found standing downrange from our weaponry is a terrorist, by default. The government says so, I'm not lying.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[inhuman_4]

White phosphorous is not illegal, and it is not a chemical weapon.

White phosphorous (WP) is a chemical that burns very hot, very bright, and produces a lot of smoke. This gives WP a number of military uses including incendiary, illumination, and creating smoke screens.

There is nothing illegal about using WP for illumination or smoke screens. In fact it is quite common. In fact it is not even illegal to use it as an incendiary. What is illegal is to use any incendiary on a civilian centre.

It is illegal to use incendiary (fire causing) weapons in urban areas, so no napalm, WP, petroleum jelly, or equivalents. This is because incendiary weapons start fires which kill indiscriminately and can easily create fires too large for firefighting efforts to control. The firebombing of Tokyo (100,000 dead) and Hamburg (42,000 dead) are examples of using incendiary weapons in an urban area on a large scale.

The problem is that the media dumbs everything down to WP == incendiary == war crime. Which is like claiming laser guided bombs = lasers = blinding = war crime. Next time you see someone in the media talking about WP war crimes take a look at the evidence. If the WP didn't start a fire it wasn't being used an an incendiary.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[professionalfurryele]

Dresden and Tokyo are an example of "don't start nothing, wont be nothing". The Blitz, the attacks on Warsaw and Rotterdam, the Rape of Nanking.

Germany and Japan both committed such horrendous war crimes that the rapid destruction of the control those nation states had over their military forces took priority over some of the usual niceties of war.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful??? What moron modded that up?

Chemical weapons are Weapons of Mass destruction. They cause horrible wounds and death over a massiely large area that could could not cover that easily with conventional means. Yes, bombs can do the same damage but you have to put much more effort into doing it so unless you really set your mind to it, it would not happen.
That is the difference between a weapon of destruction and one of mass destruction. Therefore, one is banned, the other is not.

There are also more banned weapons which are not really WMDs, but which are horrible in themselves, like Napalm.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[jeffasselin]

Indeed, what was it that made those 1400 deaths so much worse than the 100 000 previous ones?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Teancum]

With due respect, I think the reason why there hasn't been a carpet bombed city is mainly because the advanced industrial nations have avoided direct confrontations between each other, and that the weapon of choice in such a situation is currently a thermonuclear bomb. Guided bombs are useful if you want to keep the wars "limited" and going after weak nations that thumb their nose at the larger countries.

If a major wars erupts between major military powers, I would say all bets are off. The interesting thing about Syria in particular (since this is the topic at hand) is with regards to whatever Russia may end up doing to support their ally. If American ships were involuntarily resting on the bottom of the Mediterranean Sea, I think you might see some interesting changes in attitude towards these kind of weapons change.

The point of carpet bombing is to demoralize the population of a country so they would be encouraged to "give up" and possibly surrender to the attacking military force. As for how effective that can be is debatable. The bombing of London was pretty much irrelevant so far as giving reasons for the British people to give up, and the same could be pretty much said of Berlin in the 1940's as well. On the other hand, the nuclear bombs used in Japan were effective in terms of getting the Japanese Emperor involved in terms of stopping the war in the Pacific.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[misexistentialist]

They're untargeted.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[khallow]

don't know shit about medicine, but you don't have to figure out that you are wrong.

Well, maybe you ought to learn something first before posting?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all bad, but it's the especially indiscriminant nature of chemical weapons that poses a problem. Shards of metal have someone directing them, hopefully targeting other soldiers on a battlefield and not civilians. It's understood that if you are shooting at an opposing soldier on the battlefield, they are fair game. Gasses permeating the air will target anyone that breathes, which means everyone, whether they are soldier, civilian, doctor, or even people who surrender.

While it's true that it is all still deadly force in war, the person directing it is supposed to be responsible under the Geneva Conventions to make sure that it is not indiscriminant. They are supposed to target other soldiers or people actually fighting on the battlefield. Targetting "everyone who breathes" is not a legitimate military target. Not unless you want to commit war crimes. Firing such weapons into residential areas is an obvious violation of the conventions of war, such as they are.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[AmiMoJo]

The problem with white phosphorus is that it isn't discriminate enough and tends to affect large areas. In war you must avoid hurting civilians and use weapons that destroy specific targets, not areas.

You are allowed to contaminate land either, with uranium or anything else.

If/when the US becomes a war zone you will appreciate the rules.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[budgenator]

We had micro-nuc's like the W48 for the 155mm howitzer had an explosive yield equivalent to 72 tons of TNT (0.072 kiloton). The Tactical Atomic Demolition Munition had a yield of 0.5 KT. All of the sub-KT devices have been removed from service. As far as precision, when a warhead flies halfway around the world and explodes over its target travelling at over 15,000MPH with a Circular Error Probability of 300m, I'd say that was plenty accurate.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[khallow]

Is there any disagreement with the following assertion?

"Bombs that unleash pieces of metal are usually used for specific targets not large populations."

Saying that large countries might some day disregard the current rules of warfare (particularly with weapons that are far more powerful than the bombs above) is relevant how?

Guided bombs are useful if you want to keep the wars "limited" and going after weak nations that thumb their nose at the larger countries.

If the nations of the Second World War had access to reliable guided bombs, you can believe that they would be using them as much as they could for the destruction of ships, factories, bridges, dams, bunkers, underground manufacturing, electrical infrastructure, military leaders, etc. Basically, any identifiable target of military value that you could bomb. The relatively small collateral damage is incidental to the other military advantages of guided bombs. They wouldn't be a minor toy used on "weak countries".

Though I imagine mass bombing (especially, the relatively effective fire bombing tactic) would still be deployed for destroying urban areas. It was that kind of war.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

That makes me wonder, if a country has no military, is it illegal to attack that country since it is completely civilian?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Chemical and Biological agents help offset the massive power imbalance between weak nations and strong modern adversaries- they offer cheap and relatively easy access to MAD, are capable of inflicting heavy casualties on opposing forces, and otherwise greatly complicate matters in case of any invasion or military action.
They are the poor man's WMD.
It is this fact- beyond any other reasons such as high collateral damage and long-term effects (cluster bombs, depleted uranium, much?)- that makes them so unacceptable to the western powers..

Re: I never understood the principle.

[zippthorne]

Wikipedia says that the payload for the Davy Crockett tactical nuclear "rifle" had a yield measured at 10-20 tons, or roughly the same as the all-chemical, moab.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[gtall]

The real issue is the multiplier effect of terrorists getting a chem weapon as opposed to a good old fashioned bomb. A good old fashioned bomb is heavy and its effects are localized. Let a chem weapon go in a high rise and there will be much more death to go around. Also, chem weapons have limited battlefield usefulness, winds tend to dissipate the gas too fast. They are mainly purely people killers, people what tend to congregate in housing communities packed together for that sardine effect so loved and cherished by your basic Islamo-Fascist. Last we checked, the Ba'ath party was a Fascist party, its originators modeled it on Hilter's Nazi party. The Ba'ath party isn't big on the Islamo-Fascists seeing them as contender for power. Mind you, if the Sunni Islamo-Fascists in Syria had access to chem weapons, they'd think nothing of using them against the Alawites or their Christian supporters. Now we see that it isn't only the Sunni who get a thrill out of chemming their opponents like Saddam, Alawite is an branch off Shi'ism, and the Iranians were perfectly fine with Assad using chem weapons against his Sunni pop.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[jfengel]

The problem with white phosphorus is that it doesn't kill people, it maims them. The overall gist of the rules of war is that it's OK to kill people but not to leave them suffering. It's tantamount to torture or terrorism, using fear and pain rather than force to achieve your goals. Ostensibly killing soldiers is part of a just war (making them stop doing whatever it is that justifies your war), while simply scaring people isn't, even though it leaves them alive.

It took me a long time to write that in as neutral a fashion as I could. I'm sure that a great many people would find it a silly distinction. But it really is a key underlying principle for why we have rules of war at all. I personally find the concept kind of odd.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Peristaltic]

Any use of war weapons is a terrible thing; usually the people that demand the weapons' use or make light of it are those who have never been on a battlefield.

That having been said: There are different types and degrees of injury potentially caused by weapons of war (or any weapon); these injuries may be classified by type and degree of acute trauma as well as by long-term, chronic sequelae. Whereas in my opinion the horror of a -fatal- injury from weapons of war cannot really be differentiated or mitigated by weapon type, non-fatal injuries and their long-term effects on the lives of the injured are perceived to be worse if caused by chemical weapons.

For starters, the health facilities of the victim army / society is presented with a bolus of injured as well as fatally injured whose suffering is usually more severe and of a longer duration than that of victims of penetrating trauma. When the chemical injury cases are released from acute care, the long-term morbidity from blistering and/or nerve agents is as gruesome if not more so than that of burns and amputations, but often presents in forms that are not easily diagnosed or treated, adding to the misery and mental anguish of the victims. A old physician I once knew told me that he'd seen two chemical exposure cases that had injuries similar to those caused by war gasses; he considered them "burned" on the inside in addition to the horrible external burns.

Chemical and biological weapons are strategic weapons- they not only create immediate fatalities, they are also used to reduce combat effectiveness by requiring the diversion of resources to care for military and civilian casualties. These weapons also damage the victim's economy and environment, and they induce indirect damage from terror in the victim population.

In my opinion they -are- more terrible than conventional weapons.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

The purpose of war is to kill as many of the enemy in as short a time as possible to demoralize them into surrendering before they can do the same to your people.

The CAUSE for war should never be anything less than being attacked without provocation (specifically 1 team attacking the other, not diplomatic insults.)

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Peter H.S.]

Second: Bombs that unleash pieces of metal are usually used for specific targets not large populations.

Dresden? Tokyo?

Neither the British nor the US bomber command targeted civilians. The bombing of Dresden ( a major military target, besides being an important railway centre) was part of the official "de-housing" policy, where major cities was bombed in an effort to cripple the German war production; not only would such bombings smash infrastructure like railways depots, they would also hit the many factories and small workshops in the city centres, and finally, it was believed, that by destroying the houses in the cities, they would render them useless as production centres.

One could of course argue, that the difference was very small. But anyhow, the German civilian casualties were small compared to German military losses, showing that the allies didn't wage war against civilians. The German civilian loses from air raids are estimated to be around 400.000 (including allied POWs, foreign labourers, paid or slaves etc.). The combined US/UK loses of airmen where around 150.000. Not an impressive kill ratio if the allied had intended a bomber war against civilians.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is BS. We are talking about birth defects, not deaths due to birth defect. Hence it is not really that complex to look at these places and analyze births that occurred before a reference point and births that have occurred after that point. Your sample for observation are still available, you are not dealing with hearsay.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

So mammas and babies are "enemies".

You and Genghis Khan and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Enjoy your time in hell!

Re:I never understood the principle.

[noh8rz10]

Ultimately a kind of game theory, where we all agree that certain things should be banned, and then come down hard on people who do them. It's like how there's an administrative or order barring assassinations of any leader. Everyone agrees to this because anybody assessing a leader at any time.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[noh8rz10]

Unless you're eating the depleted uranium, you probably aren't going to be affected by it.

Or drinking it You know, if it gets into the groundwater For 1000 years

Re:I never understood the principle.

[noh8rz10]

don't pretend to be dumb, it's the low cost, scale and easiness of chem/bio which makes them so awful.

What's your point - war should be wage only using very expensive and difficult weaponry? Who does that benefit?

It benefits the party with greater resources.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

The US killed over a million people in the phillipines pre WW1

whats your point? Are we somehow the 'good guys'?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[khasim]

I personally find the concept kind of odd.

I'm going to guess that you've never been in the military.

Think about a conscript. His country is at war because of his politicians. His personal beliefs don't matter. He either fights or he, at best, is in jail. Remember the kids who went to Canada instead of being drafted to fight in Vietnam?

So the least that the professional soldiers and responsible politicians can do is to make basic rules so that that kid can get back to his pre-war life with as much of his body still intact as possible.

Chemical weapons are a problem because they usually do not kill. It takes a LOT of chemicals and the right environment to kill. But they do tear up lungs and eyes and nervous systems. So the casualties may be able to move themselves but they cannot pick up their old lives again.

Now imagine the impact that has on a country AFTER the war. Thousands and thousands of disabled citizens that have trouble working.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

And it looks bad if a neuro or hemo toxic pesticide is used off-label at 100X concentration. Or if somebody is providing industrial solvents that when doped with a few other chemicals can cut right through collagen and rapidly dissolve and melt a persons flesh off when the smallest amount touches them.

Because then if you're the company that's doing that, instead of providing somebody with agracultural or industrial materials used in typical commerce, you're aiding and abetting the comission of a war crime. And nobody wants that reputation, right?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not what happens that is important. It is who does it.

1. Syrias alleged use of cw - Bad.
2. Israel's actual use of cw weapons - Good.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

You could say the same thing about lead (it's toxic), but we don't call it a "chemical weapon" because it isn't designed to fill the air with something breathable and toxic. Same for uranium. I don't think it's any more poisonous than lead is.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[artor3]

Stop re-writing history. That YouTube video was well known before the attacks, and was the cause of the riots which the attackers used as cover. It wasn't that long ago. Do you really think we've all forgotten?

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Raisey-raison]

Any well trained military unit will be trained and equipped to deal with them.

I don't accept that this point always holds. And not all armies are well trained and equipped.

During the cold war the Soviets developed the Novichok agent - something that the US could not necessarily defend against. If soldiers are wearing gas masks and protective suits, they are less agile and less effective in using regular conventional weapons. This provides the enemy with a tactical advantage. And given that chemical weapons have not been used in a major war by industrialized nations since WW1, much of the technology may have changed. It may be in fact that they do have significant strategic value.

The chemical weapons in Syria worked. The opposition is not well trained and equipped.

And how would bombing Assad help? He is a dictator fighting for his survival and therefore has little to lose. But bombing Syria would kills Syrians, both soldiers and civilians. It would destroy people's homes (why not be empathetic and imagine your own home blown up by a bomb from Syria and the regime shrugging it off as collateral damage). It would destroy people's livelihoods (not to mention that we tend to target infrastructure such as power stations which mean people may lack electricity for months or years and even sewage systems may fail). It would wound people and inhibit their receiving appropriate medical care. It would in short inflict huge suffering.

In short people say that chemical weapons are really bad because they inflict lots of human suffering. So what is their proposed response to their use? Dropping bombs and missiles that will also inflict lots of human suffering. What then is the point?

And why if we have so much moral outrage, do 1000 deaths from chemical weapons necessitate a response, despite the fact that 100,000 deaths from conventional weapons do not?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[theshowmecanuck]

Genghis Khan understood war. You don't. Enjoy your time in the play pen of life. War is war, there are no fucking rules. If the liberals in the west understood that, the middle east would be civilized by now. Grow up.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is nukes cannot be (arbitrarily) scaled down by reducing fissile content. There has to be a critical mass of plutoniun, even if it is used very inefficiently. The deadliest contamination from a single stage plutonium bomb is leftover plutonium. Therefore all micro nukes are as contaminating as any single stage nuke (perhaps even worse than bigger uranium bombs), only with lower spread and higher density.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

don't pretend to be dumb, it's the low cost, scale and easiness of chem/bio which makes them so awful.

What's your point - war should be wage only using very expensive and difficult weaponry? Who does that benefit?

Everybody? Not enabling anyone with a grudge to kill millions is a good idea. Countries are, by and large, rational. Individuals and terrorist groups rarely are.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[amorsen]

White phosphorus burns for a long time. It is not a particularly fast process, unless you happen to be exposed to a lot of the stuff. You cannot extinguish a white phosphorus fire by cooling it down, so water is generally useless for that purpose -- even if you deprive the affected area of oxygen, it will start burning again as soon as you remove the water.

However, burning people alive is considered a legal form of combat, so white phosphorus, napalm, and flame throwers are not in general forbidden weapons.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Pinhedd]

White phosphorous is only banned as a chemical weapon. It is permitted as an incendiary weapon, or as an illumination tool.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

irony is irony whether deliberate or not. good irony is subtle. that was good irony

Re:I never understood the principle.

[phantomfive]

It took me a long time to write that in as neutral a fashion as I could.

You did a good job, I'm having trouble figuring out what you actually feel on the topic (other than you think it's an odd concept).

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Frankie70]

The war in Iraq which killed millions wasn't very rational.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[phantomfive]

I say this as a lifelong Republican: the GOP is currently dominated by short-sighted fools who are completely out of touch with the people

Yeah, sometimes I think I will join the Republican party because of their good principles (fiscal responsibility, compassionate conservatism), then I listen to some Republicans and say, "no way."
Then sometimes I think I'll join the Democratic party because of their good principles (fiscal responsibility, taking care of the poor), then I listen to some Democrats and say, "no way."

The problem isn't either party it's the people in office (and by extension, I suppose, the good judgement of the people who voted them in).

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with white phosphorus is that it doesn't kill people, it maims them. The overall gist of the rules of war is that it's OK to kill people but not to leave them suffering.

Totally wrong. When choosing ammo for rifles etc, they prefer rounds that wound/maim, not kill. Because a wounded soldier cost them more than a dead soldier.

Chemical weapons was "outlawed" only because they are so horrible. Violent death has always been with us. We are used to it to some extent, and most people either die quickly or recover to some useable state. And there is often the option of running away or surrender.

Chemical weapons give horible drawn-out death or disfigurement for anyone who gets in the way. They cover areas, not bullet trajectories. The wounds are unusal and grotesque. So they were "outlawed".

Re:I never understood the principle.

[cervesaebraciator]

I agree. Even so, I'm a party member--though I've never voted for the party's presidential nominee--because I think that our problems won't be addressed in a general election before they're addressed in the primaries. Since so few pay attention to the primaries, and so many to the generals, we end up with choices like the 2012 presidential election: one pro-corporate statist hawk who says nice things about peace and the environment against another pro-corporate statist hawk who says nice things about religion and small government. (Of course it must be admitted that the latter was slightly more of a hawk, so I suppose there's some difference there.)

Mind you, we've only the scarcest hope to change things even in the primaries, but one still tries to do what little can be done.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[idji]

because chemical weapons killed 1400 indiscriminately over a few hours, even when they miss, whereas conventional weapons don't hurt those they missed.
Just be grateful that we have been able to ban some classes of weapons., and work toward banning further classes.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[MrL0G1C]

Doesn't kill people, why would you say that?

White phosphorus victims looks like many dead to me, warning - very graphic.

And what about MK77 Napalm v2.0.

The American military used white phosphorus in Iraq, Fallujah. Perhaps Obama should deal with the extremes committed by his own military before killing thousands more innocent men, women and children.

And what's with using munitions that are radio-active, cue idiots claiming depleted uranium isn't dangerous.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that the US follows the Geneva Convention either. Depleted Uranium and white phosphorous are somehow excusable violations.

I thought depleted uranium was used for its mass, not specifically for its long-term toxic effects. Lead is toxic also, after all. And white phosphorus just burns you up faster than conventional incendiaries, what’s the problem there? It’s preferable for people to burn more slowly?

GP is just being an idiot or pretending to be one. You explained DU pretty well. WP is classified as a conventional weapon under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons which should end the debate, but facts don't sway these people. The US used it illegally in Iraq. Stupid people started calling it a "chemical weapon" after catching the Israelis using it in Gaza as smoke bombs.. to create smoke to mask infantry movements... and they cited it as one more manufactured bit of "evidence" of the "massacre" that never happened. The worst it did was set one person's house on fire.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Mashiki]

So, can you explain why all those "oil" and "other assets" aren't controlled by US companies? And why the price of fuel has gone up a few hundred percent.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Martin Blank]

Chemical weapons are a problem because they usually do not kill. It takes a LOT of chemicals and the right environment to kill. But they do tear up lungs and eyes and nervous systems. So the casualties may be able to move themselves but they cannot pick up their old lives again.

I read somewhere that the overall cost of chemical weapons and conventional weapons per casualty work out to be the same. Chemical weapons on a per-round basis may be more effective (when used to the greatest tactical advantage, and a wind shift can affect that quickly), but the resource costs (additional training, transportation, storage, and protective costs) associated with chemical weapons neutralizes the advantage overall. That military foes will almost certainly already be trained and equipped to deal with a chemical attack further reduces their effectiveness.

Their only effective use remains as a terror weapon, or at best an area denial weapon on retreat to slow the enemy (it's much harder to move as quickly when you're wearing a mask and possibly other gear).

Re:I never understood the principle.

[tinkerton]

That's part of the motivation yes. The same intent is behind the term 'Terrorism' , which in effect is used to condemn every form of asymmetric warfare, and when you're the weaker party all you have is asymmetry.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[expatriot]

You're mistaken. The key to tactical weapons is reflection by, usually, cobalt. You can research this on your own.

Again I wonder why people make authoritative statements that are beyond their education and understanding.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[etash]

therefore we should allow chemical weapons ?

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Kilo Kilo]

Novichok is something that's really frightening, if it's half as bad as it supposedly is. Especially considering all the confusion that followed the fall of the Soviet Union, although we never had that rash of suitcase nuke bombings that we were worried about.

The moral outrage probably comes from the fact that most people don't really have any knowledge of CW, much like radiation. However, sometimes the more you know, the worse it seems.

Most people can understand and come to terms with someone being shot. Watching a group of people suddenly fall on the ground and start doing the floppy fish can be a bit more unnerving.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[DarkOx]

Exactly..

These are my problems with the Geneva Convention and lots of the "just war theory" branches out there:

None of them really address why uniform soldiers are a special class of folks you're allowed to slaughter guilt free. The fact is many of them are conscripts or otherwise don't have much choice in their lot. Many of them don't have a dog in the fight, they are the dog in the fight; they probably just want it over in lots of cases more than they care for the outcome.

If you issue is so import its worth killing and maiming over don't you have duty to win the conflict and settle the matter as quickly as possible? We have various conflicts on a slow burn in the middle east for a century now. People are still die; arguments about people being able to pick up and move on after the 'war' are moot when the war never really ends. Having 'rules' of engagement makes the condition of war tolerable and that isn't a good thing; it reduces interest in lasting peace.

There is no such thing as a civilian target. Militaries don't fight wars societies do. The guy on the line with a gun got there on truck witch rolled on rubber ties made a plant by civilian works, who were able to be there because civilian farms were growing their food, and civilian teachers were watching their kids all day. Again I come back to if the issue was worth killing and maiming over you have both a responsibility to win, and to win a lasting peace. To that end you must defeat the society waging war against you. The only just war is a total, if you don't need to fight a total war, war was probably not the right answer in the first place.

 

Re:I never understood the principle.

[DarkOx]

Your point dos nothing to address the parents contention that they do in fact continue killing and indiscriminately; if in an incidental way. Or is your argument that if I take out the powerstanion with a cruse missile; causing their to be no way to run the waste water treatment plant, resulting in thousands of children being sickened they were some how legitimate military targets?

This punish Assad argument is stupid you punish the average Syrian as much as you punish Assad or any of those in power. Now if by 'limited' you mean just a handful for missiles fired are the personal residences of Assad, and his immediate family. Maybe but we won't do anything that 'limited' and if we did we would be accused of violation or attempted violation the rules around political assassinations.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[DarkOx]

Fucking bullshit. Nobody had seen that video; which having been around for months you want us to accept just happen to lead to a mob all that time later. The press desperate to cover for Obama ran around Libya asking people if they'd seen or even heard about it and the answer was almost always 'No'.

The facts are those attacks were lead by anit-US and Islamic theocracy groups; if they used the video as a cover it was after the fact, certainly not a pretext. It was either an intelligence failure ( probably as we have nothing but SigInt anymore ), or gross negligence by the State Department and the Administration.

You right it has not been long and no we haven't forgotten.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[wisnoskij]

You can take out a powerstation with a screw driver, is your argument that screw drivers are as bad as chemical weapons?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Depleted uranium is heavy. It is frangible, it's more of a glass or ceramic than a metal; when it impacts a target, it shatters into razor-sharp shards that cut in, and shatter into more shards. Then, the uranium dust oxidizes in the air, starting a metal-air fire. Finally, it's toxic and radioactive (mildly), but when the tank crew is full of shrapnel and on fire, that really doesn't matter.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the powerful want to attack that country, then the answer will always be "no", as a law will be scribbled into existence in short order. As such, the question is meaningless - you should whether it is moral to do so.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[w_dragon]

Why don't you ask Tibet, Taiwan, or Palestine?

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like you got your alleged and actual mixed up there buddy. Or perhaps you'd like to provide some evidence to back up your original claim?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

that would include friendlies, if true. "sorry, ma'am, but your boy was a terrorist" too funny.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[ultranova]

But it really is a key underlying principle for why we have rules of war at all. I personally find the concept kind of odd.

Not at all silly. Wars are costly affairs even for winners, so it's in everyone's interest to keep them from getting out of control. World War I is an excellent example of how a regional game of one-upmanship snowballed into an utter worldwide fustercluck. Every time someone went a step farther, someone else responded with two, or another combatant joined the fight.

The ultimate purpose of the rules of war is to keep US and GB's Excellent Iraq Adventure from escalating into World War Part Three: Armageddon. People will cross the line of starting a war in the first place, so you'll need more of them and hope some remain unbroken. Defence in depth and all that. And if they also keep some people unlucky enough to get caught in the mess from getting gruesomely killed or maimed, that's a nice bonus.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole point is who the target is. There is no way to (accurately) choose your target when using chemical weapons, the cloud of gas won't ask if you're an unarmed civilian or an armed combatant. The theory, at least, is that with conventional weapons you only have two (or more) sides fighting each other, trying to spare any civilians who are not taking part in the conflict.

This is why chemical weapons (or other 'weapons of mass destruction') are seen as so bad, because they kill anyone, combatant or not.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

the oil is secured by our forces in iraq and we now get to set the terms, via threats, to who gets it. oil companies are making hella bank. people don't think it was to get us plebes cheaper oil, do they?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

You are an a-historical, racist little shite.

Despite your serious dog-eat-dog bluster, I am pretty sure that on a street, with even footing, that I'd scare your little suburban arse so badly, that the shit, leaking down your leg, would trail all the way back to your mother's house.

So quit it with the armchair machismo, and put your money where your fucking mouth is, child. Grab a rifle, a parachute, and sign up to shoot foreign women in the face. Or close your rancid face, justifying murder.

Don't play this off. I seriously WILL fucking call you out on the street, and we will see who knows about "play pens".

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Rich people make you peasants fight, having first convinced you that you have a dog in the race.

They get richer, while you get deader - and the longer it drags, the more they make.

So? Climb down off that "society" nonsense. DO you actually believe that you are a part of the same society as David Rockefeller or Mikhail Khordokovsky?

Rockefeller is closer to the same society as Bashar Al-Assad, than any of us. It takes billions of dollars of media coverage and public education, to convince us otherwise.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps those oil companies offered more money than the US companies. It's not like the citizenry was supposed to reap any of the benefits. There is a trail of cash leading back to people involved in decisions at all steps of the process. Exactly as planned.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

we put Hiroshima and Nagasaki, among others, on a NO-BOMB list

Actually they were on the "No fire-bomb (conflagration)" list, which was fast becoming the standard method to raze Japanese cities to the ground.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Clsid]

You have to be kidding. There is enough research to back claims that DU is unsafe even if the Army keeps playing it down because of the cost involved. The Navy used Tungsten shells to replace DU for a reason.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Clsid]

It's kind of hard to rebuild in an area where a nuclear bomb was dropped you know.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Ol Olsoc]

Well, maybe you ought to learn something first before posting?

Sir? SIR! Step away from the keyboard, and we will need your slashdot card. NOW! Ignorant posting is a requirement in here.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Clsid]

Which is why the whole chemical weapons red line is a moot point. First there is no proof that the Syrian government did it, and to make matters worse, Syria is part of the 7 countries that never signed the chemical weapons ban, so this is like complaining Israel has nukes when they didn't sign the NPT.

The problem with your rationale is that you, like the crusaders of old, fail to understand that instead of bringing civilization, you will be pushing somebody to find ways to hurt you. So keep it on, and then don't wonder if you get even more terrorism in the West.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Clsid]

Which is exactly why it is a very good idea not to go to war in the first place. What happened to the "defense" part in the phrase Department of Defense.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[shutdown -p now]

Bullshit. Chemical weapons were used more against military targets than they were against civilians, from WW1 to Iran-Iraq War. And they were plenty effective in both cases. Heck, we now have unclassified CIA files where they openly admit that the use of poison gas by Saddam was responsible for many of his successes against Iran.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Clsid]

For good is a very subjective way to say that. I'm sure the fellow humans that are affected with such things would disagree with you, regardless if they hold US citizenship or not. I guess this is how the British justified the atrocities done by the "empire" while its educated citizens thought it was completely alright.

And for what it's worth, some of the UN research team members are starting to say there is a clear indication that it was the rebels, not the government who did it. In any case, there would be no civil war in Syria today if the rebel forces didn't get support fro the outside and were forced to negotiate a peace agreement. So jn a way, both Assad and the West are responsible for what is happening for their failure to sit down in a table and reach an agreement.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ben who? Ohh, that thing where 4 people died last year that one time. I'm more concerned about the number of people crushed by vending machines.

Let me know the next time the federal government tries so hard to cover up their callous disregard for personnel and civilians that they change survivors' names and effectively put them into witness protection because they were victims of a vending machine accident. There is a huge cover up regarding Benghazi, and you're willfully allowing the magician to distract you.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Ol Olsoc]

Unless you're eating the depleted uranium, you probably aren't going to be affected by it. Skin is pretty good at stopping alpha and relatively good at stopping beta radiation (like that stuff you get from the sun). Stomach linings and lungs are not.

White Phosphorus is actually not specifically banned in any treaty except for use against civilian targets. It is used extensively in signaling (i.e. flares), tracer rounds, and to produce large amounts of smoke.

You have definitely never read the msds for unranium. The metal itself is extremely toxic. Assuming the same chemical properties with out the radiation, Uranium would still be a bad thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium#Effects_and_precautions

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Which US forces in Iraq? The Marines guarding our embassy?

Re: I never understood the principle.

[chilvence]

The legality of it doesn't really come into the question. What would happen if anyone attacked Switzerland? Fair enough, it does have an army, but it's a country that has done its level best to mind its own business for hundreds of years. Attacking it would be a political suicide, that would turn everyone against the offending aggressor. Which is more or less what happened to Germany when it attacked Poland.

Essentially. if you attack someone defenceless unprovoked, you might get away with the deed itself, but you have signed your own execution warrant, enjoy the time you have left while the group hunts you down...

 

Re:I never understood the principle.

[shutdown -p now]

It is in fact difficult to imagine any war, where the use of chemical weapons wouldn't cause disproportional losses among civilians

Why imagine it when it actually existed? It was WW1. For that matter, most uses of chemical weapons in Iran-Iraq war were on the battlefield against enemy soldiers, as well.

Yes, using chemical weapons in a middle of a populated city guarantees civilian casualties. But then so do sufficiently powerful bombs, which didn't stop NATO from using them in Belgrade in 1998.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's like how lasers to blind people, or hollow point bullets to maim people are bad. In war, if a wound is not fatal, honor compels us to make it recoverable.

Anyway, this sentiment is sort of like the anti-vaccination sentiment... comes from being a couple generations removed from when it was a huge deal. Read up on World War I.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

But it really is a key underlying principle for why we have rules of war at all. I personally find the concept kind of odd.

The line between war and peace is not as big as you imagine.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lighten up, Francis. You got schooled.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[BasilBrush]

Put it another way, the people that can afford more technical weapons of mass destruction (such as the first world countries) don't like the democratisation of WMDs that chemical weapons represent.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

No there weren't. And you're a fool for believing that.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[BasilBrush]

Pointing out the hypocrisy doesn't mean that the person approves of chemical weapons. It more likely means their condemnation of WMDs goes wider than just chemical weapons, and includes WMDs that the USA considers their right to hold and use.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Then I can plan to see both of you together, wearing gas-masks, in Syria?

Right. "More Doritos, please, Mom..."

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Don't play this off. I seriously WILL fucking call you out on the street, and we will see who knows about "play pens".

And the 2013 Academy Award for best Internet tough guy in a /. argument goes to Jeremiah Cornelius! Congratulations, Jeremiah!

Re:I never understood the principle.

[manu0601]

And for what it's worth, some of the UN research team members are starting to say there is a clear indication that it was the rebels, not the government who did it.

More information for whoever is interested: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

Re:I never understood the principle.

[theshowmecanuck]

They didn't sign a treaty. So it's OK for them to gas people? This is a no win. But really, what kind of a precedent does it set if we do nothing? You have to know that it will become the despot go to weapon if nothing is done about it. But hey if it's not in your back yard, who gives a fuck eh? You know a guy who does this will laugh and play you for a fool if you try to 'talk it out.' And he has places like Russia and Iran and elsewhere he can go for trips. Odessa (the new president of Ukraine is a Russian pawn) is a very nice vacation spot. So if you think he needs to or will go to a place the International Criminal Court can do anything about, you lose again. And all this talk about he's winning so why would he do this. Well sure maybe, 'cause I guess there has never been a dictator who has summarily punished their own citizens in retribution for things far less than trying to kick them out. Asad is not a reasonable guy.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called a multinational corporation.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

No... There are no 'friendlies' downrange. They have been officially designated as 'enemies', that is what they are, by decree... The man with the gun has his orders, and orders are orders.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Cyberax]

WTF? Bulk uranium is NOT pyrophoric, it will NOT burn. Don't believe me? Buy a depleted uranium sample (I suggest http://www.unitednuclear.com/ ) and try to light it.

To actually make it burn you have to grind it into very fine dust. Just like iron or aluminium.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Peter H.S.]

It is in fact difficult to imagine any war, where the use of chemical weapons wouldn't cause disproportional losses among civilians

Why imagine it when it actually existed? It was WW1. For that matter, most uses of chemical weapons in Iran-Iraq war were on the battlefield against enemy soldiers, as well.

Yes, using chemical weapons in a middle of a populated city guarantees civilian casualties. But then so do sufficiently powerful bombs, which didn't stop NATO from using them in Belgrade in 1998.

I am well aware of WWI. In fact, the use of gas during WWI caused disproportional many civilian deaths compared to the minor military death count. The soldiers quickly got gas masks, had extensive warning systems etc, so gas attacks quickly became ineffective in killing soldiers. The civilians didn't protection and warning systems, and as a consequence often died an large numbers if the wind blew over their village.

So WWI completely support what I wrote.

I am not an expert on the Iran-Irak war, but I can assure you there was many civilian casualties from chemical weapons, either because they ware targeted directly, or as collateral damage.
Eg. the Iraqis used mustard gas variations, which doesn't killed immediately (3-5% mortality), but cripples people often for the rest of their reduced life.

People often have a cartoonish perceptions of battlefields, especially WWI, and often have loud opinions about the conduct of the war without ever reading a single scholarly work about it.
Your perception that the war was fought far away from civilians are dead wrong, almost 2 millions civilians died in WWI as a direct result of military action.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Peter H.S.]

That makes me wonder, if a country has no military, is it illegal to attack that country since it is completely civilian?

No, if you by "attack" means "occupy". However, excessive use of force in occupying a country without any military forces would be illegal.
Other things besides excessive use of force could render such an occupation illegal, if it eg. was an unprovoked occupation. (casus belli, aggressive warfare and all that).

An example of an legal occupation of a country without military forces, could be the British occupation of Iceland in 1940.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

I.e. see the use of steel jacketed rounds & targeting of large cal rounds at equipment as correllaries. Steel jacketed rounds will *stop* a solider, without significantly maiming him should battlefield medicine arrive in time. Avoiding soft body targets with large caliber rounds is the same - less chance to maim rather than kill. You're right that it is a somewhat silly distinction, but so was the idea of "stand in a line and shoot" vs guerilla warfare a hundred years ago. I.e. prepare yourself for battle and death vs living in fear of an unknown front line.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think white phosphorus is particulary bad because when you get burns you absorb phosphorus (not good for you at all) and also the smoke can travel quite a long way causing innocent people down the road to get very bad lung conditions. Also it dosn't matter about the intention of use, it matters what the effects are. People get sick from the depleted uranium but i've never heard of any one getting lead possioning from a bullet.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Nidi62]

The problem with white phosphorus is that it doesn't kill people, it maims them. The overall gist of the rules of war is that it's OK to kill people but not to leave them suffering. It's tantamount to torture or terrorism, using fear and pain rather than force to achieve your goals. Ostensibly killing soldiers is part of a just war (making them stop doing whatever it is that justifies your war), while simply scaring people isn't, even though it leaves them alive.

The corollary is that in a war, especially a long one, it is actually better to wound your enemy than kill him. A wounded soldier requires other soldiers to leave combat to carry him to safety, he requires medical staff to take care of him, and if the wound is serious enough (loss of limb or disfigurement) then when he is sent home he has a psychological effect on the population back home, as well as requires resources for his long term care; all of which have a much more considerable impact on a state's ability to wage war than simply killing the soldier would. Ever read soldiers' memoirs or ware diaries? They generally tend to fear getting wounded moreso than getting killed. The rules of war (Geneva Convention, etc) generally walk (or have in the past at least) a rather fine line between effectiveness and survivability of weapons(then of course there's also the protections that are supposed to be afforded to medical personnel as well as wounded combatants).

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

But how would you of started the war if you couldn't claim wmd as a deffence.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Rich0]

Chemical weapons are a problem because they usually do not kill. It takes a LOT of chemicals and the right environment to kill.

There is a bigger problem with chemical weapons - they're highly biased towards killing non-combatants.

Modern armies are equipped for fighting in a completely toxic environment. They don't like to wear all that gear because it slows them down, but using chemical weapons doesn't really provide a military advantage because it slows your own troops down just as much. Sure, the first strike will probably hit harder since nobody is ready for it, but you're not going to achieve a decisive victory just from the first strike.

On the other hand, all that nerve gas floating around is going to kill LOTS of civilians, and generally poison the entire battlefield for quite a while after hostilities are over. Chemical weapons are like landmines on steroids - another weapon that everybody is trying to get rid of. Landmines also don't really stop modern armies - they're equipped to handle them (though unlike chemical weapons they do provide an asymmetric advantage to the retreating force). However, landmines also tend to kill lots of kids/civilians after the war is over.

Oh, and as far as I'm aware chemical weapons are quite deadly. I think the only reason that some may perceive otherwise is that they aren't used much in a serious capacity - most attacks involve less-effective chemicals like sarin, and they're usually deployed by terrorists and such in a crude manner. Even in Syria the sense is that Sarin was the weapon used and they probably didn't use all that much. A large strike using VX with well-designed shells and long-range artillery would probably wipe out a city.

All that said, I don't see international reaction to the Syria incident as being likely to be a deterrent.

If you want to deter an action, then you need to ensure that those contemplating the action have cause to think that really bad things will happen to them if they perform that action which won't happen to them if they don't. From current posturing it sounds like the US is going to fire off a few salvos of cruise missiles - that isn't going to have a strategic impact on the war. There is a good chance the US would have eventually done that anyway. The US also has to worry about the Russian reaction and the possibility of a proxy war. The Syrian regime is also in survival mode - they don't have much to lose.

I'd say the main thing keeping dictators from gassing their populations is that it is more profitable to exploit people than kill them. Most people don't handle dictators right because most people don't have the personality of a dictator.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see why he would use them, syria was winning, what is pissing of the rest of the world going to accomplish?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[slick7]

Given all the lousy things the Obama administration has done, and yet Obama's approval rating remains high,

So says corporate mass media. Go back to your football, American Idol, Game of Thrones, your government has just the cure for you, NDAA.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Life is not just a play pen. Life is also a work of art, a journey, a mystery, an enlightenment. You're so entrenched in your dominator mentality that you actually believe "The Game" is the only metaphor for living. Grow up, you say? Grow up, indeed.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[SniperJoe]

I always harken back to the quote from William Tecumseh Sherman: "War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over."

Of course, he also said, "I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell."

Re:I never understood the principle.

[amiga3D]

Sherman understood this which is why he and his army burned, raped and looted through Georgia. He intended to drive home the message that "war is hell" to the people who supported and provided the opposing army with supplies. To hear people whine today about the unintentional collateral damage occurring is perplexing. War is hell and the end result is death and devastation. It is best to avoid war if at all possible and if not then do whatever it takes to win. After all, the winners get to write the history books.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[theshowmecanuck]

I agree with everything you said. People who think there are or should be rules in war are deluded.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[theshowmecanuck]

Grow up. Stop putting your own motivations on me. I said what I said for my reasons, not yours. So if you want to be racist go right ahead, but I'm not. I don't have your baggage. It was Syrian President Asad who gassed his people. So why are you bitching about the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Unless it is OK for him to do it because what, he's not American? Talk about racism. Or self hatred? Why didn't you equate Asad to Genghis Khan? And regardless, they both knew/know what war is about. It is brutal, and it is sad. It isn't something with rules. That is a politically correct western idea created so that western leaders could sell wars to the public. No. I don't like that Asad gassed his people. But I'm not surprised. It is war. Now quit your tantrum.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[professionalfurryele]

Never said we were the good guys. I said you cant commit an atrocity then act shocked when that atrocity is normalised. If Germany and Japan didn't want the bombing of cities done to them, then they needed to not do it to others first.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll grant that it is not humane, but are you sure it is not rational? Infrastructure in Iraq was rebuild at three-four times the market price. This is paid by US. Iraq owes US this money, along with cost of missiles, bombs and planes and salaries spend for war, which it has to pay with oil...at a fixed price of 18 USD/barrel. War in Iraq is hugely profitable for US, with little human cost. However many hate your guts for killing millions in the process. I, although not hate, have a very dim view of your values. Whether this is rational depends on whether cheap, plentiful oil in exchange of over a million dead Iraqis, and millions hating US is a good exchange.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

"US uses these weapons for good," no because you can and to get your own way no matter what. Umm theres a word of that sort of behaviour ah thats it Bully

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

According to wikipedia, W48 has 13 kg of plutonium, almost 50% higher than lowest possible configuration of critical plutonium, due to its inefficient linear implosion design. Reflection is nothing new, it was used even in Trinity. It is also not magic, you can't possibly make a, say, 4 kg fissile nuke by using it. Please do tell, what is you point? That nukes can be arbitrarily scaled down or that bigger single stage bombs have much higher amount of plutonium, or that the majority of contamination from small bombs come from elsewhere?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

War is war, there are no fucking rules. If the liberals in the west understood that, the middle east would be civilized by now.

If everyone in the West understood war as Genghis Khan did, the Middle East would be a radioactive wasteland by now.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[khallow]

And what's with using munitions that are radio-active, cue idiots claiming depleted uranium isn't dangerous.

Hi.

The point of using depleted uranium in armor piercing rounds is because it is dangerous enough to kill a heavily armored tank and its occupants with a direct, high velocity hit.

As to radiactivity, it's worth noting once again that the actual environmental risk from depleted uranium is due to its chemical toxicity.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[khallow]

Do you really think we've all forgotten?

I don't know. Are you joking or serious? If serious, then I'll answer "a qualified yes, some of us apparently have forgotten".

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Alien1024]

And given that chemical weapons have not been used in a major war by industrialized nations since WW1, much of the technology may have changed.

Vietnam was not a major war, then? Or the US not an industrialized nation?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

The overall gist of the rules of war is that it's OK to kill people but not to leave them suffering.

A counterexample: expanding bullets (e.g. hollow points) are banned, because they're more likely to kill someone rather than to leave them injured.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[1s44c]

I thought depleted uranium was used for its mass, not specifically for its long-term toxic effects.

But it does have long term toxic effects. These are well known to the people who ordered the use of depleted uranium weapons so they can't pretend it's news to them.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[1s44c]

Genghis Khan understood war. You don't. Enjoy your time in the play pen of life. War is war, there are no fucking rules. If the liberals in the west understood that, the middle east would be civilized by now. Grow up.

If there are no rules then why pretend to be offended by chemical weapons?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[hallkbrdz]

It became a puppet for the whims of administrations, more of a Department of Offense. Not that we actually have wars any more - they are all conflicts or "peace keeping" missions, as declaring war is more difficult politically.

If we really had a DoD, we would close all foreign bases, and protect our own boarders.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Archtech]

I said you cant commit an atrocity then act shocked when that atrocity is normalised. If Germany and Japan didn't want the bombing of cities done to them, then they needed to not do it to others first.

So, by your own standards, if the USA didn't want over a million of its own people killed, it needed to not do it to others first.

Unfortunately, it has. Repeatedly.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Archtech]

It's because chemical weapons are only effective against civilian populations. Any well trained military unit will be trained and equipped to deal with them. But it's a horrific way for dictators like assad and hussein to punish unruly subjects.

The US/British invasion of Iraq has, to date, caused well over 1 million civilian deaths - plus many more maimed, bereaved, rendered homeless, and expelled from their homes.

So was that because the Americans and the British used chemical weapons? Or did they accomplish it by other means? If the latter, what's the big deal about chemical weapons?

Biological warfare is just as horrible and indiscriminate as chemical weapons. So if you deliberately bomb the water supply and sewerage systems of a nation like Iraq, as well as its hospitals - after preventing the importation of most modern medical supplies for over a decade - you bring about a wave of infectious diseases that kills tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians, quite indiscriminately. But you cleverly manage to avoid the stigma of "using biological weapons". Clever. But horrible.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Archtech]

Vietnam was not a major war, then? Or the US not an industrialized nation?

Exactly. If you remember, Vietnam was a "police action".

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Archtech]

You can take out a powerstation with a screw driver, is your argument that screw drivers are as bad as chemical weapons?

Potentially, yes. It all depends. In principle, a single person with a screwdriver could kill any number of helpless individuals. In the Middle Ages, heavily armoured knights were routinely killed in their hundreds after they fell off their horses or just lost their footing. Unarmoured peasant soldiers simply opened their visors and shoved a stiletto or similar through an eye socket. A screwdriver would have done just as well.

After the battle of Towton, thousands of prisoners were apparently executed in cold blood. Each of the skulls has a similar shaped hole in the same place. They may have been lined up while horsemen rode along the line, swinging poleaxes - one head, one puncture, one death.

Never underestimate the lethal potential of a simple piece of metal.

Re: I never understood the principle.

[Archtech]

Essentially. if you attack someone defenceless unprovoked, you might get away with the deed itself, but you have signed your own execution warrant, enjoy the time you have left while the group hunts you down...

I'm still waiting for "the group" to hunt Israel down. Oh wait... "the group" (aka "the international community") is led by the USA, which has vetoed dozens of UN resolutions against Israel.

Actually, you have got the wrong end of the stick. The only unforgivable crime, which will lead "the group" to hunt you down, is defying the leader of "the group". Ask Saddam. Ask Qaddafi. Ask Assad. (Maybe soon you can ask Cameron).

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

It is racist to say that the various peoples of the Middle East live in an essentially non-civilized state. That is a view you have formulated based on liberal-media lies, justifying interventionism and a lopsided commitment to Israeli interests.

Syrian President Asad who gassed his people.

Did not. Assertion of "facts" not in evidence. People who spout this sound like those who parroted Colin Powell on Iraq. The word is "brainwashed".

I'd look closer at how these three letters are related:

January 26, 1998 letter to Clinton.

September 20, 2001 letter to Bush.

"Neocons Push Obama to Go Beyond a Punitive Strike in Syria"

Re:I never understood the principle.

[theshowmecanuck]

The truth hurts sunshine. The only democratic government in the middle east is Israel, and everyone is calling them evil.

Listen to Ockham not conspiracy theorists. It sure as hell wasn't the Joint Chiefs of Staff who gassed those people. And both Asad and his father are known as brutal dictators who are not above punitive retaliation against vulnerable people. And I don't just read articles that back up what I believe. I think from the articles you posted, that you do.

I bet you would say it isn't racist to call a white autocratic/dictatorial state that uses brutality and/or religious dogma to control its people uncivilized. So why would it be any different for the remainder of the middle east who rule like that (with the exception maybe of Turkey, but their current prime minister is sure trying hard to turn that country that way too). Yes, and I do have a lopsided slant to Israel. They are civilized. I favour civilized democratic governments who don't hire thugs to lob missiles indiscriminately across the border at the only democratic country in the region, or tolerate their citizens doing that (like Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Iran). Any citizen of Israel can vote in elections, Jews, Muslims, whites, blacks, Arabs, whoever. And there are Israeli citizens of all those stripes even if you want to listen to the real left wing bullshit saying otherwise. And there are Jews, Christians, and Muslims in the Israeli parliament.

Or perhaps you are a fan of the Grand Mufti of the 40's and 50's who was a racist as evidenced by being Hitler's good buddy (there are pictures of the two having a good time together during the war) and who caused a lot of the problems in the middle east with his racism. And surprise sunshine, the president of Syria in the late 40s and early 50s said it was a mistake to tell the Palestinians to leave Israel and start a war with the Jews.

Until the non-Israeli countries in the middle east change from dictator states aligned on religious grounds, propped up like Asad is, by what are essentially still allied tribes and theocratic states, they won't be civilized. And that is not racist. No country no matter the race, is civilized with that manner of rule. If you disagree with that, something is fundamentally wrong with you (but we could see that with your previous temper tantrum reply). Turkey is still a civilized country and hopefully they get rid of the fucktard prime minister they have so that it can remain that way and not spiral into a backwards Islamist state. But I guess you are all for women wearing potato sacks with eye holes. Sure sounds like that is your kind of misogynistic civilization.

It took the west hundreds of years to get the church out of government, and thank goodness we did. Now we need to fight to keep it out so we don't devolve into the madness the middle east is now.

There are three reasons why someone won't understand something. One, they don't have enough information. Two, they aren't smart enough. Three, they don't want to. You are either two or three. Like the other guy said, you got schooled. Try and learn some more, and stop thinking like a racist, and stop putting your hangups on me.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[lsatenstein]

You're missing the point; the US uses these weapons for good, Syria uses it on their own people.

Normally, I can spot the implied /irony tag. Tell me that you're being ironic.

The Syrian message is "This is what you will get for thinking, not just doing collaboration with the enemy. I am the head of state, and I make the rules.|

American message, "We are full of piss, and vinegar, signifying nothing!" Use satellites to guide the missiles, and make sure they do not have American Markings.

You know, create an American city called "Russia" and in 26font, say Made in Russia, and in 4 point size, add USA. Send the drones to find the chemical dumps and the Russia usa missiles to clean it up. There is no need for a human to cross the borders.

Either you care about human carnage, or you are just heartless. Stop torture

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Syria uses it on their own people" - this is a lie.
These chemical weapons were produced in Saudi Arabia and brought to Syria by the same muslim terrorists which USA & NATO are supporting.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Meski]

THere is no hell.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

You address my specifics about sourcing with more assertion from selective and unexamined sources.

Even former Bush officials are warning that the alleged Syrian chemical use is possibly an Israeli operation.

Somehow, you assert that "uncivilized" regions, can be brought to enlightenment through the enforcement of state-sponsored violence. Yes. This is what you say. Period. You are a complete stooge for big government. A complete lackey.

I ask you again: Before you bitch at me, why aren't you on the front-line with a rifle, making the world safe for "democracy"?

You talk VERY BIG about understanding the reality of war, you hypocrite. So I again say, you know so much about it? I'll give you a Glasgow whipping.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

TRUTH: You advocate indiscriminate elimination of women and children as a legitimate consequence of legal military action.
TRUTH: You refer to other societies as "uncivilized".

I leave unto God Almighty, the judgement of the aforesaid.
 

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

THere is no hell.

I dunno. Spend a few hours with the advocates for war, to whom I am responding, and you may claim to be witnessing Hell, in the first person.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[rubycodez]

uranium has no such "pyrophoric" properties, you are aping tin foil hat website lies in ignorance. There is no credible evidence from any peer reviewed study that it causes increased cancer and birth defects. Even th World Health Organization has said as much.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[rubycodez]

read it and weep, you DU hysterics.

WHO Report, Depleted Uranium: Sources, Exposure and Health Efects," 2001

"Most (>95%) uranium entering the body is not absorbed, but is eliminated via the faeces. Of the uranium that is absorbed into the blood, approximately 67% will be filtered by the kidney and excreted in the urine in 24 hours. Typically between 0.2 and 2% of the uranium in food and water is absorbed by the gastrointestinal tract. Soluble uranium compounds are more readily absorbed than those which are insoluble."

"Direct contact of depleted uranium metal with the skin, even for several weeks, is unlikely to produce radiation-induced erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other short term effects. Follow-up studies of veterans with embedded fragments in the tissue have shown detectable levels of depleted uranium in the urine, but without apparent health consequences. The radiation dose to military personnel within an armoured vehicle is very unlikely to exceed the average annual external dose from natural background radiation from all sources." WHO, supra.

For the general population it is unlikely that the exposure to depleted uranium will significantly exceed the normal background uranium levels.

        Measurements of depleted uranium at sites where depleted uranium munitions were used indicate only localized (within a few tens of metres of the impact site) contamination at the ground surface.

        General screening or monitoring for possible depleted uranium-related health effects in populations living in conflict areas where depleted uranium has been used is not necessary. Individuals who believe they have been exposed to excessive amounts of depleted uranium should consult their medical practitioner for examination, appropriate treatment of any symptoms and follow-up.

        The potential external dose received in the vicinity of a target following attack by DU munitions has been theoretically estimated to be in the order of 4 Sv/year (UNEP/UNCHS, 1999) based on gamma ray exposure. Such doses are small when compared to recommended guidelines for human exposure to ionizing radiation (20 mSv/annum for a worker for penetrating whole body radiation or 500 mSv/year for skin

Re: I never understood the principle.

[rubycodez]

Agent Orange was not intended to be a chemical weapon per se, but a defoliant. The idea was to kill crops and drive peasants to the cities. this is itself was a horrible crime against humanity in that it caused hundreds of thousands of deaths by eliminating food. The birth defects were unintended consequence.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[rubycodez]

but those "citizens" were rebels, terrorists, traitors, in the eyes of the Syrian government. It's ok to kill bad citizens, right? even Obama agrees.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia doesn't use DU....not even 'evil' China uses DU....but coz its 'Murica, it's OK.....and EVERY politician seems to be completely ignoring the fact that the 'rebels' have taken responsibility for that attack......it's ALL over the net (they posted vid of themselves playing with precursors and firing canister style rockets. If THAT'S not a smoking gun, I just DON'T know what IS)...but that's right....politicians see the 'internet' as something that their grandkids spend too much time on.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[theshowmecanuck]

Whatever. Not worth the effort. You are a fanatic.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK Russia and China use DU as well, not because its evil but because it makes good anti armour weaopons.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[gmhowell]

It's kind of hard to rebuild in an area where a nuclear bomb was dropped you know.

And yet at least two of the places where this has happened were able to rebuild, and quite magnificently, I might add.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Meski]

I meant as defined by christians, and for that matter, Dante.
To those advocating war, I'll agree with them, if they are the first to go over the wall and get a face-full of white phosphorous.

Re:I never understood the principle.

[fustakrakich]

Throughout this entire thread you have failed to provide any evidence that Assad gassed anybody.

And Israel is also being propped up from the outside. Let's see how well they do if they were cut off like the attempts on Iran.

I find your style of 'argument'... intriguing, because we all know that *because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out.*

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

That's why I keep pushing these guys:

You believe that there are "uncivilized" regions, that can only be brought to heel or to modernity through military violence?
You think killing villages of innocents is merely being realistic?

Then:
A - You have a funny definition of "civilized" - if you apply that label to your position
B - Be no more strident in this advocacy, than you are willing to volunteer for front-lines

When I continue to press this argument to logical conclusion, I am branded extremist. But it is not extreme to insist this: "If you believe it is a necessity to kill women and children for the good of society, then you should be the one doing it."

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps seeing that image (post-war chemical weapon veterans) would cause us to be more hesitant about going to war? Or perhaps it would give the next Hitler the right amount of fuel to start his own war?

Re:I never understood the principle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Grab your history books and dig up some reading into WW1.
The thing about chemical weapons is that they are pretty good at inflicting huge amounts of pain... to the wrong people (civilians).
Armies in the battlefield are generally covered by protective gear.

Throughout all the horrors of WW2 not a single country (*) dared to use them.

(*) Japan is an exception as it used them but only against countries it thought "lesser" - mainly China - as it feared reprisal from both sides if it was to use them against Western countries.

How about no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets just stay out of this fight. For once. Just once. let the rest of the world deal with it.

We have nothing to gain. And trillions to lose. again. and too many dead soldiers already.
No matter how it turns out this country will continue to hate our guts. Rightfully so maybe.

Lets just stay out of it. Time to watch a war on CNN we don't have a stake in at all.

Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.

Re:How about no.

[Jmc23]

um, if you stay out of the fight then you lose to Russia. Do you really think that's going to happen?

Re:How about no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you. Exactly. The only reasonable response is to either stay out completely or do something that is illegal under US law (find out who authorized the chemical weapon strike, go in and assassinate him, then leave). Since we aren't allowed to do that, we should do nothing. It is stupid to talk about attacking (whether missiles, bombs, soldiers) as that will kill a bunch of innocents when the issue is really a few in command / power.

Re:How about no.

[tompaulco]

If we stay out, then all the other nations will be pissed at us because the U.S. is expected to be the police force of the world and we are expected to spend our money, troops and resources to fix everybody else's problems.
If we go in, then all the other nations will be pissed at us because the U.S. doesn't keep it's nose out of everybody's business.
Of the two, I prefer first one, because even though everyone will hate the U.S. no matter what, at least in the first case, we didn't spend any more money that we can't afford to be spending right now.

Re:How about no.

[walterbyrd]

Why not?

Re:How about no.

[Teancum]

um, if you stay out of the fight then you lose to Russia. Do you really think that's going to happen?

If you stay out of the fight, then you don't lose to Russia. Yeah, I think that is a pretty reasonable outcome.

Why do you want to pick on Russia? Is it a death wish, or just hoping you might be stronger than they are?

Re:How about no.

[Anonymous Coward]

To help prevent future atrocities, some type of action needs to be taken to act as a deterrent. Sadly, this obligation tends to fall on the US.

Re:How about no.

[Livius]

If you get in the fight you lose to Russia, China, Iran, Syria itself, Palestine....

Re:How about no.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you actually stay out of this one, the world will celebrate... I just don't think that will happen, though... The US wants this war.
Why do some americans seem to think, that the rest of the world wants them to go around starting wars all the time?

Well, now on looking closer, the post I'm replying to seems to be a troll...

Re:How about no.

[johanw]

You're NOT supposed to be the worlds police force. Especially not when there seems to be no proof Assad used those weapons. Kerry's speach was even worse than that of Colin Powell about WMD in Iraq, at least Powell tried to show the falsified "evidence".

Everyone outside the US, and some Americans too, understand that attacking Syria has much to do with oil, pipelines, Israel and scoring orders for American companies who donate to election campaigns. It has nothing to do with moral standards.

Re:How about no.

[fustakrakich]

Lets just stay out of it.

Can't do that. Even if we don't need the resources, we can't let our 'adversaries' get their hands on them and grow stronger. We will leave the middle east the way Iraq left Kuwait in a trail of destruction. What the hell, it's not like we'll get our security deposit back. Make ' em start over.

Re:How about no.

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe me (and the others who've already replied), nobody will be pissed at you if you stop waging war with everybody. Just. Stop. All Your Wars. Just stop interfering with other countries. Just mind your own business and try to be a peaceful member of the planet, for a change.

Re:How about no.

[artor3]

Sure, do that. But do it knowing that you are giving every dictator in the world carte blanche to gas their own citizens. Assad knew that the West was too war weary to get involved, and he was right. That's it. Chemical weapons are now free to use.

Re:How about no.

[Tyler Durden]

Even if that were the case, why must it be our job to fix it? We're war-weary because of trying to fix too many of the world's problems to begin with. Or, more accurately, pretending to fix the world's problems in order to ensure a complex web of international relations stays on track to keep the US economy humming along.

A government is meant to be concerned with the citizens of their governed. A dictator from another country gassing his own people should not be its concern.

Re:How about no.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Everyone outside the US, and some Americans too, understand that attacking Syria has much to do with oil, pipelines, Israel and scoring orders for American companies who donate to election campaigns

Oh, please!

This whole Syria business is about Obama not looking like an ineffectual idiot. He drew his "Red Line in the Sand" last year, now Syria steps across and says "okay, whatcha gonna do now?"

Note that Obama wanted to quietly ignore it at first, till people started quoting that speech back at him. Then, suddenly, it was time to kick some Syrian ass.

Alas, he couldn't come up with a way to do it that didn't make him look even stupider, so now he's also suddenly willing to wait for Congressional Authorization (i.e. a declaration of war or equivalent) before he does anything - that way he can blame those EEEEVVVILLLL Republicans in Congress for thwarting his desire to punish Assad for using chemical weapons.

Alas that even the Dems in Congress aren't too enamoured of the idea of doing anything (especially given that "anything" means firing off a bunch of cruise missiles and calling it good - you want to stop Assad from using chemical weapons, kick his ass out of power, hold free elections, go home. Don't waste time on anything less than that.)

Re:How about no.

[rmstar]

To help prevent future atrocities, some type of action needs to be taken to act as a deterrent. Sadly, this obligation tends to fall on the US.

Well, the US has stayed out of a much worse thing in the past (approx. 20,000 dead).

Re:How about no.

[DarkOx]

Right and this is going to be very interesting to watch. Sure the House has a Republican majority, but you only need 17 defectors, to pass legislation.

There is virtually zero chance you can't find 17 GOP votes for something like this. Consider the recent Egypt situation and the whole embarrassing "we determined we don't have to make a determination if there has been a coup thing." This ordinarily would present a huge (and justified) opportunity to lambast the president about the "rule of law" maybe even start an impeachment process but you see none of it. All that foreign aide money gets spent back here, in largely GOP Congregational districts. So there no GOP effort to see the law followed. The same is true here, any action like this and the eyes of the defense contractor crowd just fills with dollar signs.

I doubt the GOP will support a Syria en mass though, its unpopular and we are nearing the half way point in their terms; and its to good an opportunity to make the president appear weak and foolish leading into the debt ceiling and budget negotiations. So I think it will get a tepid reception on the GOP side of the isle.

Its his own party that will make or break or it. Can the president bring his party along in supporting an unpopular military action with the Bush era's "I voted for it before I was against it" still so fresh in everyone's mind? This was definitely a punt on the Presidents part; he is a coward and does not want to politically own anything. When he could not get Camron's government on board he is now running to Congress for political cover He should have gone to Congress first that would be the Constitutionally respectful thing to do. But we all know Obama is shithead who thinks he is above the law and the only thing that matters to him is politics. This was a change to "act tough and play rough" and its backfired, the real question now is how much mud will stick to him for it. I truly hope Congress says "hell no" because I think that is right for our nation; but I also really want them to soundly reject it because it will make Obummer look like the self righteous ass he is.

Re:How about no.

[Konowl]

Wait... who the hell asked you to join in the first place?

Bloody Americans.

Re:How about no.

[Tyler Durden]

Just stop interfering with other countries...

Great. So does this mean we get to stop giving aid to foreign countries too?

Re:How about no.

[bjwest]

Just how are we loosing to Russia by staying out of the fight? Syria isn't a U.S. possession that Russia is trying to take away.

You cannot loose a fight you aren't participating in.

Re:How about no.

[Jmc23]

Actually, you can set loose a fight wherever you want to!

Re:How about no.

[shutdown -p now]

If we stay out, then all the other nations will be pissed at us because the U.S. is expected to be the police force of the world and we are expected to spend our money, troops and resources to fix everybody else's problems.

They won't (well, except for rebels in Syria).

Just look at the polls. The majority of people in UK and France are against participating in any military action against Syria. UK Parliament has just voted to not participate. Heck, even Syria's immediate neighbors are not all too happy about any potential strikes.

Re:How about no.

[betterprimate]

You're right. But you know, no one in the U.S. cares because the U.S. mainstream media controls the narrative, and the mainstream media is controlled by the elites who also control the President and Congress. I just laid out what's going to happen in a timeline, and I have yet to be wrong once. Today, Obama announced the call for military action right after the U.N. inspectors left for Lebanon. Called that last week. Anyways, I'm not going to waste my breath. I'll leave everyone with a few articles and it's their duty to search for more and be informed.

• Peak oil, climate change and pipeline geopolitics driving Syria conflict
• Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern

Re:How about no.

[professionalfurryele]

Your like the corrupt cop who says "When I take bribes to arrest my paymasters political enemies people hate me, but when I let the perp go because 'fuck it' people still hate me! I cant win!". No shit bombing people on behalf of Haliburton, propping up dictators while ignoring genocide is going to get you on peoples naughty list.

Re:How about no.

[romons]

I suspect that the current plan is to level the playing field with some surgical strikes, and let them fight for a few more years, wearing down both sides to a negotiated settlement.

This is NOT the humanitarian thing to do, and Obama knows that. Doing this will allow far more civilians to be killed, on both sides. However, it is probably the only way to prevent the sarin gas from being turned over to extremists, to be used in europe, israel, or the US. Assad is going to lose power. If we kick him out, the extremists will take power, and will then control whatever stockpiles he has. We can't side with Assad for obvious reasons. So, this is a smart compromise. It is horrific, but Kissinger would approve.

Re:How about no.

[hicksw]

...Lets just stay out of it...

A pipeline runs through it.
--
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower

Re:How about no.

[rubycodez]

nonsenes, the world is full of atrocities that the USA has stayed out. yet you fixate on the one the media hypes.

and of course, you turn a blind eye to the tens of thousands of chemical weapon deaths the USA has caused (we bankrolled Saddam to make them and provided him with dual-use technology to build them). To say nothing of the USA using and providing white phosphorous weapons, mines, cluster bombs that kill innocents to this day.....

get off your high horse, we have no moral high ground.

Re:How about no.

[gmhowell]

Wait... who the hell asked you to join in the first place?

Bloody Americans.

Given the use of the word 'bloody', I assume you're a UKian. In which case "I learned it from watching you!"

Re:How about no.

[Murvel]

Oh but it is a matter for the rest of the world, and the US very much included. At the moment the US Navy has at least 1 Carrier laying outside the Syrian coast and no doubt several cruisers. And why would they not act if that means a shortening of the conflict and prevention of use of chemical weapons on either sides? And it is hardly a matter of what the US has to gain, but rather a responsibility to act!

Syria: A shit hole.

[Anonymous Coward]

A shit hole full of people saying: "Hey we don't want to be a shit hole anymore!"
A shit hole government saying: "Well, you are a shit hole, just take a look at all this gas! Clearly these are properties of a shit hole."

War should Suck

[craigminah]

If we make war clean and tidy then where is the motivation to avoid it? The Star Trek episode, "A Taste of Armegeddon" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Taste_of_Armageddon) portrays two planets who've been at war for centuries. It was really "modern" where planets would launch simulated attacks which caused no collateral damage and computers would calculate the death toll. "Victims" were then calculated and selected via lottery. They'd report to the disintegrators for a painless death. It was so "humane" that the planets never had any motivation to end the war.

My point is that we should allow anything in war with the knowledge that the more horrific the weapon the more prompt and determined the response to it by the rest of the world.

Re:War should Suck

[throwaway3637]

The point is not to eliminate violence, only to organize it to serve the interest of the empire. Violence is a powerful too that can be used to justify all sorts of horrors in order to stop it. The US and the CIA lit the fuse, now they're going there to put out the fire.

Re:War should Suck

[Kilo Kilo]

The first machine guns were thought to be so awful that they would act as peace-preservers." That didn't work out so well. It might seem ironic trying to impose rules in warfare, but anything that can lessen the damages should be encouraged.

Re:War should Suck

[killkillkill]

I know hippies hate the mutually assured destruction idea... but it works. When in history have two empires struggling for more global power stood nose to nose with such little violence as with the USA and USSR? If you have more to lose than gain, even if you 'win', your perspective changes and you take a step back, or at least won't step into the fight. There is a line where we would be willing to step into a bar fight. There's a line much farther away (probably along the lines of someone attacking you first) that would need to be crossed to get us in a fight with someone with a knife in hand, even if we have a knife of our own. Most people/nations aren't completely irrational and operate off of general survival instincts.

Re:War should Suck

[Anonymous Coward]

When war is excused, for any reason, it is a sign that civilization is failing. It's the exact same thing as college sports.

If so-and-so school beats so-and-so school in the game, and in a very questionable way, then there may eventually be a rivalry. Once there's a rivalry, the game is more interesting to those that give a shit. However, those people's kids will be raised to know that so-and-so school is the big game of the year, and all the adults get together and party and get very emotional about the game. Those kids will grow up with less understanding as to why the game is so big, but hey, party! After each game, the winning side will rub it in, only furthering the excitement for the next game. Before you know it, people are playing for their team, and can't wait to smash the other guys (as in hurt the people on the other team).

The problem with this, in my opinion, is that it causes each person to look at the other people on the other team as, not people, but rather a part of "the problem". From here it goes right into "getting pleasure form another's pain". The school that the team represents is meaningless in this mindset. The school is making waay more money for it's game program than it is it's ability to teach people how to go into the future.

Now re-read all of that and replace the word "school" with "country" and replace "game" with "war".

When the only way to resolve matters is with bombs, then we're all going to die in a war. I don't understand why the US doesn't just impose sanctions on Syria. Seriously, wtf are they going to do, bomb the place(s) that are producing chemical weapons? I guess that's one thing they could do, but how about simply go in and try to talk it out? Or stay the hell out of the way? If the US puts itself into their war, then won't that make more people hate the US, and in turn, create more reasons for terrorists to try to fuck with the American people?

Re:War should Suck

[Jmc23]

um, you do know the USA and USSR just moved the violence and destruction to other countries right? Perhaps the world would have been better off for the last 70 years if they just took it out on each other and not played their stupidity out on the world stage.

Re:War should Suck

[Nidi62]

"It is good that war should be so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it." -Robert E Lee

Re:War should Suck

[khallow]

If we make war clean and tidy then where is the motivation to avoid it?

Let's take this the other way. We could make wars deliberately ugly and high cost. But why would we think that would provide enough incentive to keep people from fighting them?

My view is that the only genuine way to prevent most war (between identifiable foes, that is) is to have a military force that will clobber anyone who starts such a fight. Change the strategic outcome of starting a war to always lose, and you end the incentive to engage in war.

Re:War should Suck

[khallow]

um, you do know the USA and USSR just moved the violence and destruction to other countries right?

Yes. But it still qualifies as "such little violence". The original poster isn't ignorant of the big wars of this period.

Re:War should Suck

[khallow]

When war is excused, for any reason, it is a sign that civilization is failing.

One of the more concrete ways war is "not excused" is by militarily defeating those who do initiate wars. As the previous poster noted, the Rwanda genocide was excused by the outside world for a considerable time until at least half a million people had died. It was only stopped when the concurrent Rwandan civil war ended with defeat of the side engaged in genocide.

Re:War should Suck

[gman003]

Mutually Assured Destruction worked... once. Working one time out of the only time it's been deliberately tried isn't exactly a proven track record.

Re:War should Suck

[Teancum]

um, you do know the USA and USSR just moved the violence and destruction to other countries right? Perhaps the world would have been better off for the last 70 years if they just took it out on each other and not played their stupidity out on the world stage.

Are you really sure of that? The option of "taking it out on each other" would have involved the rest of the world as well, as it would have been a genuine world war that has been calculated at various time to be killing off about 90% of mankind and causing such extreme harm to the environment from such an action that the remaining 10% would be wishing they were among that 90%. Screw worries about global warming and petty idiots like Assad being a jerk, even survivalists in Montana would be out of luck.

There is a damn good reason why that expected war didn't really happen with tanks running by each other in the Fulda region of Germany. Had it occurred, you would not be writing such an idiotic post like this. I seriously doubt that if you really thought through what you were writing, that you would think it was a good idea.

Re: War should Suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I've always wanted to see TNG do a sequel to that. The Enterprise visits the Taste of Armageddon system, and finds both planets have Malthusian dystopias due to excess population caused by the high, war-adapted reproduction rates. Perhaps Picard can help them set up a lottery (as in that Sliders episode, Luck of the Draw)...

(Yes, I might be morbidly fascinated with population control methods, at least in fiction. But the only method we really need on Earth is the eminently practical cultural uplift approach, following from the finding that educated, westernized peoples consistently have less offspring -- and there's no need to worry about the Idiocracy trap of being outbred by the stoopids as long as our net conversion rate exceeds half the difference in reproductive rates...)

Re:War should Suck

[Jmc23]

Actually, if that had happened we'd be better off no? Less overpopulation. As long as it wasn't a nuclear war the environment would have been better off, less plastic pollution, less destruction of the environment for oil, less agricultural pollution, less contamination of the food supply with gmos, less destruction of the environment for resources, less etc...

Re:War should Suck

[Anonymous Coward]

But after 50-100 years we'd be back to our current level of tech and pollution. What does it matter if we destroy the environment now or later?

Re:War should Suck

[theshowmecanuck]

Thanks for the insight Chamberlain.

Re:War should Suck

[theshowmecanuck]

General Patton actually made a good case for continued war near what would be the end of WWII. He wanted to keep moving the West's forces east and take Stalin down. He knew that if they stopped where they did (where the politicians wanted) we would get a more dangerous set of conditions. We had the nukes and the armies and production capability and the technology to do it. But they fired (and some say assassinated) him to keep him from pushing that position. If we had done that, we would not have had a cold war, America could have gone back to isolationism, no one would be stopping the rest of the world from stopping the Syrian war at the beginning when Russia and China effectively blocked any action at the United Nations. Etc. etc. etc. Too bad Truman was such a fucking pussy.

Re:War should Suck

[Tyler Durden]

The mutually assured destruction idea from the Cold War almost became a reality multiple times do to various "oopses" during that period. It was largely because of a discomforting amount of dumb luck that it didn't end really really badly.

Re:War should Suck

[Tyler Durden]

Sorry to reply to my own post, but a citation helps.

Re:War should Suck

[Teancum]

Actually, if that had happened we'd be better off no? Less overpopulation. As long as it wasn't a nuclear war the environment would have been better off, less plastic pollution, less destruction of the environment for oil, less agricultural pollution, less contamination of the food supply with gmos, less destruction of the environment for resources, less etc...

You really hate being human that much? Note that any substantial reduction of population will include you.... don't try to set yourself up as somebody special and immune to what would happen. If your goal is suicide, then at least admit it too.

And my point is that it would be nuclear war. It still might be too if this fiasco in Syria isn't dealt with intelligently. Not only will that take out most of mankind, but it will take out most of the rest of the life on the surface of the Earth as well. More contamination, more pollution, much more destruction of the environment than could be done by the worst estimates of any environmentalist over the next 200 years. Screw resources buried in the land, it won't be worth extracting because there won't be anybody to use it either.

Re:War should Suck

[shutdown -p now]

What makes you think that US could have successfully fought a war, far away from its borders, against an army that just wiped the floor with the single strongest military in Europe? Keeping in mind that what you propose requires not just victory (as in opponent admitting defeat and surrendering), but complete takeover and occupation of Soviet territory. Also remember that the bulk of Soviet war industry by that time was at the Urals, and Allies had no bombers that could reliably get that far to destroy it, which was possible with Germany.

Look at the casualties of Axis forces in WW2, and note where they were inflicted. Once you do the math, you'll realize that 2/3 of all Axis dead (this includes Japan!) died on the Eastern Front in Europe, fighting Soviets.

Re:War should Suck

[theshowmecanuck]

What single strongest military power in Europe? Germany? After they spread themselves thin on multiple fronts, had their asses kicked by Britain in North Africa, destroyed by ALLIED effort in Italy, kicked by ALLIED effort in the west (notice 3 of the 5 beachheads in Normandy were NOT American... they were mostly commonwealth), and had ALLIED forces bomb the snot out of them eliminating any industrial output. Never mind they were running out of raw materials. While at the same time Russia was being supplied in large part by the ALLIES. And besides, the Soviet victories were damned near Pyrrhic victories... sacrifice tens of thousands of lives in single battles. They sacrificed 10.5 million lives against 5 million German soldiers on the eastern front. Two to one. What makes you think the Soviets hadn't blown their load taking Berlin? Especially when they would no longer be supplied by the west if the west started pushing them back, and they hadn't near the air force of the western Allies, nor any nuclear bombs.

And I hope you get the point I'm sick of American centric views of the war (and I know I'm not alone)? Get a fucking grip, the U.S. was only part of it, and it's manufacturing base was as important as it's armed forces. I'm grateful they finally got their shit together and joined everyone else, but Hollywood has put a false impression in American minds that they won it all by themselves.

Re: War should Suck

[shutdown -p now]

Germans were crushed by and large by the USSR. If you look at number of troops fielded against Allies in Italy and France, and casualties, it's all really secondary to Stalingrad and Kursk.

Allied (mainly American) support in terms of supply was important to the Soviets in 1941-42, when their own industrial base was largely overrun and in shambles. By the end of the war, though, it was recovered to beyond its original (already very impressive) scale, and kept growing steadily. Look at the numbers of small arms, tanks and planes produced in the USSR in 1943-45, and compare to US and Germany; you'll be surprised. Certainly by 45, Soviets could get along just fine without lend lease.

It is a similar story with casualties. Most of that 1:2 disparity comes from the first two years of the war, when Soviets were getting steamrolled; the proportion then was actually far worse. But by 1944, it was already 1:1, and by 1945 the steamroller was in full reverse. Not surprising, given that purges in 1939-41 have decimated the Soviet officer corps, and it took a lot of bitter combat experience to grow the replacement - but by '44 it was there, lots of experienced, battle hardened commanders, and Stalin had put politruks on a leash, too.

So no, the USSR was not out of breath by '45. Quite the opposite, it had its war machine cranked out to full steam, and still considerable manpower resource with a lot of combat experience. Not enough to keep fighting an extended offensive for much longer, which is why Stalin stopped at Berlin. But certainly enough to stop any new invasion of its territory in its tracks.

Re:War should Suck

[dryeo]

How does that stop the nation with the largest military force from starting wars?. History has shown whenever a nation can clobber anyone else, that's what they do.
Seems to me that the only thing that has slowed down wars is when nations can destroy each other.

Re:War should Suck

[Anonymous Coward]

um, you do know the USA and USSR just moved the violence and destruction to other countries right?

They didn't call the hypothetical war between the USA and the USSR "World War 3" for nothing, lad.

Re: War should Suck

[theshowmecanuck]

Look up how many Russian were sacrificed in the Battle of Berlin. It was ridiculous. I'll say it again, most of their victories were Pyrrhic, or close to it. The only thing possibly making it not so is that they had more people to throw inter the fire than the Germans. Any army with that kind of tactic could have been beaten. They were a one trick pony, all frontal assault.

Re: War should Suck

[shutdown -p now]

Look up how many Russian were sacrificed in the Battle of Berlin. It was ridiculous.

From Wikipedia:

Soviet dead or missing: 81,116
German dead or missing (est).: 92,000–100,000
German POWs: 480,000

So, exactly like I said - by the end of the war, it wasn't even 1:1. And that is battle of Berlin, which was one of the bloodiest late battles on the Eastern Front because Stalin was in a rush to have the city fully under Soviet control before Allies could come in from the west! Let's look at some others.

Prague offensive - 50k Soviet dead, 200k Germans dead or missing.

Vistula-Oder offensive - 50k Soviet dead, 150k German dead and as many POWs.

Siege of Budapest - 80k Soviet vs 100k German & Hungarian.

Operation Bagration - 180k Soviet vs 300k German

Jassy–Kishinev Offensive - 15k Soviet vs 100k German/Romanian (this is the most successful Soviet offensive in terms of casualties this war, and that's in summer '44!)

The notion that Soviet Union won the war by "human wave tactics" and piling the bodies high is a myth. This sort of approach has seen some limited use in the first months of the war to delay German advance while relocating the industry and gathering reserves, but the actual march towards Berlin was not like that at all - it was as much tactics and logistics as numeric superiority.

Ultimately, USSR won because it was such an industrial powerhouse that it managed to survive the initial German blow without crumbling - and Germans didn't get a second chance. Once their rapid advance was stopped, the clock was ticking for them, because Soviets could and did outproduce them in everything, from small arms and cartridges to tanks and bombs. And by the end of WW2, that powerhouse was not only recovered, it was operating on a scale bigger than what it has been prior to German invasion.

If Germans, after conquering most of Europe, failed against Soviets when they were weaker and less experienced, what makes you believe that Americans, who also had significant logistical issues what with their industry being on another continent and no convenient oil supply to Western Europe other than shipping, would fare any better in '45? Nukes? There weren't enough of them, and only bombers for delivery (and unlike Japan by August 1945, USSR had a strong air force at that time). Boots on the ground? I very much doubt that USA could bear to field enough to do the job, assuming that such a thing was even possible. Soviet Army was 11 million strong at the end of the war. Even assuming the ridiculous 2:1 rate in favor of American soldiers, would US be willing to sacrifice the lives of 5 million of its soldiers for the sake of victory? Germany and USSR could pull this off because they were totalitarian cult of personality regimes; I very much doubt that a democracy can tolerate this kind of losses, especially in an offensive war far away from its own territory and with no clear defensive goal.

Re:War should Suck

[jwhitener]

You are making an assumption that scenes of horrific violence will cause governments, pressured by their people, to engage in less acts of war over time.

That is a pretty big assumption.

The minds behind banning certain weapons assumed that we would always have a certain amount of war. That is another assumption. However it is an assumption with thousands of years of evidence to support it.

War Precedent

[SpaceMonkies]

"On March 17, 2003, Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General of the UK, set out his government's legal justification for an invasion of Iraq. He said that Security Council resolution 678 authorised force against Iraq, which was suspended but not terminated by resolution 687, which imposed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. A material breach of resolution 687 would revive the authority to use force under resolution 678. In resolution 1441 the Security Council determined that Iraq was in material breach of resolution 687 because it had not fully carried out its obligations to disarm. Although resolution 1441 had given Iraq a final chance to comply, UK Attorney General Goldsmith wrote "it is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply"."
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Legal_justification

I for one do not trust our governments to tell me the truth, or engage in wars unless necessary anymore.

Check out the new Slashdot iPad app

Re:War Precedent

[cervesaebraciator]

I for one do not trust our governments to tell me the truth, or engage in wars unless necessary anymore.

Hey! Where's your patriotism? Remember the Maine! Remember the Lusitania! Remember the Maddox! Remember that Saddam was an evil man who had used WMDs and since al Qaeda was led by an evil man it clearly follows that Saddam had ties to al Qaeda. Why would you ever doubt an administration's casus belli?

Re:War Precedent

[jodido]

"unless necessary"--you've just given it all away. Has any war ever been argued for as "not really necessary"?

Re:War Precedent

[Anonymous Coward]

"unless necessary"--you've just given it all away. Has any war ever been argued for as "not really necessary"?

Looks like he accidentally a word to me.

On the other hand, it would be really interesting to see politicians come out and declare that war is unnecessary so an invasion will be launched immediately. I can just imagine the reaction from the general public. 33% would call bullshit, the rest would try to rationalize as it somehow being in their best interests, or be unable to resist the siren song of the voice of authority. I imagine a significant minority also just plain wouldn't care, and a small group would be in favor of fighting because they like bloodshed.

bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

There has never been a treaty, or International Law, that says there must be a military response by otherwise uninvolved nations whenever there is a chemical weapons attack. This should be handled just like any other war crime. Someday we will get you, and we will put you on trial. We're not going to launch a weak-ass cruise missile campaign that will last for a measly two days and accomplish nothing but unnecessary civilian casualties.

People aren't dumb. What's going on in Syria sucks. Our involvement will not make things better.

Re:bullshit

[khallow]

Someday we will get you, and we will put you on trial.

Unless, you know, that doesn't happen. Such threats matter only if you have the capability to carry them out.

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

I call bullshit on your "insightful" bullshit. Our involvement can most definitely make things better. To ignore mass murder by any means is the answer of a coward or someone so jaded by war, he's given up on justice. Destroying chemical weapons supplies would save countless lives, especially since this civil war has no end in sight.

Re:bullshit

[walterbyrd]

And then what? The US will be called "invaders" it happens every time. The US will be accused of invading Syria to steal mid-east oil, just like when the US pushed Iraq out of Kuwait.

Muslims, all over the world, will blame the US for everything. Terrorist attack against US interests will follow.

And for what? The crazies will go right back to killing one another, just like they have for over 1000 years.

Neither side, in this conflict, will ever be friends with the US. Neither side are the good guys.

Leave the mid-east alone, let them solve their own problems, in their own way.

According to your post:

> especially since this civil war has no end in sight.

Exactly. Both sides are committed to non-stop violence against each other, and everybody else. It is just the way things are in the mid-east. It is their culture, and we cannot change it.

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

To ignore mass murder by any means is the answer of a coward or someone so jaded by war, he's given up on justice.

Mr Jaded veteran here: news flash.. motherfuckers will kill each other.. life is harsh.. their civil war is non of our business... end of message.

It is not our problem, and if *you* want to go solve it, have at it. The goddamned UN won't even engage at this point, and I see little reason to commit US assets to the area. Let it blow up on the EU's door step.. they're the true cowards, never to be seen when shit goes down except for token numbers (except the Brits of course.. but even THEY are sitting this one out).

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

While that's true, one has to wonder what the implications will be if we take that approach. Will Assad start shelling Aleppo with chemical weapons and keep doing so in any problem area until he has secured the whole country? If Syria gets doused in chemical weapons, illegal though they are, and then Assad sits back on his throne, what kind of message is that going to give to any other country with a dictator who wants to put down a rebellion? "I better invest in chemical weapons to use on my own people, because if I do so the world will sit back and let it happen."

Yeah, it's all a bunch of bad options, but doing nothing and hoping there will be an accounting later has its own risks. I mean, hell, Assad could probably already be brought up on war crimes for conventionally shelling his own cities now. He obviously isn't put off by the prospect of being tried in The Hague. I don't have an easy solution, but letting this stand is inviting a lot worse in the coming months. Syria has *a*lot* of chemical weapons, and they are nasty things like nerve agents. He's going to unleash this stuff if he learns that he can get away with it. At what point do we do something? When he exterminates whole cities with it? If not this line, which?

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Like it or not, we cant leave the Mideast alone. We have a significant interest in the region because of our dependence on oil. Also, we like to protect our Allies in the region when possible.

Taking some action, even as simple as bombing a few sites, also helps deter future chemical weapon use (from Syria and from other nations). I really wish it was simple situation, but there really is no perfect answer to scenarios like this. For me, I'll take saving civilian lives over upsetting fundamentalists.

Re:bullshit

[Livius]

*People* aren't dumb, but we're talking about the US government, which is run by corporations and has no humanity.

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Definitely agree with you about Europe. It's sad the US is seen as the world's moral police.

Re:bullshit

[johanw]

No it's not, the US sees itself as the world police. Most other nations wished you didn't and minded your own buisiness.

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

There has never been a treaty, or International Law, that says there must be a military response

I whole heartedly agree, and whether Mahatma Gandhi said it or not: "An eye for an eye only ends up making the whole world blind." is certainly a point worthy to consider in this affair.

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right. No one ever looks to the US for aid or help in any way, whether financial or militarily. Never happens.

Re:bullshit

[DNS-and-BIND]

Nope! Rwanda 1994. What happened? Genocide. Whose fault was it? America's. Why? Because we could have easily intervened and stopped the slaughter, but we didn't. Maybe you don't remember, but America was soundly criticized and the blame laid squarely at our feet. Go look back at newspapers and UN reports from that time.

It's the same here. If Assad is allowed to use WMD to slaughter civilians and America doesn't intervene, then all the deaths are America's fault. Why? Because of all the nations in the world, we are the ones with the capability to do something. If we choose to do nothing then it is the same as endorsing the slaughter.

If you want to say this is a bullshit no-win situation, yes it indeed is. Welcome to reality 2013.

Re:bullshit

[chilvence]

Sad as it is, how are you actually supposed to have any effect on the mentality of your neighbours two doors down. Face it, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. If the US jumps in and 'saves the day', a sizable amount of people will just write off your effort as interference and imperialism, and anyone you have said 'Hi' to will be labelled a puppet traitor. You won't change peoples opinions, so the same shit will just happen somewhere elses.

The only thing I take comfort in is that nobody actually wants to be like this spineless fuckwit, even if it does work for a while. Who the fuck wants to be ruler of a graveyard?

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

No it's not, the US sees itself as the world police. Most other nations wished you didn't and minded your own buisiness.

That would be fine by most Americans too. Those chemical weapons can reach targets on the European continent, not the Americas.

The European standard of living won't last long once they have to increase taxes build up enough of a military to police their own backyard. Sucks to be them, LOL!

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

+1. This world police crap is entirely self imposed by the USA and the world is sick of hearing them whine about it.

Re:bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be fine by most Americans too.

Good. Then kindly fuck off, will you?

Various Pro-Israel interests

[throwaway3637]

All these comments are from pro-Israel, anti-Iran interests that I am sure have the well-being of Iranians, Iraqis, and Syrians at heart when they beat the war drums. Chemical weapon use by the United States and its NATO allies in terms of white phosphorus and depleted uranium are common and justified as necessary for breaking the back of the opposition and "saving lives" of our beloved troops.

Re:Various Pro-Israel interests

[Anonymous Coward]

White phosphorus and depleted uranium are not chemical weapons.

Re:Various Pro-Israel interests

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, this kid wasn't hit by a horrid chemical weapon, just a perfectly legal smoke bomb.

Re:Various Pro-Israel interests

[Anonymous Coward]

Agent Orange is, and people blame it for 400,000 civilian deaths 1,000,000 of people disabled or crippled and 500,000 children with birth defects directly linked with this shit. Not to mention that specifically targeting the civilian population (as in this case, where the main goal was to cripple the food production and starve Vietnam until they surrender) during an armed conflict is considered genocide and a crime against humanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange

Re:Various Pro-Israel interests

[khallow]

No, Agent Orange isn't a chemical weapon. I can't argue with the crime against humanity part however.

Re:Various Pro-Israel interests

[Anonymous Coward]

No, these comments are anti the murder of innocent civilians. No matter who the victims or murderers.

Re:Various Pro-Israel interests

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually that picture is of an Afghan girl in a U.S. hospital in Bagram, a casualty of a NATO airstrike in March 2009.
*pop*

failure to respond...

[dnaumov]

... against whom? the rebels or the saudis?

Noone with half a brain believes Assad is behind the chemical attack because

1) He has nothing to gain by doing so
2) He has everything to lose by doing so
3) He is not a retard

Not to mention that the past 6 months have shown that Assad isn't exactly cornered, on the contrary, he has been pushing further and further back against the rebels.

Re:failure to respond...

[throwaway3637]

But the "evil regime" and the WMDs hiding in deep bunkers inaccessible only to secret intelligible sources whom when leaked get diplotmats killed under mysterious circumstances.

Re:failure to respond...

[LMariachi]

Then why has he blocked inspectors?

Re:failure to respond...

[Jmc23]

Or maybe he seriously doubts that there would be any retaliation. Seriously, the USA looks like a bully that's finally been called on their bluffing. That and he's probably smart enough to know that the USA has no ulterior motive to go in and they really don't do anything that they think won't help them in the long run.

Re:failure to respond...

[throwaway3637]

Yes because he's that smart. If there is one thing a rational dictator knows from Saddam's experience it is that you don't play chicken with the empire.

Re:failure to respond...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why has he blocked inspectors?

Because he sees his country as sovereign.

Because the UN inspectors may lie, or have their report influenced by countries that want him out for other reasons.

Because the UN inspectors are only there to determine if weapons were used. If weapons were used by the rebels, the inspectors will report that. If they guess that he is responsible, he gets blamed.

If you were in his place, would you allow inspections?

Re:failure to respond...

[Anonymous Coward]

Probably because a significant number of inspectors seem to have day job with the CIA ( or another US 3 letter agency )
and report back to their boss and probably give tendicious results to the UN.

Funny that C weapons are used when the imported terrorists ( financed by arab interests, an activity condoned or even egged on
by the US ) are loosing out.

Then, the original Syrian opposition seems have been complete removed from the conflict

Re:failure to respond...

[Jmc23]

except that those oil people don't care about securing syria, all they need is for the price of oil to go up, which it is.

Re:failure to respond...

[khallow]

The US doesn't have the support that it had for the Iraqi invasion. Whatever else you can say about G. W. Bush, he at least was able to get a lot of support for his invasions and keep those who didn't from interfering. Obama can't even get the UK on board.

And Russia and China both oppose any military intervention, Russia to the point of sending military support for Assad such as anti-air missile systems which aren't any good against rebel forces, but would be of some use against air strikes by the US.

Re:failure to respond...

[throwaway3637]

Yes except Syria is a domino that has to fall before Iran can be easily attacked. Those oil companies do care very much about those oil contracts that will come their way when Iran falls.

Re:failure to respond...

[dadelbunts]

Do you let police wander your house whenever they feel like it?

Re:failure to respond...

[Anonymous Coward]

Noone with half a brain believes Assad is behind the chemical attack because

And why exactly should we trust Noone With Half a Brain ?

Re:failure to respond...

[Jmc23]

um, he got support by lying and trying to bully the rest of the world.

Of course Russia and China oppose, that's where the real war is.

Re:failure to respond...

[Anonymous Coward]

Im sorry but how is this modded insightful?

Assad is a brutal dictator who is cornered who made a calculated decision. I am not sure how the poster thinks this is true that he has been pushing the rebels back. If you dont believe me, here is someone who his highly skeptical of making attacks and an expert in the region:

"Some have asked why the regime would risk using poison gas when it has been making gains against the rebels. But the regime’s advances are minor and tenuous. It only took the small town of Qusayr with Hizbullah help! And ‘advances’ in Homs were just scorched earth destruction of neighborhoods. They were offset by loss of a major air base near Aleppo, key for resupply of troops up there because roads north are insecure. The regime can only advance here or there, but doesn’t have manpower to take back substantial territory.

My guess is that rebels in Rif Dimashq in outskirts of the capital were making inroads toward Damascus itself. Defensive troops are off tied down in Homs. Since the capital is the real prize and end game, the regime decided to let them know it wouldn’t be allowed. It is the typical behavior of a weak regime facing superior demographic forces (the Alawites are far outnumbered by Sunnis) to deploy unconventional weaponry. Although there was a risk in using the gas, the regime may have felt threatened enough to take the risk, confident that it could muddy the waters afterwards with charges that it was actually the rebels who were behind it."

http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/signals-intervention-syria.html
 

Re:failure to respond...

[vovick]

Then why has he blocked inspectors?

Because not using chemical weapons does not necessarily mean he's not a power-craving asshole (like most other politicians, admittedly) who is paranoid about the Western conquistadors of modern times.

Re:failure to respond...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) if they manage to get away with this, he'll almost certainly use them again, although perhaps not so flagrantly (i.e. this was a test that got out of hand, and he'll be more cautious in the future); 2) he has a few "soft" targets to lose from aerial bombardment, but because he's always expected Israel or someone else to swoop in and bomb the place if he does things that are too obvious, all the important stuff will be in bunkers. Perhaps he thinks losing a bit of surface stuff is no big deal when he's already making good progress wearing down the opposition, and this would be one more tool to help finish them off; 3) he clearly is a retard for taking this as far as he has. I mean, seriously. Let's say Assad finally and conclusively manages to put down this rebellion. What then? Spend the next 20 years trying to build Syria back up again from the rubble he created and fight off renewed insurrection the whole time? Dealing with every former rebel trying 1000x harder to assassinate him and all of his cronies? Looking over his back at his own people who might be ready to lynch him? Sure, he's got lots of practice at that, but he's going to preside over a ruined hellscape, and in the long game he's going to make people more determined than ever to get rid of him. It won't happen anytime soon, but someday he'll probably end up hiding in a hole like Saddam, or shot on the run like Ghaddafi and Ceausescu unless he flees to Russia at some point.

As for the possibility this is some kind of setup by the rebels to provoke a response... it's pretty ridiculous unless you think they would be crazy enough to fire chemical weapons at their own held territory, which is where all the attacks around Damascas occurred. If they tried that, I'm pretty sure there would be thousands of surviving rebels whose families died in the attack who would call BS on it. The most plausible scenario in my opinion is that either a commander exceeded their authority, the weapons had a greater effect than expected, or Assad did indeed decide to call the bluff because he knew mother Russia would block any legitimate action.

The part I don't understand is why the hell Russia thinks this is okay, or why they think the evidence isn't clear enough to at least scold Assad into not even thinking of doing it again ("We're not publicly saying you did it, but if you ever do it again, don't expect any support."). I thought having gone through WWI and WWII that Russia would have a bit more of a negative attitude towards the use of chemical weapons.

Re:failure to respond...

[cervesaebraciator]

Especially after they'd already accused you of a crime, admitted that they had no evidence in hand to support the claim (save the testimony of your personal enemies), and to make things even better there was a SWAT team gearing up just off the edge of your property so they can come shoot you when (not if) evidence is found.

Re:failure to respond...

[AmiMoJo]

Even so, why risk it when he is winning? Why use valuable weapons?

Re:failure to respond...

[Jmc23]

um, weapons you can't use have no value.

Why did the USA attack Iraq? We aren't privy to everything the decision makers see, nor are we as psychotic

Re:failure to respond...

[Anonymous Coward]

His point was that Obama used those same tactics, and has no support from anyone. No one in power actually cares what Obama is saying, and most of the populations don't as well. That is why the British people forced their Parliament to vote down the use of force, and why so many Parliament members did so.

Re:failure to respond...

[Teancum]

Russia and China oppose so much that they would be willing to send in their armies to counter anything America decides to field.

Yeah, that sounds like a whole lot of fun to me in terms of a "hot war" between nuclear powers. And of course that can never get out of control, can it?

Re:failure to respond...

[the eric conspiracy]

3) He is not a retard

Uh no, he is definitely a retard.

Re:failure to respond...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is from the Guardian newspaper's website:

One former colonel in the Syrian air force said yesterday that despite claims that limited US strikes would do little damage to the regime, in key areas, where regime forces have already been heavily degraded by two and a half years of war, even the strikes proposed could have a significant impact.

“The air force in particular is almost on its last legs. They have a limited number of crews available and are cannibalising aircraft to keep them flying. That is the one thing FSA does not have.”

He added that although the air force had once had a dispersal plan designed to protect its planes the geography of the conflict, with rebel forces controlling large areas of the countryside made this impossible.

“In addition there are no underground hangers. The ones above ground are reinforced but are no match for modern weapons.”

Describing the rationale behind why the regime had launched chemical weapons strikes leaving them vulnerable to US strikes, he said he had heard from several sources in the country claims that the attack on east Ghouta was the result of a falling out between President Bashar Assad and his influential brother Maher, who has been blamed in some quarters for launching the chemical weapons strike.

“I was told there was a meeting and an argument over the lack of progress in clearing the Damascus suburbs with both sides blaming each other. The story is that Maher stormed out and ordered the attack.”

Re:failure to respond...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't doubt a religion that straps bombs to children and believes dying in jihad gives phenomenal rewards in the afterlife, wouldn't believe in acceptable losses to overcome their enemy. Some of the factions are extreme extremists.

I wouldn't doubt Mossad couldn't/wouldn't stage something to keep their enemies destabilised and provoke intervention by the West. Their small country hasn't survived this long by being only defensive.

What I won't believe is an immediate statement about overwhelming evidence, and then lack of presentation of said evidence: sure it wouldn't sway everyone, but it'd be far better than 'we were wrong before, but trust us this time! No ulterior motives.'

Re:failure to respond...

[cold fjord]

... against whom? the rebels or the saudis?

Noone with half a brain believes Assad is behind the chemical attack because

1) He has nothing to gain by doing so
2) He has everything to lose by doing so
3) He is not a retard

Not to mention that the past 6 months have shown that Assad isn't exactly cornered, on the contrary, he has been pushing further and further back against the rebels.

Maybe you can explain why the Syrian, not Saudi, regime has previously used chemical weapons on its people under conditions far less dangerous to the regime?

Hama 1982 – The Syrian massacre you never heard about

You are only offering bold declarations, not analysis. Also note that without Iranian assistance in the form of troops, training, and material, the Syrian government would be in far worse shape than it is now.

Re:failure to respond...

[johanw]

Well, many... The vote against the war proposal was turned down only by 285 against 272.

Re:failure to respond...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the rebels were behind it, it would probably be relatively easy for Assad/Russia to prove, and if Assad/Russia could prove the rebels did it, they'd be shouting it from the rooftops.

Re:failure to respond...

[jon3k]

I wouldn't have a choice if a judge (the UN in this analogy) decided there was reasonable evidence to issue a search warrant. Also, in the US it might also fall under the exigent circumstances clause which would allow the police to enter your home WITHOUT a search warrant (possible immediate harm, possible loss of evidence, etc).

Re:failure to respond...

[theshowmecanuck]

Yep. Pyrrhic victories aren't really victories. Victories with outside help are not victories by the regime. Funny how foreign fighters supplied and financed by Iran (Iranian intervention by proxy), fighting on the side of the regime are tolerated by Russia and China.

Re:failure to respond...

[theshowmecanuck]

I'll admit this is a hard one since the Syrian government is a supreme piece of shit in a world filled with crap governments (and who actively finance terrorists bent on attacking and wiping out the only democracy in the region: Israel). And the people fighting them are comprised mostly, now, if not always, by religious fanatics and jihadists who are frankly worse than the government. And even before they came along the resistance was started in Muslim Brotherhood territory. The Muslim Brotherhood (MB)... the same people who wanted to turn Egypt into an Islamist state.

The MB should always be suspect, even if they are only "loosely affiliated" with the Egyptian wing... yeah right. Who put up the 'non-political movement' to start this while ball of wax rolling? There are always organizers. And considering it all started in MB territory... Any organization with a religion as part of the name is suspect. And despite their insistence that they are inclusive and non-violent, the MB symbol is still a koran and crossed swords. And the word 'brotherhood'... where are the women? Oh yeah, wearing potato sacks with eye holes... pretty fucking inclusive, yeah? At least they train their women to believe it. That last bit is sarcasm if you can't figure it out.

Some days I think the best solution is to turn the whole region outside of Israel into a parking lot. At least most of the religious bullshit will be nullified. Hell maybe even Israel. Then we wouldn't have a fucking 'religious land' for retarded assholes to fight over. After that we can start thinking about religious fundamentalists in America. Too bad we can't breed that out. Isn't there that god gene that we can treat with DNA therapy?

Re:failure to respond...

[Captain Hook]

Whatever else you can say about G. W. Bush, he at least was able to get a lot of support for his invasions and keep those who didn't from interfering. Obama can't even get the UK on board.

I suspect the way Bush went about it gathering support for Iraq is part of the reason for the lack of support now.

There was a large anti-war sentiment in the UK before Iraq, but the the US and UK governments pushed the decision through on the basis that they knew he had WMD and he was prepared to use them.

Since Iraq, we've learnt that was all rubbish, the government elites were lying to the country and the backbench MPs. We were betrayed in the ultimate way and for no benefit to us as a country.

Cameron failed to gain support for military action because no one, including the backbench MPs trust the cabinet to give us accurate information any more and see no reason to engage in war on the basis of suspect information.

Re:failure to respond...

[umdesch4]

I have to admit, that was the one part of this narrative that almost got me thinking that the Syrian regime was implicated in the chemical attacks. Then I read this: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/debunking-u-s-claims-about-un-weapons-inspections.html ...specifically the part about when the request for UN inspectors was officially delivered. As a mere spectator in these events, it's impossible to separate the truth from the utter BS, but thinking logically about these things, it doesn't add up. Also, I dug through my ancient browser history from a backup last summer, and found this thing I was reading at the time: http://rt.com/news/syria-chemical-weapons-plot-532/ Those two articles, and tons of other analysis I've been reading over the last few days have cast serious doubt in my mind...

Re:failure to respond...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Russia has categorically stated that US involvement in Syria would never cause Russia to declare war. Russia know exactly how that would go down, and Syria is not worth it.

Re:failure to respond...

[LMariachi]

If I had joined a group (the U.N. in this case) where that’s one of the rules of membership, yeah.

Re:failure to respond...

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-news-rebels-admit-gas-attack-result-of-mishandling-chemical-weapons

Re:failure to respond...

[Teancum]

If American soldiers hit the ground and start taking territory, Russia will get involved. Russia basically said that bombing a few villages and killing tens of thousands of people wouldn't get them involved (as if killing tens of thousands of people is a justified response to the deaths of 1500 or so people killed by somebody else), and they aren't going to give a blank check to Assad yet.

But if Marines start to land, I would say the Russians might step up there too.

Re:failure to respond...

[chilvence]

Actually, the more likely charicature of events is that we just could not believe that anyone could be quite so blase about the prospect of bombing a country into oblivion without some sort of concrete reason that they genuinely believed in.

Well, you know that old tenesee saying... maybe in texas... fool me once.... can't get fooled again.

Re:failure to respond...

[Uberbah]

Maybe you can explain why the Syrian, not Saudi, regime has previously used chemical weapons on its people under conditions far less dangerous to the regime?

Maybe because he's not a moron? Your example is 30 years old. In 1982, a full six years before the U.S. helped Iraq gas Iran, Assad was all of 17 years old.

You are only offering bold declarations, not analysis.

I find your lack of self-awareness disturbing. Why don't you try going through 1-2-3-4 again, this time without your Dick Cheney hat.

1) He has nothing to gain by doing so
2) He has everything to lose by doing so
3) He is not a retard

Not to mention that the past 6 months have shown that Assad isn't exactly cornered, on the contrary, he has been pushing further and further back against the rebels.

Why would Assad give the United States and Israel the perfect excuse to bomb him if he's not desperate or a retard.

Re:failure to respond...

[Uberbah]

Assad is a brutal dictator who is cornered who made a calculated decision.

Then why didn't he make this "calculated decision" last year when the rebels were making massive territory gains? Why do it now when he's pushing the rebels back and the United States is looking for an excuse to bomb him?

Im sorry but how is this modded insightful?

Yes, common sense, awareness of recent history (mushroom clouds) and basic bullshit detecting abilities do inspire head-scratching from neocons and cruise missile liberals alike.

Re:failure to respond...

[Uberbah]

If I had joined a group (the U.N. in this case) where thatâ(TM)s one of the rules of membership, yeah.

Right. Just like how the United States let pretty much anyone inspect all of it's top secret facilities after the wars on Vietnam and Iraq, where chemical weapons were used (agent orange, phosphorous, depleted uranium). And on a regular basis to ensure that the U.S. remains in compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires disarmament.

Re:failure to respond...

[Uberbah]

That and he's probably smart enough to know that the USA has no ulterior motive to go in

Of course the U.S. has ulterior motives: taking out an ally of Iran and foe of Israel. if the U.S. actually gave a shit about chemical weapons, it wouldn't have looked the other way when Saddam was gassing Iran in the 80's. Or more recently, when Israel was using phosphorous on Gaza.

Re:failure to respond...

[cold fjord]

I'll help you break the code there. The Iranian army was attacked by the Iraqi army with Iraqi manufactured chemical weapons under orders from the Iraqi government. The US didn't help them with chemical weapon attacks. All the US did was provide them with intelligence on a danger in their disposition so that they wouldn't lose Basra and the war. Allowing Iran to win the war would have been bad for everybody. It is strange that you should bring that up since it isn't relevant to Syria in pretty much any way. Great attempt at libeling the US though.

Assad inherited the "family business" - Syria - from his father. The mechanisms of repression are well tested and proven. Chemical weapons could kill rebels in the 1980s, they can still kill rebels today. They have no shortage of chemical weapons. There have been cases of them firing missiles at the rebels rather than lose them.

Assad didn't "give the United States and Israel the perfect excuse to bomb him if he's not desperate or a retard" by using chemical weapons. He is counting on the threats from Iran, and interference by Russia and China to protect him, as the Syrian regime long has. I also doubt that the Israelis would bomb Syria over the matter. They would bomb to keep advanced Syrian weapons out of the hands of Hezbollah, Hamas, and possibly al Qaida, as they have already done. It is yet to be seen if the US will do anything, even as a token. Britain has bowed out. The French are still in, but with what?

The Syrian government has been fairly desperate, they are being propped up by Iranian troops, training, and material.

So, lets revisit the three questions:

1) He has nothing to gain by doing so -- Wrong. He has an easy way to kill rebels unprepared for chemical warfare, unlike the Syrian Army.
2) He has everything to lose by doing so -- Highly doubtful. Other countries have used chemical weapons and it typically leads to disapproval - shudder!
3) He is not a retard --- No, but he is a dictator, and he intends to hold on to power. His father massacred with chemicals, so can he. It also acts as a means of intimidation - "Keep it up and you'll get more of the same."

I look forward to you gaining further insight.

Re:failure to respond...

[LMariachi]

Using the U.S. as a yardstick for treaty compliance is like using Syria as a yardstick for upholding human rights.

Re:failure to respond...

[romons]

The evidence points at a 'rogue' commander. That does not obviate Assad's responsibility in this matter. The weapons were available to commanders. They were fired from an area controlled by Assad into an area controlled by the rebels. The army took precautions, like wearing masks, before the attack, so they knew what was happening. The Assad side had been trying to clear this area for months without success.

Assad probably had no personal knowledge of the attack. However, it was his fault. He needs to be punished so that 'accidents' like this do not happen again.

Also, the US needs this war to last as long as possible, so that a negotiated settlement that keeps the WMD from the terrorist they are currently backing can be achieved.

Re:failure to respond...

[gmhowell]

... against whom? the rebels or the saudis?

Noone with half a brain believes Assad is behind the chemical attack

WTF is it necessary to slander Herman's Hermits?

Re:failure to respond...

[Rakarra]

If you were in his place, would you allow inspections?

Yes, because the survival rate for dictators who have blocked inspectors has been fairly low.

Re:failure to respond...

[jwhitener]

Or... Assad isn't in complete control over every military unit and some rogue general did it.

Everyone can speculate all they want. The bottom line is there isn't any proof about who gave the orders.

Re:failure to respond...

[Uberbah]

I'll help you break the code there. The Iranian army was attacked by the Iraqi army with Iraqi manufactured chemical weapons under orders from the Iraqi government.

I'll let you in on recent news, since you've been living in a bunker: the U.S. gave Iraqis intel on Iranian troop positions with the full knowledge that they would use gas, and made no more effort to punish them than after they gassed the Kurds. Didn't stop the same neocons from breathlessly citing the latter - which they didn't care about at the time - as a reason to attack Saddam. "He's killing his own people!"

Assad inherited the "family business" - Syria - from his father.

As did Obama from Bush and Reagan and Nixon. Thus it makes perfect sense for Obama to break out the Agent Orange.

Assad didn't "give the United States and Israel the perfect excuse to bomb him if he's not desperate or a retard" by using chemical weapons.

Despite Obama making it crystal for the last year that he would really like to bomb Assad with talk of "red lines" on chemical weapons? You're either being willfully obtuse here, or Assad isn't the retard in the room.

also doubt that the Israelis would bomb Syria over the matter. They would bomb to keep advanced Syrian weapons out of the hands of Hezbollah, Hamas, and possibly al Qaida, as they have already done. It is yet to be seen if the US will do anything, even as a token.

Courteous of you to answer your own question, saves me the time.

He has nothing to gain by doing so -- Wrong. He has an easy way to kill rebels unprepared for chemical warfare, unlike the Syrian Army.

Wrong. If he were desperate enough to use chemical weapons, and invoke the "red line" that you've been studiously ignoring, then he would have used them when he was losing the war rather than winning as he is now. You're also depending on the "dumber than pond scum" explanation since the attack took place in the capital city, already a stronghold of Assad support, very close to his own forces. There's a reason even the Nazis didn't use chemical weapons in WWII: they are uncontrollable and can easily blow back onto your own troops. The other reason is that their use invites your enemies to respond with equal force, so we're back to pond scum again.

He has everything to lose by doing so -- Highly doubtful. Other countries have used chemical weapons and it typically leads to disapproval - shudder!

Other countries that aren't on America's shit list, like Somalia. You do know that makes a bit of a difference, yes? Like how we bombed Gaddafi for killing opposition protestors in Libya, all the while merrily selling weapons to be used on opposition protestors in Yemen, Bahrain, and Egypt.

I look forward to you gaining further insight.

I look forward to a response that doesn't pretend that Assad isn't dumber than pond scum and the nation that outspends the rest of the world combined on weapons hasn't been threatening to bomb the shit out of Assad if he, you know uses chemical weapons.

We really have proof now

[Anonymous Coward]

We lied about our reasons for war every time, but trust is, this time we have proof. Think of the children.

Re:We really have proof now

[Anonymous Coward]

Think of the children?
But you keep telling us that's immoral and illegal.
Why do you get to?

Hypocritical much

[palemantle]

Not that I completely disagree with the sentiment expressed in the article but all the wide-eyed outrage coming from the government of the US of A is a tad laughable seeing how it's the only country in the history of humankind that's pounded other countries with both nuclear (see Hiroshima, Nagasaki) and chemical (see Agent Orange, Vietnam) weapons.

Re:Hypocritical much

[The Grim Reefer]

Not that I completely disagree with the sentiment expressed in the article but all the wide-eyed outrage coming from the government of the US of A is a tad laughable seeing how it's the only country in the history of humankind that's pounded other countries with both nuclear (see Hiroshima, Nagasaki) and chemical (see Agent Orange, Vietnam) weapons.

It's the only country to use nukes. But it certainly isn't the only to use gas. France, Germany and the UK all used it during the first world war. While Agent Orange was a gas, it was not believed to be toxic to humans At the time it was used in Vietnam. It was a defoliant used so the North Vietnamese troops couldn't hide under the forest canopy. Unfortunately Monsanto tainted it in production.

Re:Hypocritical much

[Anonymous Coward]

Many instances of chemical warfare throughout history. Chemical weapons use is far from unique to the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare#History

Re:Hypocritical much

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the only country to use nukes. But it certainly isn't the only to use gas.

Hence his use of the word "both".

Re:Hypocritical much

[palemantle]

I take your point about other countries using chemical weapons. But: 1 - I meant that the US of A was the only nation to use both nuclear and chemical weapons 2 - Agent Orange wasn't just a defoliant. This quote is from the Agent Orange wikipedia article: "Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use"

Re:Hypocritical much

[The Grim Reefer]

Yes, but as far as I know, no one in the decision making chain knew that this would happen. Agent Orange, when produced correctly, itself is not toxic to humans. The problem was that Monsanto (the now defunct parent company of the present day Monsanto) over heated it during production. This caused 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin to form and contaminate the Agent Orange. The intent of spraying Agent Orange was to remove the tree cover, not to cause birth defects and to make troops on both sides sick years later. See the difference?

How would dropping a chemical on a battlefield (on both enemy and your own troops) that would take years to manifest symptoms be of any use to the military? If the intent was simply to poison the troops, then any number of other gasses or biological agents would certainly have been much more effective. At the time there were many other options of chemicals that could have been used to ensure a decisive victory.

The intent was to remove the forest cover. This was a much different usage than the mustard and chlorine gas that were used during WWI. Or VX and nerve gas. Those were meant to kill and seriously injure troops and civilians in a very short time, in one of the most awful ways for any one to die. Don't get me wrong, what happened was atrocious. But I don't think the outcome was what the intended use of Agent Orange. Now the way the military tried to cover this up was equally despicable. But that's another discussion.

Why is it up to US to police world?

[sinij]

There is UN, why is it up to US to police (and pay for) intervention? How does Syrians using chemical weapons against other Syrians is a US national security concern?

Re:Why is it up to US to police world?

[SylvesterTheCat]

There was an interesting op-ed in the Washington Post by Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro ("Attack without UN approval illegal"). I read a re-post of it in Stars & Stripes (Digital Edition, Main Edition, August 30, page 12). I cannot find a direct link to the Post and S&S uses flash, so you will have to dig it out yourself. It is worth reading.

Re:Why is it up to US to police world?

[Jmc23]

Probably because the US took on the police role to bully other countries, now they're just being called on their bully bluffs.

Re:Why is it up to US to police world?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the reports that I've seen reflect that the new government is taking barbaric measures to stay in power. Imagine the Wall Street protestors being shot by the hundreds. Imagine them being bombed with chemicals. Imagine now that all of that happened in regular neighborhoods, rather than on Wall Street.

The problem is that no one believes anything that any US leader says these days. So the instant that they want to go to war, we're all like, "Wooaa there..." Meanwhile, people are getting shot, wounded and killed for their political/religious patters, and they have no solution. I'm mixed on this until I see the US present the UN with the proof.

If you see a woman being raped, is it your duty to help her, or is it your duty to call the cops?

Re:Why is it up to US to police world?

[Anonymous Coward]

coz the US secretly loves sand niggers

Re:Why is it up to US to police world?

[walterbyrd]

You mean like the country that bombed our shores? Or bullying the country that declared war on us?

Here is in idea: if you people to punch you, don't punch them first.

Re:Why is it up to US to police world?

[sydneyfong]

If you see a woman being raped, is it your duty to help her, or is it your duty to call the cops?

The US is basically saying they are justified in raping the rapist in this situation. For great justice, right?

Re:Why is it up to US to police world?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a pacifist of sorts. However, the US is free to attack any country with or without reason, and it wouldn't be illegal under International Law.

Why?

Because only the UN Security Council could find the US in violation of International Law. The US would veto any such resolution, so it follows that the US can never act criminally under International Law.

No, it's not a bug, it's a feature carefully crafted in the UN from the start to avoid the failure that was the League of Nations.

Re:Why is it up to US to police world?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is UN

This isn't some sci-fi movie, the UN is just like a big meeting place to avoid WWIII. It never really was meant for anything else.

Re:Why is it up to US to police world?

[Gavagai80]

The rebels in Syria are guilty of a wide variety of sectarian atrocities and widespread terrorism. There's no sense in coming to the rescue of Charles Manson's side against Hitler's side. There's very little anybody can do for the Syrian people, but the most effective thing would probably be to back Assad -- at least if Assad wins he'll be able to control the country, if the rebels win it's likely decades of chaos with a weak government and lots of militias and terrorist groups carrying out sectarian reprisals.

Re:Why is it up to US to police world?

[Rich0]

There is UN

This isn't some sci-fi movie, the UN is just like a big meeting place to avoid WWIII. It never really was meant for anything else.

Indeed - this point is lost on those who complain about the 5 veto powers. The whole point of that arrangement was to avoid sanctioning action that might actually lead to WWIII - the 5 veto powers were the 5 nations that had nuclear weapons. This is just a diplomatic extension of the kind of general paralysis that MAD inevitably leads to.

Re:Why is it up to US to police world?

[Anonymous Coward]

the 5 veto powers were the 5 nations that had nuclear weapons

Almost... it worked out that way, but when the permanent security council was formed at the end of WWII, only the US had the bomb. France didn't have nuclear weapons until the 60s, though they were on the security council since the beginning, for example. But for many decades it has ended up as you describe.

Re:Why is it up to US to police world?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, sure, if that's the way you want it - let's propose to increase the UN's budget to something like 30% of the Pentagon's, and let it maintain its own military. Great idea.

Re:Why is it up to US to police world?

[gmhowell]

The whole point of that arrangement was to avoid sanctioning action that might actually lead to WWIII - the 5 veto powers were the 5 nations that had nuclear weapons.

Umm... No.

In 1946, considerably fewer than five countries had nukes. Hell, France barely had a country.

Weapons of MASS destruction?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we talking of destruction of human life OR just property? It seems the line has become blurred. Yet it seems to
cover both. I prefer more precise terms. Syria and nearby regions are already pretty much torn up. Who would want
to live in such an area? Frank Zappa once was attributed with saying, "If your kids knew how lame you really are, they would kill you in your sleep". I may have misquoted that, but ...

'Unified response'

[mvdwege]

A unified response is necessary, according to the analyst. Funny how that sounds like "too bad the House of Commons refused to be an American lapdog for a change".

Re:'Unified response'

[Anonymous Coward]

Oliver Meier is whining because he thinks the right answer is to get involved. Any other answer is the "wrong answer" to him.

The fact is, the world does have a unified response and has been vigorously pursuing it. They condemn the atrocities and otherwise stay away. Far, far away. Well, except for the Hezbollah and Russian activities.

Syria will never be an ally of America. Syria will always try to carve it's own path in opposition to all Western thought, ideals, practices and policies. They view themselves as a staunch defender of the (Muslim) faith. Once you accept this the strategic realities become clear.

People who think that Russia, Iran or Hezbollah are winning, or in danger of winning, are dangerous or deluded. They have already won the victory of Syria's friendship and alliance, for whatever that's worth. China I view as a special case, they have no ideological compatibility with Syria (both being authoritarian governments is the thinnest of common ground).

Deja vu

[gmuslera]

Iraq: A defining moment for weapons of mass destruction

How many times people will buy remakes of The empire strikes back?

And, btw, is good to have backup of what newspapers said before media control, like when was disclosed that U.S. backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad's regime.

This is not about caring about Syrian people, at least, not the big majority of them, just about the friendly ones that will be put in control. Remember how much US cared about iraquis? Seem that they wanted exclusivity on killing them for fun

Re:Deja vu

[Anonymous Coward]

The source for the archived daily mail article is infowars, a conspiracy theorist's website. The source for infowars is a hacker's supposed dump of a defense contractor's servers that supposedly included the incriminating email about US backing some chemical weapons plan. Except the emails were forged. See the explanation in the response to this reddit comment.

Re:Deja vu

[cold fjord]

And, btw, is good to have backup of what newspapers said before media control, like when was disclosed that U.S. backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad's regime [archive.org].

That Daily Mail story is the result of email forgery, as the Mail admits. I trust you won't quote it again?

Iraq did have and use chemical weapons in the past. They were caught repeatedly cheating on the inspections after the 1991 Gulf War. The only reason that they didn't have them in 2003 was because they secretly disposed of them previously after they had been successful in keeping them hidden from previous inspections. The Iraqi government continued to act as if it still had chemical weapons but was hiding them to fool Iran.

The US put an end to Saddam's mass murder of Iraqis, and diverting money designated for food and medicine to build palaces, buy weapons, and bribe influential politicians and UN representatives. A democratic Iraqi government is now making decisions for Iraq, and they at least have a chance at building a decent country that they wouldn't have if Saddam or his sons were still in power. The cost of that transition was less than the long term average of Saddam's butchery.

I watched the video. It said: No unarmed people were hurt during shooting. One of the marines made reference to having been shot at by a sniper.

Re:Deja vu

[tristes_tigres]

Iraq did have and use chemical weapons in the past.

With full knowledge and approval of the USA government, as the declassified government documents prove

"Exclusive: CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran"
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

I find it amazing that so many people treat assertions by the US government as a fact. How many times you need to be lied to grow up a little?

Re:Deja vu

[cold fjord]

That the US knew about Iraqi chemical weapons is hardly a stunning revelation since Iraq had been using them in the war against Iran. I will also add that Iraq created its own chemical weapons as most countries with a chemical industry could. The US provided Iraq with some intelligence data, that has also been known for a very long time. No, the US government did not approve of Iraqi chemical weapon use. You wildly exaggerate, to be polite.

Shouldn't part of growing up be to make proper use of facts in discussion instead of making wild exaggerations?

Re:Deja vu

[tristes_tigres]

No, the US government did not approve of Iraqi chemical weapon use. You wildly exaggerate, to be polite.

And you are lying, to be precise. Here're some choice quotes from the article in the "Foreign Policy" that I linked to

U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

and also

U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture.

"The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy.

Looks like tacit approval to me.

The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.

This is not a defining moment

[phantomfive]

This is not a defining moment any more than Iraq vs Iran in the 80s, than the USSR in Afghanistan, than the US in Vietnam, etc.

War is hell. Someday if your country is in a brutal fight to the death, you may also insist that your country use them. Honestly, if you want to stop Assad, then stop Assad, but don't try to pretend it's some moral imperative based on chemical weapons.

They're already responding, really

[Anonymous Coward]

"no one will act" is exactly the response our government wants to establish at this moment.
Once we're sure that Russia, China and Europe won't hammer down on chemical weapons, we can start "we totally did not deploy"ing them again.
DOW is probably working on some brand new, very expensive recipes as we speak.

Setting or Following a Precedent?

[lubaciousd]

I may not be privy to the evidence that the authors of the article have seen themselves, but I've still yet to see the US claims of Assad-affiliates' guilt substantiated. Let's look at the major points they make:

1)Unified response is essential - This won't happen; Russia is quite comfortable profiting from the Assad regime and the fickle states of the world that once belonged to the Iraq-centric Coalition of the Willing remember the last time US evidence inspired "unified" action as an expensive misstep.

2)Future of chemical weapons must be deterred - If the Assad regime is definitely responsible, an attack may serve this purpose. If, as some people have suggested, a rebel faction used the weapons to garner sympathy/international involvement, engaging in any action will in some sense validate the tactic as successful.

3)The international community needs to clearly understand the circumstances about the use of chemical weapons in this case - I think they've hit the nail on the head here; everybody has an agenda and limits to their perspective.

4)International Assistance for Syrian civilians in and around Syria - This is one way that nations can uncontroversially take the problem seriously

5)Prepare for chemical weapon elimination in post-conflict Syria - I hope this can happen; it seems like the best way to make it happen would be to find an expert who is not from "the West" from a Syrian citizen's perspective.

6)Consider long-term legal consequences for regime - Absolutely give the Syrian people their day in court

Some thoughts:

I've noticed the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" has been 100% absent from the discussion about Syria, despite the fact that the kind of weapons that appear to have been used are among the kinds the US claimed and expected to find in Iraq pre-invasion. Unlike Iraq, the question is who used them, not whether they were initially present in the region, but unfortunately our hastiness in prior conflicts has erected a barrier to swift action particularly among former coalition members.

Yet again, unclear circumstances(based on the evidence I have been able to find) are being interpreted into an urgent call for military action by the US, and yet again, the evidence is not up for international scrutiny. I realize the US might actually be right in this case, as chemical weapons do seem to have been used, but the question still remains:

Why should the world believe the US military isn't the world's biggest hammer trying to see Syria as another nail?

Re:Setting or Following a Precedent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it's a crowbar, DUH.

Seriously though - we'll know if it was Assad who's got them by whether or not we go in full force.
Weapons of mass destruction were certainly in Iraq - but they'd expired about ten years earlier. We'd never have gone in there if we had reason to believe he actually had, or was about to have a nuke. Countries with nukes get talked with not invaded.

Chances are they were used, but it could just as easily be someone else trying to fan the flames, or a false flag operation on our own end. Right now it would appear we're all not certain, but once we are, we'll either know not to send troops in because he's got them, or Syria will become a new Iraq.

Re:Setting or Following a Precedent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad that Assad lacks an important incident in his own experience: having survived as poison-gas attack. For all the ghastly non-restraint that Adolph Hitler exercised in WWII, that having been blinded by mustard gas in WWI kept him from using his stockpile of chemical weapons in battle. (Too bad that restraint did not apply to using chemical weapons on captives.)

Sorry for having ended this discussion, though.

Re:Setting or Following a Precedent?

[khallow]

We'd never have gone in there if we had reason to believe he actually had, or was about to have a nuke.

That was probably the driver for the invasion. The sanctions were going to end at some point. Then Iraq would have been free to pursue nuclear weapon development again.

The "chemical attack" was planned by the west

[Anonymous Coward]

Source from Jan 29, 2013: http://news.yahoo.com/us-backed-plan-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-syria-045648224.html

Re:The "chemical attack" was planned by the west

[Jmc23]

Interesting if true.

Re:The "chemical attack" was planned by the west

[phantomfive]

It's not, it was retracted as a hoax, and now is only peddled by people who have nothing better to do with their time. If you read the email 'plan,' it sounds like something a 20 year old college student would write, not a defense contractor

Re:The "chemical attack" was planned by the west

[almechist]

If you read the email 'plan,' it sounds like something a 20 year old college student would write, not a defense contractor

So you're saying the plan is simple and plausible, but doesn't involve developing hi-tech weapons systems and spending massive amounts of taxpayer money.

Stagerring hypocrisy

[santosh.k83]

Staggering hypocrisy on the part of the US government. The same country which has used Agent Orange, Napalm, Cluster bombs, Nuclear weapons and depleted uranium shells, does not hesitate to talk about the horror of another country taking it's own baby steps after the footsteps of the founding father of modern warmongering. Estimates of up to 400,000 people killed or wounded by Agent Orange, 388,000 TONS of napalm dropped on Vietnam... Where is the accountability from the USA for these war crimes? On the other hand it does not even bind itself to Protocol III of UN CCW, nor sign the NPT. God I'm fed up with the moral high ground being claimed here. It would be better for the US government to flat out state it's ACTUAL geopolitical interests in this war and wade right in (which it'll do anyway). A modicum of honour in there in at least admitting to be bad. Right now I see no ethical difference between the leader of a supposed leading nation of humanity's best values and thugs like Assad, and that's frightening and sad. And don't forget that it is the "first world" countries (not necessarily the US) that supplied these bastards with all their arms and ammunition including chemical ones. Plain military power rules everywhere it seems. Fuck humanity, fuck ethics, fuck values.

Re:Stagerring hypocrisy

[phantomfive]

Yeah, if you want to invade Syria, at least be honest about your reasons for it. Don't hide behind false morals.

Re:Stagerring hypocrisy

[jodido]

And chemical warfare by Iraq against Iran during the 1980-89 war

Re:Stagerring hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

And what, retard, do you think are the "real" reasons? "durr DA oils durr"? Lolzers.

Re:Stagerring hypocrisy

[phantomfive]

Who knows? Obama's hurt pride at having a 'line crossed'?

Re:Stagerring hypocrisy

[Anonymous Coward]

Honest? Honesty is antithetical to this VERY corrupt Administration. Here we are again with the White House throwing around propaganda about weapons of mass destruction in some other country. Funny though how few Democrats this time aren't protesting against Obama, even though they were against the Iraq War 10 years ago. But then both (D) and (R) Parties are neither against Obama's war mongering. It's time for impeachment!

Re:Stagerring hypocrisy

[phantomfive]

A lot of very prominent democrats voted for the war last time.

That's BS

[scheme]

When war is excused, for any reason, it is a sign that civilization is failing. It's the exact same thing as college sports.

...

When the only way to resolve matters is with bombs, then we're all going to die in a war. I don't understand why the US doesn't just impose sanctions on Syria. Seriously, wtf are they going to do, bomb the place(s) that are producing chemical weapons? I guess that's one thing they could do, but how about simply go in and try to talk it out? Or stay the hell out of the way? If the US puts itself into their war, then won't that make more people hate the US, and in turn, create more reasons for terrorists to try to fuck with the American people?

So you're saying that everyone should have stayed the hell out of the way in Rwanda when the Hutus decided that the Tutsis population didn't need to keep living. I think that the shame then was that the UN and international community waited 100 days and let over a million Tutsis people die before intervening. If you're going to call the intervention and subsequent war against the Hutu government a sign that the civilation is failing then you have no sense of decency. An analogous situation arises in the Bosnian civil war.

Economic sanctions don't always work and for some countries aren't effective. It's not going to hurt Syria if they don't buy anything from the US or can get what they need from the black market. Unless of course, you're suggesting that we blockade all commerce to Syria and slowly let the population starve.

Get involved but on a limited scale.

[jonwil]

Don't have boots on the ground. Don't have long term commitment. Go in hard and fast with airstrikes, missiles and other things aimed squarely at Assad's military forces. Tanks. Aircraft. Military bases. Military communications. Command centers. Artillery pieces and missile batteries. Anything that is a military target and can be taken out without civilian casualties. (with the precision strike capability the US has these days from drones etc, taking out even something as small as a tank without civilian casualties is theoretically possible)

What this does is A.Punish the Syrian and Syrian Government for using chemical weapons. B.Takes away the things they used to disperse those chemical weapons so they cant do it again and C.Helps level the playing field so that those groups (regardless of affiliation) who are trying to overthrow Assad have a greater chance of actually getting rid of Assad. (without actually giving any direct support or recognition to any one such group)

Only requires a short term commitment, low amount of resources, no boots on the ground, low risk of casualties (assuming the first strikes are by stealth aircraft and other things capable of taking down any air defenses Assad may be using without being shot down themselves),

Re:Get involved but on a limited scale.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't have boots on the ground. Don't have long term commitment.

You don't seem to understand how this works.

Syria is between Iraq and Europe and is not particularly open to foreign interests. In order to maintain an oil pipeline from Iraq to Europe, Syria needs to be occupied.

Re:Get involved but on a limited scale.

[Anonymous Coward]

Syria is between Iraq and Europe and is not particularly open to foreign interests. In order to maintain an oil pipeline from Iraq to Europe, Syria needs to be occupied.

Then I guess the Europeons will have to step up after we're done smoking Syria's ass with airpower, now won't they? Boo hoo.

Re:Get involved but on a limited scale.

[Anonymous Coward]

You must have heard that there are almost no secular fighting forces amongst the rebels, so why do you want the islamists to take control of syria?

Re:Get involved but on a limited scale.

[johanw]

And what if the Syrian rebels were using those chemical weapons? The US government seems unwilling to investigate that option, even unwilling to let the UN investigate this. They have only one prefered outcome. Judging from Kerry's speech they don't even to bother to produce fake evidence like in Iraq.

Re:Get involved but on a limited scale.

[johanw]

We Europeans can get our oil from Russia and Iran. But the US seems not to like that so a puppet regime has to be created in Syria.

Re:Get involved but on a limited scale.

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you mention Iraq... Learning from history the Americans have already smelled blood, facts and logic aren't going to stop them from cutting throats and drinking from them. Not to scare you or anything but they won't stop either after they're finished with Middle-Eastern/Muslim countries.

Re:Get involved but on a limited scale.

[Anonymous Coward]

..and how TF is that going to work, xactly?

Can't be bothered fact checking or quote searching here either, however, the precison "taking out" of local military targets precision requires either *local* base support from which to do so (boots on the ground), *OR* an-utter-sh*tload of Cruise Missilies. Which cost ca. $500,000 apiece.

What was that quote again about "I'm not firing a Cruise Missile into an empty tent, to take out two Arabs and a donkey.."? Particularly in a scenario such as this, even with airstrikes and drones, you are gonna need a consensus for flyover of other terrority, a consensus which does not appear entirely appealing even to the Brits at present. And they will happily bomb anybody the US wants, given half a mandate - at present, there is none.

Where xactly were the WMD's from Iraq located again? Prove (beyond doubt) the use of chemical weapons *first*, and if the great unwashed remain still sceptical over the joys of yet another "lets bomb yet another stone-age land back into, eh, the stone-age .." adventure - hell, who can blame 'em, I certainly wouldn't personally.

Re:Get involved but on a limited scale.

[shutdown -p now]

those groups (regardless of affiliation) who are trying to overthrow Assad have a greater chance of actually getting rid of Assad

Why is it a desirable goal?

Re:Get involved but on a limited scale.

[Anonymous Coward]

those groups (regardless of affiliation) who are trying to overthrow Assad have a greater chance of actually getting rid of Assad

Why is it a desirable goal?

Not that I agree with that course of action, but a Balkanized Syria makes it is easier to go against the Iran.

Re:Get involved but on a limited scale.

[cam2574]

The chemichal weapons were used by the rebels, because they win with the U.S.A. involvement, the motivation couldnt be more obvious.

Obama is starting a war on false premises, just like Bush did in Irak, where no weapons of mass destruction were found.

The rebels have close links with Al-Qaeda and Hezbolla on the other side would seek retaliation against the intruders.

Re:Get involved but on a limited scale.

[shutdown -p now]

But rebel victory (implied by overthrowing Assad) would not really lead to a balkanized Syria. It would, more likely, lead to a unified Sunni Syria (which, I have to say, will complicate things for Iran even so).

Balkanized Syria would actually imply supporting either side to just an extent that's necessary to prompt splintering the country. Something that Assad has actually already talked about at some point (Shia/Christians/Druze get most of the shore, Sunni get the rest of it).

Re:Get involved but on a limited scale.

[rubycodez]

nonsense. for two years over one hundred thousand people have been killed, and that's fine with people like you because explosives and shrapnel and bullets are marvelous. But use this sensationalized method to kill a person and all of a sudden "we have to do something". Firing missiles is an act of war, and Syria and allies would attack US troops, interests, citizens perhaps allies. Whether "long term committment" is not something that can be planned, entirely up to the country bombed and their allies how long and how drastically they want to respond. And this is assuming the Syrian government used the weapons, and not Al Qaeda or other group to draw us in (since we know the Obama adminstration are pathological liars)

And it's hypocritical, the USA gave Saddam dual-use technology and billions of dollars to make chemical weapons, and even after he gassed Kurds and Iraqis we continued to do business with him. So the USA totally guilty of using chemical weapons, what actions do you support against the USA?

We supplied cluster bombs to Israel that to this day are maiming and killing Lebanese citizens in formerly pro-Israeli Christian cities. Do you support punishment for that ongoing crime against humanity. What about the white phosphorous bombs we've used and supplied, those are chemical weapons too.

The reality is this is not our fight. there are terrorsts on both sides. we need to stop jumping into civil wars and causing four or more times the casualties. We have no moral high ground because we too are guilty of the use of chemical weapons.

Re:Get involved but on a limited scale.

[LanMan04]

I thought that (a) the weapons were fired from a gov-controlled facility, and (b) the US intercepted phone calls from Syrian army command to the weapon launching folks?

Or not? Just what I thought had been "confirmed".

Re:Staggering hypocrisy

[MRe_nl]

As a student of military history i think you're being overly kind and optimistic ; ).

http://www.internationalist.org/chemwarhoax0503a.html
http://www.internationalist.org/chemwarhoax0503b.html

(Ignore the ideological ranting, the facts are pretty solid).

Higher casualties among civilians

[archer, the]

Since this is happening in the city, instead of some huge open field, if Assad uses chemical weapons, he'll greatly increase the number of casualties of civilians who are loyal to him.

When an explosive detonates, those civilians who aren't supporting the rebels have some protection from the shrapnel because they're hiding indoors.

When a chemical is released, it can spread for blocks, seeping into the buildings through existing cracks or new holes made by shrapnel made by conventional ordnance and increasing the number of casualties in those people who aren't supporting the rebels.

If this were happening in an open field where only the two sides of the fight were present, I can't see any difference between explosive and chemical attacks. Here's a guess: Maybe the explosive attacks are more likely to be immediately lethal or have a higher chance of being healed, as opposed to chemicals which may be more likely to burn enough of a person's body that they can't enjoy life again ever, yet don't kill the victim outright.

Re:Higher casualties among civilians

[ultranova]

If this were happening in an open field where only the two sides of the fight were present, I can't see any difference between explosive and chemical attacks.

Scale. You need to shoot a lot of bullets or artillery shells to kill everyone in the field, but a cloud of poison does it fast and effective. Chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, which means using them will likely result in the conflict escalating - perhaps even to the point of spilling into the neighbouring countries. Clouds of poison gas don't care about national borders, after all.

It's the "gun in a fistfight" principle - it means things are going to get ugly(er).

Old quote

[benjfowler]

"I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes"

-- Winston Churchill.

It's not a clear cut principle...

[jopsen]

weapons that deliver a chemical reaction causing bits of metal flying through your eye, skin and lung are good.

It's only in American you'll hear someone say that weapons are good.

Also conventional weapons are not allowed to kill indiscriminately either... They are not allowed to be dangerous generations later, i.e. mines forbidden.
You'll also find that most responsible countries are taking steps towards forbidding cluster munition:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions

The phrase "most responsible countries" obviously excludes the U.S.

The point is, it's not always easy to see when a weapon is illegal, teargas if okay for instance...
But releasing toxic gas killing civilians is obviously crossing a line.

Swift action or none

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama and Clinton made a mess out of the Middle East with naive policy and support for corruption. It is too late to do anything in Syria. Obama should have launched smart weapons immediately after the first use of chemical weapons with no speeches! Just swift clear action. The peanut head made a speech, the red line, and then when the line was crossed made another speech and has allowed Syria to prepare. Obama is not dumb; Obama is a complete idiot. He is going to get millions killed around the world with his indecisiveness supported by his incompetence.

ASSAD USED THE SAME CHEMICAL WEAPONS

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

That Colin Powell discovered that Saddam stored in Iraq.

The kind that exist in "intelligence assessments" that are long on pronouncement and void of evidence.

Not really relevant

[TheLink]

That's bullshit disproven by history. It doesn't matter how terrible wars are - as long as the leaders starting the wars think the wars are a good idea.

If the sociopaths at the top benefit while the soldiers die in bloody messy ways, do you think they will care? They will cry fake tears at the funerals to win votes/support, but they won't actually care.

Not that it'll happen but I've proposed an arguably more effective way to reduce unnecessary wars that will work even with sociopaths at the top:

In the old days kings used to lead their soldiers into battle. In modern times this is impractical and counterproductive.

But you can still have leaders lead the frontline in spirit.

Basically, if leaders are going to send troops on an _offensive_ war/battle (not defensive war) there must be a referendum on the war.

If there are not enough votes for the war, those leaders get put on deathrow.

At a convenient time later, a referendum is held to redeem each leader. Leaders that do not get enough votes get executed. For example if too many people stay at home and don't bother voting - the leaders get executed.

If it turns out later that the war was justified, a fancy ceremony is held, and the executed leaders are awarded a purple heart or equivalent, and you have people say nice things about them, cry and that sort of thing.

If it turns out later that the leaders tricked the voters, a referendum can be held (need to get enough signatories to start such a referendum, just to prevent nutters from wasting everyone elses time).

This proposal has many advantages:
1) Even leaders who don't really care about those "young soldiers on the battlefield" will not consider starting a war lightly.
2) The soldiers will know that the leaders want a war enough to risk their own lives for it.
3) The soldiers will know that X% of the population want the war.
4) Those being attacked will know that X% of the attackers believe in the war - so they want a war, they get a war - for sufficiently high X, collateral damage becomes insignificant. They might even be justified in using WMD and other otherwise dubious tactics. If > 90% of the country attacking you want to kill you and your families, what is so wrong about you using WMD as long as it does not affect neighbouring countries?

The real contention while formulating a response.

[ttucker]

Russia, for example, does not dispute that chemical weapons were used, or that it was bad. They do dispute that there is any credible evidence linking the chemical weapons to the Syrian government. The attacks might also have been terrorist in nature, or even worse been perpetrated in a false flag manner to intentionally start a war. What is truly newsworthy about these events is how fast the US wants to move on Syria.

What is a "war crime"?

[bradley13]

Put them on trial? You just said that they have not violated any laws, so, what is a "war crime"?

Seriously, war crimes trials reek of vengeance and have nothing whatsoever to do with justice. Take the loser of some conflict or other, accuse them of "crimes" (even though they violated no law), drag them through a court process and sentence them. Generally speaking, this is simply revenge by the winner on the loser.

Otherwise, we should prosecute pretty much the entire American government, top level military and SES staff for war crimes. Complicity in torture, in unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations, on detaining prisoners indefinitely, etc, etc..

You mean AMERICA'S use of chemical weapons

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me take you yanks back a few years. The Iranian people finally readied to take back their nation, and throw out the US despot who had been ruling over them since the CIA had exterminated all democracy in Iran. During the revolution, the Iranians took some US spies/terrorists/torturers hostage, and unlike how the US behaves to its hostages, treated them quite well, and released them when Reagan was elected president. The filthy monsters that rule the USA wanted revenge, so shortly afterwards they instructed their puppet despot in Iraq, Saddam, to declare war on Iran.

The war went badly for the Americans, so the US military increasingly assisted Saddam. Ultimately, this resulted in the USA delivering MASSIVE amounts of chemical weapons to Saddam, together with military trainers and advisor to ensure they'd be deployed effectively. Then the US directly co-ordinated chemical weapons attacks against Iranian forces and civilians, using satellites like the one just launched, to provide real-time ground intelligence.

The Syrian terrorists, the vast majority of them from Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Qatar, Kuwait, Libya, Iraq and every other place the USA has influence, are extremist Muslim nutcases who want the secular regime of Syria to end, and in its place to install a Saudi Arabia flavoured Islamic state, with ZERO rights for women. These terrorists are recruited, trained, funded, and armed by the USA- but using a series of proxies. Saudi Arabia launders the US money, and thus 'appears' to be the source of the funding. British intelligence bases in Qatar (including Al Jazeera, the mock Muslim news-service created by the BBC's MI6 World Service department) oversee the logistics of the terror campaign. Training of the terror forces occurs at British controlled facilities in Jordan, where special forces from France, UK, Israel, and the USA attempt to give the idiot kids the skills they need to create maximum havoc in Syria.

The US government purchases weapons from every possible military market to arm the terrorists. Much of this is old Soviet tech left over when the USSR withdrew from all the old satellite states. Obama set two conditions for Croatia joining the EU, for instance. The first was the transport of unthinkable amounts of weaponry to Obama's terror forces.

Obama has provided chemical weapons to the terrorists he sends into Syria in as many varieties as possible. These range from the crudest imaginable to some that might have been state-of-the-art in the 60s, although the delivery and dispersal systems are much more modern. Just as with the Iran-Iraq war that America forced on the world, every aspect of the horror in Syria is a US creation. Obama's problem, given that Syria is largely attacked by very nasty, very disturbed, very enthusiastic young men with little military training or discipline, is how to get this sea of cannon fodder to effectively deploy the much more sophisticated mass murder technology that Obama wishes to see successfully deployed.

Remember, this isn't about Syria- this is about Iran. The monsters that rule you have been searching for a sheeple convincing excuse to exterminate Iran for many years now, and have made no real progress. If Obama can set the whole Middle East alight, those that pull his strings figure the USA can work a genocidal strike against Iran in amongst all the carnage.

Re:You mean AMERICA'S use of chemical weapons

[benjfowler]

As vile, vicious and deceitful as if it were penned by the Ayatollah himself.

Atrocity is Counter-Productive

[cervesaebraciator]

It matters little who started what. Dresden remains an example of moral and practical failure. The moral failure came in the form of the massive civilian casualties knowingly inflicted. (That military men are guilty of atrocities does not mean unarmed non-combatants deserve punishment for those atrocities.)

The practical failure is often ignored, however, and the British should have been well aware of it. The Germans bombed London for months, operating under the belief that attacking the city would break the civilian will to fight. It turned out that attacking civilian populations only increases their will to fight, increases enlistment of willing soldiers beyond anything conscription can do, and makes any suggestion of acquiescence a political impossibility for those attacked. If you defeat an enemy military in the field, civilian support for the war effort will wane. Yet you cannot easily secure a surrender once you've committed atrocities against civilians.

This is directly comparable to the treatment of POWs. Some Germans were told by their fathers who'd fought in WWI to fight bravely even to the death against Russians but surrender to the first Americans you find. They said this because American had a policy of treating POWs humanely in WWI. Thus, American units in the European front could sometimes welcome a reduction in the fighting strength of the Germans due to surrender--an option which is always preferable because those who surrender do not shoot back. Contrast this with Americans after the Bataan Death March or, better still, Soviet defectors early in the war. Many Ukranians welcomed the Nazis, thinking them liberators from the evils of Stalin. They soon learned that the racist bastards could be even worse than Stalin. Consequently, Soviet soldiers fought for the state more fervently and many would refuse to surrender, knowing that death in battle would be preferable to being a Slavic POW in Nazi hands.

Atrocity can seem to give the one who commits it a brief surge of power, partly because of the fear it inflicts. But in the long run, atrocity and the killing of civilians is always counter-productive to a war effort. For more information, see Section V of this monograph.

Re:Atrocity is Counter-Productive

[phantomfive]

Interesting post.

Re:Atrocity is Counter-Productive

[Anonymous Coward]

It matters who started what. Firebombing Dresden may very well have been a 'war crime', but on the other hand - it may be justified as a revenge well deserved for the civilians concerned. Hitler did not start the war on his own. He came to power through elections, promising a bigger Germany. Expansion was only possible through war. And so the people who elected him were guilty in said war. So bombing them just to mass murder them can be justified on that ground. (As opposed to people who live and suffer under a dictator they never had any control over.)

Electing a warlord is not ok - when genocide and war is part of his plans. "Mein kampf" and similiar litterature were available before Hitler got elected. Expanding Germany (and somehow getting rid of the jews) were among his campaign promises. Dresden was a war crime, but in this case, the civilians was not innocent.

Re:Atrocity is Counter-Productive

[Anonymous Coward]

It matters who started what. Firebombing Dresden may very well have been a 'war crime', but on the other hand - it may be justified as a revenge well deserved for the civilians concerned. Hitler did not start the war on his own. He came to power through elections, promising a bigger Germany. Expansion was only possible through war. And so the people who elected him were guilty in said war. So bombing them just to mass murder them can be justified on that ground. (As opposed to people who live and suffer under a dictator they never had any control over.)

Electing a warlord is not ok - when genocide and war is part of his plans. "Mein kampf" and similiar litterature were available before Hitler got elected. Expanding Germany (and somehow getting rid of the jews) were among his campaign promises. Dresden was a war crime, but in this case, the civilians was not innocent.

Almost as many civilians died in the firebombing of Hamburg (Operation Gomorrah: 42,600 dead) as died in the entire Battle of Britain. There comes a point at which you start looking like a bloody monster and a hypocrite when you talk about 'fighting tyranny' and 'fighting for freedom and humanity' while are slaughtering the 500.000th German civilian to avenge 43,381 civilian deaths during the Battle of Britain. And yes I know about the Holocaust, I accept that millions died in it, but apparently Allied leaders did not know about it until 1945 so they could not have been avenging the Holocaust prior to 1945. Also it is interesting to note that even UK and US historians widely accept today that the average German civilian was unaware of the scope of what was going on in the camps. As for the German people electing Hitler into power, he was never elected into government because he never even got a majority of the vote. He formed a coalition with a conservative party and then effectively seized power and began to systematically disassemble any political opposition by force. There is a reason that Germans and Austrians were the single largest group of foreigners that fought for the Spanish Republic and why they were the most effective foreign troops. They could either succeed in Spain, in battle against their own Nazi countrymen, or die because if they lost they had nowhere to go. Thousands of Germans were buried in Spain, fighting Hitler, while the USA, France and Britain were busy sealing the Republic off from arms shipment and not lifting a finger to prevent the Nazi German and Italian governments from arming Franco and his Fascists to the teeth. If that apathetic triumvirate had united to teach Hitler and Mussolini a bloody lesson in Spain in 1936-7, WWII would possibly never have happened but we will never know that now will we...

Re:Atrocity is Counter-Productive

[Savage-Rabbit]

It matters who started what. Firebombing Dresden may very well have been a 'war crime', but on the other hand - it may be justified as a revenge well deserved for the civilians concerned. Hitler did not start the war on his own. He came to power through elections, promising a bigger Germany. Expansion was only possible through war. And so the people who elected him were guilty in said war. So bombing them just to mass murder them can be justified on that ground. (As opposed to people who live and suffer under a dictator they never had any control over.)

Electing a warlord is not ok - when genocide and war is part of his plans. "Mein kampf" and similiar litterature were available before Hitler got elected. Expanding Germany (and somehow getting rid of the jews) were among his campaign promises. Dresden was a war crime, but in this case, the civilians was not innocent.

The USA was responsible for the murder of thousands of people in the Middle East by supporting homicidal dictators in the region during the period after WWII. US agents trained death-squads and torturers, consulted on their activities and financed their operations all over the world. Does that mean that the Twin Towers were, and I quote your self: "revenge well deserved for the [American] civilians concerned"? IMHO the answer is *NO*. Just because somebody is an American and his government (that he may or may not have voted for) sponsors the murder of people in the Middle East it does not mean that this civilian is responsible for the atrocity committed by his government and deserves to die. If that applies to Americans it also applies to everybody else including Germans.

Re:Atrocity is Counter-Productive

[cervesaebraciator]

[...] it may be justified as a revenge well deserved for the civilians concerned. Hitler did not start the war on his own. He came to power through elections, promising a bigger Germany. Expansion was only possible through war. And so the people who elected him were guilty in said war. [...] Dresden was a war crime, but in this case, the civilians was not innocent.

Passing judgment on a whole people is the way of those whom you abhor. Do not be as they were. Bombs do not distinguish between those who supported Hitler, those who believed falsely about him, those who did not support him, those who hid from him, those who opposed him, and those who suffered under him. The firestorm consumed all of these, even babes in arms.

A citizen reaching the voting age when the war began would have been 14 when Hitler was appointed chancellor. And will you blame him for the Reichstag his parents elected? But even if a person held the franchise at the beginning of 1933, it would have mattered little for our purposes by mid-year. Hitler was appointed Chancellor by the Reichstag, not elected by some democratic referendum as you seem to believe. By May, he had secured emergency powers to begin throwing suspected opposition (especially communists and members of trade unions) in prison without trial or to concentration camps. By March, he was a dictator in all but name. Note that this all happened without intervening elections. With such power, he had himself named Führer by 1934. And will you call Hitler's ascendancy democratic so you can dubiously claim that civilians in Dresden deserved for their homes to be turned into crematorial furnaces?

But even if it were true that Hitler had been the leader of a democracy, as you falsely believe, it is still a terrible thing to blame a whole people for a government's actions. In the simplest meaning of the term, democracies operate on majority, not on consensus. Supporters of the villain need not have been higher than 51%. Who can defend killing the 49% to punish the 51%? When crimes occur in our neighborhoods, our best traditions hold it better that a guilty man walk than an innocent man suffer punishment for those crimes. You propose to burn down the whole neighborhood, young and old, man and woman, perpetrator and victim alike.

You have spoken in ignorance of the political arrangements that led to Hitler's rise. But I do not object chiefly to your ignorance, for that may be cured easily enough. It is this claim, that some entire nation which you define--one might say a "genos"--should suffer for the crimes of some subset of that nation. I would suggest you reexamine this claim in light of your rejection of those who would support plans such as Hitler's.

Re:Atrocity is Counter-Productive

[Nidi62]

Soviet defectors early in the war. Many Ukranians welcomed the Nazis, thinking them liberators from the evils of Stalin. They soon learned that the racist bastards could be even worse than Stalin. Consequently, Soviet soldiers fought for the state more fervently and many would refuse to surrender, knowing that death in battle would be preferable to being a Slavic POW in Nazi hands.

I read a really good quote in the monograph "The Wehrmacht on the Western Front". A Russian general said " We had a choice between 2 dictators: Hitler on one side Stalin on the other. We preferred the one who spoke Russian." That whole front was quite literally hell on earth, and if you read the stories about the experiences of soldiers and civilians, death really was the best outcome one could really hope for. Also remember, often times standing behind the soldier was a commisar. To stand and fight meant a probable death. To run away was certain death. That does a lot to motivate you to stand and fight. Of course, the German soldiers fought fanatically as well, because captured German soldiers were often butchered alive. There is a war diary by a German soldier named Hans Roth called Eastern Inferno. He survived from 1941 until I believe 1944, with first hand accounts of everything from seeing SS executions of Jewish civilians to actually playing dead to avoid capture and execution by Russian soldiers (they still beat on him some). I have actually read the book several times; it is an excellent read and really gives a human perspective to a side that is often demonized to the point of inhumanity.

Re:Atrocity is Counter-Productive

[Rich0]

Atrocity can seem to give the one who commits it a brief surge of power, partly because of the fear it inflicts. But in the long run, atrocity and the killing of civilians is always counter-productive to a war effort.

You also need to consider the political aims of the war. Wars aren't just fought to kill people - there has to be a political aim. Atrocities tend to work against almost any political aim - you're setting yourself up for centuries of heavy-handed occupation if you want to hold the territory.

Re:Atrocity is Counter-Productive

[professionalfurryele]

Who started it matters a great deal.

And your own case works against you. The German strategic bombing efforts were poor, the British knew they were poor and they knew the only effect of them was to piss off civilians and motivate them further to fight. Neither side had any idea what a massive bombing campaign which tore the heart out of a country would do to civilian moral (although both were pretty sure what it would do to industrial output). There were reasons to suspect it would diminish morale if you could strike hard enough, and Speer admitted that there were a few occasions when he was concerned for civilian morale, although you would rightly point out that he asserted the allies didn't have the capacity to maintain the pressure to realise his fears. Those reasons, as again you rightly point out, turned out to be fallacious. That is why I would oppose a strategic bombing campaign in a contemporary war unless extreme methods were used to reduce civilian casualties. The allies had no way of knowing for certain if their strategic bombing campaigns were working though. And they certainly damaged Germany's productive capacity even if their effect on morale was a net negative for the allies.

The Germans and Japanese don't get to use the fact that they were shit at strategic bombing as an excuse for why the allies shouldn't do it. They normalised it, they had to live with the consequences. The Second World War reminded us of an important and valuable lesson, don't normalise an atrocity, because your opponents capacity to actualise it might be greater than yours and once you have made it a normal part of the war, you might suffer it far worse than your enemy.

As for atrocity always being counter-productive to war effort, sadly it is easy to imagine scenarios where this is not the case. Consider if, during the tension in 1980's the Soviet Union had launched a massive nuclear strike on NATO in response to Able Archer. Clearly an atrocity, but what would happen if the West did not respond in kind (and responding in kind would also be a clear atrocity)? NATO would lose.

Re:Atrocity is Counter-Productive

[Archtech]

Just because somebody is an American and his government (that he may or may not have voted for) sponsors the murder of people in the Middle East it does not mean that this civilian is responsible for the atrocity committed by his government and deserves to die.

Please refer to any competent definition of "democracy". You will find that it means The People are sovereign. And sovereignty entails responsibility. Just as an absolute monarch is absolutely responsible for the actions of his government, the people of a democratic nation are responsible for the actions of their government. It doesn't matter which way you voted, or if you abstained. It doesn't even matter if you demonstrated against a given illegal act. Regardless, you are sovereign, jointly with all the other US citizens. And that means you are responsible.

If you don't think the actions of the present US government reflect the wishes of the US people, which explanation do you choose:

1. The USA is not a democracy.
2. The US people wish to gain the benefits of democracy without accepting its responsibilities.

Incidentally, the USA has been indulging in many acts of war in recent years. President Obama may have said that the USA was not involved in war when it aided the attacks on Libya; but legally speaking it was. Likewise when it killed civilians in Pakistan and Yemen with drones. If it launches a single cruise missile into Syria, then - wherever that missile strikes - the USA will have declared war on Syria. That gives Syria the right to strike back at the USA by any and all military means. As POTUS and his associates are wont to assert, "nothing is off the table". So the only thing standing between the USA and arbitrarily large explosions going off anywhere in its territory is the hope that its current enemy is too weak to fight back.

news conference

[raind]

So here we go, would not expect him to come out and say we are planning to attack, perhaps he will say the order has been given, or "we won"....

Where can I download?

[Thor Ablestar]

Where can I download 2 things?

1) A set of somehow signed declassified documents that prove that Assad has really used the chemical weapons? Set of allegations ("We know but cannot say what from") doesn't count.
2) A set of documents that prove that Qatar and Turkey have no access to Sarin precursors?

Why do I ask: There is an old Roman rule "Qui bono?".

1. As it has been said, Assad will gain nothing by use of WMD in his own capital, especially when he beats the ***t out of them. The rebels will get an international support by use of WMD by them or Assad - no difference, and especially when the ***t is beaten out of them. And Assad is not a fool and understands it well.
2. Syria sits on potential pipe route from Qatar to Europe. Qatar loses lots of money by not having this pipe. Qatar is rich enough to buy any chemicals it likes, is a state and so has all the rights to obtain hazardous substances that individual doesn't have and has trillions of dollars of incentive for doing it. And also, Aum Shinryu-kyo has already produced some Sarin without being a state, so much more powerful Al-Kaeda can do the same.
3. Erdogan transforms Turkey from republic to Islamic (Sunni) theocracy forgetting the legacy of Ataturk. So, he is interested in helping Sunni Al-Kaeda to set foot in Syria or everywhere. And I am afraid of this because islamists are a real threats to Russia. And you Americans just do not understand the islamists. Remember Tsarnaev.

Full disclosure: I am Russian.

Re:Where can I download?

[Anonymous Coward]

The implication that Russians understand Islamists is hilarious. The Russian policy with regard to Islamists is to keep them just close enough to profit from them and no idea how to deal with them beyond that.

Re:Where can I download?

[benjfowler]

Thank you.

Much of the West have very, very short memories about just how vicious those dirty sunni cutthroats can be. However, there are some of us who remember how badly Russia suffered at the hands of the bearded Wahhabi scum in the Nineties. Russia knows how to deal with terrorists -- something the West, with its liberal tendencies, continually forgets.

Thank God that the Russian government is trying to talk some sense to the dunces in Washington and the European capitals, even if is _is_ purely from a point of view of cynical self-interest.

Re:Where can I download?

[benjfowler]

Kicking seven shades of shit out of them, and then smothering them in kindness (and 'disappearing' the renegades).

It's worked so far.

Muslims are barbarians. You have to deal with them from a far lower cultural level that the average Westerner is accustomed to.

what the fuck?

[magical liopleurodon]

what the fuck is this bullshit?

We don't even know that Assad did it. Given that we know that the rebels have sarin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXzyS9eUVgs), this could be a false flag. And yet the post reads like it's a foregone conclusion that Assad did it.

Re:what the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

The author of the referenced article is just some New World Order stooge. And the person who posted this NWO sham on /. is likely yet another NWO stooge. They tend to run in packs.

When one steps back and asks "who benefits", then things become clearer. It's no secret that Israel wants Syria's land and natural resources. Assad has everything to lose if he gives the US/UK/Israel military forces a reason to attack. So Assad certainly didn't use chemical weapons. Rather the US/UK/Israel-funded-and-backed "rebels" did. And the rumors are that the "rebels" are just Jordanians hired for photo ops while the real attack on Assad is carried out by US/UK/Israel forces. It would not surprise me in the last to find "SEAL Team Six" is part of the anti-Assad operation. They are trained in chemical weapons, far more so than anyone in the Syrian military.

Re:what the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Russia Today. You may as well quote Fox News on OWS protests.

Re:what the fuck?

[magical liopleurodon]

heh.
Should I be watching the BBC or PBS?

We're left with trying to news from multiple sources and trying to piece together the truth. Yes, Russia Today is a propaganda outfit. Do they do propagandize any more than Fox News, MSNBC, and CNN? The BBC? PBS?

I guess the question then is did Turkish police really find 2kg of sarin gas and arrest the Syrian rebels who were transporting it?
We may never really know the truth on that. English-language sources:
http://rt.com/news/sarin-gas-turkey-al-nusra-021/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22720647
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/30/us-syria-crisis-turkey-idUSBRE94T0YO20130530

Spanish media did pick it up, so if you can read Spanish - http://www.abc.es/internacional/20130531/abci-sarin-siria-201305301816.html
Apparently Fox News also reports on this stuff, but only in Spanish:
http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/espanol/2013/05/30/detienen-en-turquia-con-gas-sarin-doce-islamistas-radicales-segun-la-prensa/

Re:what the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe because because chemical weapons have been used for months in Syria. Against the rebels and rebel held areas

And then we've apparently intercepted communications from Assad's government and military, both before and after the recent attack, indicating they did do it. And we saw them moving chemical weapons beforehand.

Somehow I doubt that months of chemical weapons attacks were all false flags, in the vain hope that it would cause the world to intervene against Assad.

Re:what the fuck?

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish I could say "welcome to the post 9/11 / post Bush era," but it goes back further. Welcome to the post-1950s.

Re:what the fuck?

[cam2574]

I agree, the article and the post title are so biased.

I would have expected this topic to be discussed based on a more neutral article.

It's about the Military Suppliers

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is this: we have to keep using up our cruise missiles, or the makers of them will go out of business.

War profits depend on wars. It's the old broken-window fallacy.

outlines six major steps for response

[slashmydots]

I believe they are:
1. Dicking around at the UN 2. Dicking around at the UN 3. Dicking around at the UN 4. Dicking around at the UN 5. Dicking around at the UN 6. Obama realizes it's his 2nd term and he already ensured no Democrat will win for decades so he bombs them anyway

Thanks Johnny Hayseed

[theshowmecanuck]

Thanks for your straw man argument here. Conventional weapons are not part of this conversation and have no bearing on what should happen here. Or are you saying that because conventional weapons get greater tolerance we should just say 'fuck it, it's not my problem' when a real weapon of mass destruction is used against a civilian population? I guess if someone gets nuked it isn't anyone's business either? Oops, shouldn't have said that since you will invoke Hiroshima which also has no bearing here.

Let me help you out, your comment is bullshit in the context of this discussion. Any reference to any other use of WMD's is not in context. What is in context is that WMDs were used against a civilian population in Syria, and what is the appropriate response. Most of the world seems to be saying, not my problem if people are getting sarin gas dropped on them. I guess from your response you are saying the same thing. And FWIW, Russia/Putin seems to be saying, "Go for it, Asad, we want your warm water ports for our warships!"

Hypocrisy.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is that greater than 100,000 deaths from conventional weapons do not trigger so much moral outrage, as do 1000 deaths from chemical weapons!!!
We should stay out of this and God's speed to both sides.
Neither the Asad's side composed of Allawhites and Shiites nor the Suni (rebels) side has any love and respect to the GREAT SATAN (AKA the USA)
So again. Keep on...may the best wins and as long as they are busy. Leave us be.

"Firm international response" does not need bombs

[msobkow]

Bombing the Syrian people will not stop anyone from using such weapons in the future.

If you want to stop such nonsense, assassinate Assad. Don't screw around. Don't hurt innocents. Take out the head of the snake.

hooray for Parliamentary vs Presidential democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

So now Kerry is leaning on US's 'Oldest Ally' - France. Remember them? The Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys?

I am sure Hollande would love to have any distraction from the shit he is in at the Moment as France's Preseident.

Tony Blair pissed in the proverbial drinking water with regard to Military Intervention by the UK after the lies told that led to invading Iraq, and Obama should have kept his mouth shut instead of spouting about Red Lines.

What a scumbag

[MrL0G1C]

The mans is a ***t, he seems to think the Iraq war went well and was a good idea, his solution to Syria killing people is to kill a shitload more people, most of whom will be innocent.

Failure to respond ? Barn open horse bolted.

[aepervius]

Look that horse bolted at Halajaba when the itnernational community did JACK SHIT, because that country was one of their friend, and it gassed 3000 to 5000 people. Not even counting the thousand of death due to complication and poor health in the year afterward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack

Tooks 22 years to even get a trial and declare it a crime against humanity, and after 88 the US continued to support Sadam for a while. It is only after kuwait that the US turned on Saddam.


The Message "we can fuck around with chemical weapon" has been given in 1988 by the lack of utter reaction to it.

Arnaud Amalric

[nsaspook]

Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.

the international community

[zaamdienstwaakbaar]

Indeed a unified response by the international community is essential. So what is that: the international community? It certainly includes Russia and Iran, the two nations with close relations with Syria. Those two have the primary responsibility to react and deliver a message in the name of the international community. The USA -navy can't. With all respect, the USA military is not capable of delivering such a message, it is capable of bombing but not much more, and USA bombs will always provide a mixed, and not a clear message. The USA army is not fit to be a messenger of the international community.

UN Territory

[Anonymous Coward]

A simple unequivocal request for the surrender of all
chemical weapons in Syria's possession to the UN
for immediate on site destruction.

If no response, then destruction in place,
by whatever means.

'we asked first'

jr

France Runs To The Hills, Away From Obama

[Anonymous Coward]

A.P. is reporting that the French president's office has issued a statement saying that France will wait for consultation with its Parliament along with the views from the U.S. Congress before deciding any military action toward Syria.

Fucking YES. Obama and his 'Trousers' Kerry (the once future American Führer) are now ISOLATED, totally alone with his bullshit decision to go to war but wait 2+ weeks for Congress to say, "".

I'm calling my Reps to tell Obama, "Fuck YOU!"

If the Arabs are not concerned enough to move in.

[Anonymous Coward]

Right away and do something neither should we. But if the did and asked for our help we should give all the ammo they need.
Those that do nothing can not expect help the day they are on the receiving end.

Iran, not Syria, is the West's real target

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing pleasant about the regime in Damascus. Nor do these comments let the regime off the hook when it comes to mass gassing. But I am old enough to remember that when Iraq â" then Americaâ(TM)s ally â" used gas against the Kurds of Hallabjah in 1988, we did not assault Baghdad. Indeed, that attack would have to wait until 2003, when Saddam no longer had any gas or any of the other weapons we had nightmares over.

And I also happen to remember that the CIA put it about in 1988 that Iran was responsible for the Hallabjah gassings, a palpable lie that focused on Americaâ(TM)s enemy whom Saddam was then fighting on our behalf. And thousands â" not hundreds â" died in Hallabjah. But there you go. Different days, different standards.

Iran, not Syria, is the West's real target - Robert Fisk, The Independent

Re:War stiffy for Meier

[chilvence]

Ok, next time you post, I want you to try and make some sense. Just imagine that we are not part of you internal monologue before you address us all. Thankyou.

4) ???

[Guppy]

3) He is not a retard

It is possible, however, that he is not in complete control of his own forces. Suppose that some unit of his military resorted to gas weapons out of fear, anger, or desperation? Not just a rogue unit (which could be thrown under the bus), but perhaps critical high-ranking members of his military. Or, if the action were supported afterwards by a sufficiently large segment of his troops, regardless of who pulled the trigger -- there's no way he could repudiate the action afterwards and survive, when they're all that's keeping him alive right now.

In that case, it would be technically true that Assad was not behind the attack. Still doesn't give us any better policy options though, unfortunately.

Double Standards.

[tumbak]

When Israel used white phosphorus extensively in Gaza Obama remained absolutely silent, I guess the "international community" has a very short attention span.

There is nothing wrong with chemical weapons

[Karmashock]

Its a very silly ban. Obviously its bad to use weapons on civilians. That is bad. But that applies to ANY weapon.

Weapons restrictions against soldiers? Absurd. There are no limits.

And even if the US passes such a rule or the UN passes such a rule... in any real war, the enemy isn't going to care. Because what is the downside of using such banned weapons? What are you going to do? Go to war with them? Oh wait, you already are going to war with them... utterly unenforceable.

The real reason for slamming chemical weapons

[hazeii]

Unlike cannon, tanks and airplanes, it's comparatively easy to hit a western city with chemical weapons (or, for that matter, an oriental city like Tokyo).

So the west needs to have a vigourous response, to strongly discourage the demand for such weapons; it's out of self-interest. Weapons that are about as hard to smuggle and use as a can of coke are far more dangerous (in the eyes of the west) than all the conventional weapons at Assad's disposal.

Notice that while a lot of the rhetoric and fluff is about the morality of chemical weapons. When the talk gets serious it's not about the ethics, it's about national security.

Re:The real contention while formulating a respons

[steelfood]

Makes you wonder if the CIA didn't do it themselves just to push the rest of Western Europe along. Then some years down the line, after Assad's gone and the entire region's in turmoil, we're going to hear, "Whoops. That wasn't Assad who used the chemical weapon. It was some terrorist. Oh, and they might have been previously funded by the CIA."

What? We did it to Saddam and Iraq.

Just send them lots of gas masks

[Btrot69]

If chemical weapons really was the issue -- we should just make lots and lots of gas masks and gas alarms for the people there. We could probably get most of them out of storage somewhere. These can be LEGALLY sent to Syria as humanitarian aid. Virtually everyone in Israel has a gas mask. The cost of 10 or 20 million masks for the people of Syria would be much less than the cost of any military strike.

DU Weapons are WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

Depleted uranium weapons have about a 40% aerosolization upon impact, stay in the environment for billions of years (yes Billions), and when inhaled (not if) it will lead to death for combatants, civilians, animals. Yet the USA is the biggest user of this weapon and they don't clean up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-VkpR-wka8

From the man who wrote the book for the US military on DU munitions, handling, use and clean up.

But hey we are always the good guys and we don't use WMD and if we do we call it something else. We are always the good guys, remember?

Additonal perspective from an unusual source

[BigLonn]

I had never heard of this apparent, daily report, but I have heard of the organization that produces it, its from a contractor for the FED's. The reports assertions are more than a little disturbing, especially when it starts asking really uncomfortable questions along with just as unsettling observations halfway through the article. http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/NightWatch/NightWatch_13000189.aspx

Re:Depleted Uranium

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy your moral high ground while it lasts.

Actually, if the "west" was ever on a moral high ground, it has left it a long time ago, on one hand Agent Orange might be considered to be a chemical weapon, and on the other hand in the Iran-Iraq war the USA gave tactical intelligence to Iraq well knowing that chemical weapons were used by the Iraqis:

[...] the United States provided tactical intelligence to Iraq [...] senior U.S. officials were being regularly informed about the scale of the nerve gas attacks. They are tantamount to an official American admission of complicity in some of the most gruesome chemical weapons attacks ever launched.

Delay Actions

[Anonymous Coward]

Obama "recoil" is not vacillation.

Rather he needs to give some time to the U.S.A. Navy to get into place.

Radio Ranging and Detection (RADAR) an Thermal Imaging Techniques indicate that Submarine Squadron 17 (COMSUBRON Seventeen), SSBNs have been sortied from USSN Operations Bangor Washington.

Following, same techniques indicated Submarine Squadron 1 (COMSUBRON One), SSNs have been sortied from USSN Operations Perl Harbor Hawaii.

Great Circle plots show convergent locations along the Emperor Sea Mounts.

The bathymetry along the Emperor Sea Mounts will allow for evasive 'hide-and-seek' from the subs of an ... 'adversary.'

INTERPRETATION

The 'impending' limit operations by USA forces in Syria are a ruse.

The projected positions of the SSBNs along the Emperor Sea Mounts suggest, shortest path to the cities of Moscow, St. Petersburg, Novosibirsk, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara, Severomors, Sevastopol and Vladivostok.

The real targets are in Russia!

Obama is using the Turkey chemical weapons usage in Syria as a means to use nuclear strikes within Russia.

Wow!

Press war crimes charges

[Kage-Yojimbo]

If US government is serious about defending the international principle of non-use for chemical weapons, the best thing for America to do is refer details of the violation to the International Criminal Court. And press for war crimes charges against the responsible officials.

Retaliatory options

[Anonymous Coward]

On a different tack, the problem of how to retaliate needs to be considered carefully - the stockpiles of chemical weapons cannot be simply bombed anyway as this puts huge amounts of lethal dust up in the atmosphere to travel and harm at will (of the weather).
At risk of sounding very stupid - way outside my sphere of competence - could they possibly take the approach they take to damaged nuclear plants, and cover the dumps with cement to block access? It would seem to be less dangerous...

World Police

[DarthVain]

Hardly.

They want to look that way when they are protecting their own interests abroad. The US doesn't go into any situation for the greater good of the world. They do so to protect their own interests, namely #1 Economically, #2 Politically, and #3 Militarily.

The rah rah rah, freedom for all is simply a facade.

Hey and I am not really criticizing them for it, it is what many nations do (if they can). However they are interfering for an agenda, maybe that lines up with some other groups or another as well, maybe there will be repercussions afterwards, I am sure they have literately a whole army of analysts looking into any decision like that. However I doubt very much that policing the world for the greater good of humanity really enters into it much other than as part of the PR campaign.