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.'"

69 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 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?

    4. Re:I never understood the principle. by pianophile · · Score: 2

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

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

      --

      'Your brain is God.' -- Dr. Timothy Leary
    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 phantomfive · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. 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.

    9. Re:I never understood the principle. by Joce640k · · Score: 2

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

      Dresden? Tokyo?

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:I never understood the principle. by itsdapead · · Score: 2

      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?

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. Re:I never understood the principle. by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 2

      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.

    15. Re:I never understood the principle. by Creepy · · Score: 2

      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.

    16. Re:I never understood the principle. by Aonghus142000 · · Score: 2

      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.)

    17. Re:I never understood the principle. by Jessified · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    18. 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.

    19. Re:I never understood the principle. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2

      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

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    20. Re:I never understood the principle. by inhuman_4 · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

    21. Re:I never understood the principle. by professionalfurryele · · Score: 2

      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.

    22. Re:I never understood the principle. by Teancum · · Score: 2

      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.

    23. Re:I never understood the principle. by jfengel · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    24. Re:I never understood the principle. by Peristaltic · · Score: 2

      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.

    25. 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.

    26. Re:I never understood the principle. by artor3 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?

    27. 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.
    28. 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..."
    29. Re:I never understood the principle. by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    30. Re:I never understood the principle. by Clsid · · Score: 2

      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.

    31. Re:I never understood the principle. by Cyberax · · Score: 2

      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.

    32. Re:I never understood the principle. by SniperJoe · · Score: 3, Informative

      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."

    33. Re:I never understood the principle. by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      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.

  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. Re:How about no. by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      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.)

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    4. Re:How about no. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      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.

  3. War should Suck by craigminah · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:War should Suck by throwaway3637 · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:War should Suck by Kilo+Kilo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. 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.

    4. Re:War should Suck by Jmc23 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    5. Re:War should Suck by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Informative

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

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    6. Re:War should Suck by gman003 · · Score: 2

      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.

    7. Re:War should Suck by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  4. 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

  5. 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.

    1. Re:bullshit by johanw · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    2. Re:bullshit by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  6. 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 LMariachi · · Score: 2

      Then why has he blocked inspectors?

    2. Re:failure to respond... by Jmc23 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
    3. 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?

    4. Re:failure to respond... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.”

  7. We really have proof now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  8. Hypocritical much by palemantle · · Score: 2

    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.

    1. Re:Hypocritical much by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 2

      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.

    2. Re:Hypocritical much by palemantle · · Score: 2

      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"

  9. 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?

  10. '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'?
  11. Re:The "chemical attack" was planned by the west by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    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

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  12. 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."
  13. ASSAD USED THE SAME CHEMICAL WEAPONS by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  14. The real contention while formulating a response. by ttucker · · Score: 2

    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.

  15. Atrocity is Counter-Productive by cervesaebraciator · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  16. Re:Get involved but on a limited scale. by johanw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  17. 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.