Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Syria: a Defining Moment For Chemical Weapons?

Posted by Soulskill on from the every-use-of-weapons-is-a-defining-moment-for-the-targets dept.

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.'"

27 of 454 comments (clear)

  1. I never understood the principle. by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:I never understood the principle. by mhajicek · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    2. Re:I never understood the principle. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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 !

    3. Re:I never understood the principle. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:I never understood the principle. by LMariachi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

    5. Re:I never understood the principle. by lxs · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    6. Re:I never understood the principle. by throwaway3637 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:I never understood the principle. by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    8. Re:I never understood the principle. by boorack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:I never understood the principle. by khallow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    10. Re:I never understood the principle. by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:I never understood the principle. by Peristaltic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:I never understood the principle. by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    13. Re:I never understood the principle. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    14. Re:I never understood the principle. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
  2. How about no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:How about no. by Livius · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    2. Re:How about no. by johanw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  3. War Precedent by SpaceMonkies · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "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

  4. bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. failure to respond... by dnaumov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... 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.

    1. Re:failure to respond... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

  6. Why is it up to US to police world? by sinij · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  7. 'Unified response' by mvdwege · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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".

    --
    "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  8. Re:War should Suck by killkillkill · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  9. Re:Stagerring hypocrisy by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  10. what the fuck? by magical+liopleurodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.