Do you now support military action against Syria's government?

[captain acab]

 

[Frumious B.]

If Assad has chemical weapons and the opposition is dominated by AQ types, it follows that if Assad is deposed AQ will have chemical weapons. Has some silly fuck not thunk this thru?

Course they have. There'll be a massive bombing campaign when Assad falls. As soon as US surveillance spots something bombable the Israelis will fly straight in. There'll be no need for any of this UN inspectors/resolutions malarkey.

 

[Fuchs66]

Couldn't resist it!

 

[andysays]

i'd support massive retaliation and targetted assasination against the guilty party - not for what it would or would not achieve in Syria (which i believe to be beyond any political process and locked in a cycle of utterly unrestricted civil warfare upon which outside intervention, either happening or not happening, would have no effect..) - but purely to establish the price of other states/groups using Chemical weapons on a civilian population.

if the 'international community' - and yes, i'm aware of how flawed and nebulous that concept is - does not impose a price on the use of such weapons then it crosses, imv, a very thick red line with regards to all the previously accepted rules like the Geneva and Hague Conventions (which, respectively, govern the conduct of war, and the legalities of the war itself), and the Geneva Protocols on the use of Chemical and Biological weapons: its saying that the rules aren't the rules anymore, that if you ignore them then there's no sanction.

this view is not about Syria or the respective virtues - of which there are few - of the opposing sides, its purely about the future: if its ok to use CW in Syria, then its ok to use CW anywhere. that is not, i'd suggest, a future it would be wise to chose purely because action against whichever side happens to be guilty in this instance carries downsides.

This is a superficially attractive argument, but it really doesn't hold up.

Chemical and/or Biological weapons have been used many times before* with no response from the International Community or anyone claiming to act for it, so the question which should be asked is: why is there such eagerness to enforce it now, why is this situation different from all the other times it wasn't enforced?

*Examples include Khan al-Assal earlier this year, by Saddam Hussain on a number of occasions (both in the Iran-Iraq war and against Iraqi-Kurdish civilians), and, just to demonstrate that it's not only middle eastern dictators, by the US in South Vietnam.

 

[Pickman's model]

what's the real difference between the use of chemical weapons in syria and the use of depleted uranium in iraq? if anything the depleted uranium's worse as sarin disappears after a while.

 

[andysays]

what's the real difference between the use of chemical weapons in syria and the use of depleted uranium in iraq? if anything the depleted uranium's worse as sarin disappears after a while.

If I was naive, I'd say that it's all about whether or not their use is covered by the Chemical Weapons Convention, but as I'm not (or at least not that naive) I suggest it depends very much on who uses them, in what circumstances, and if they think they can get away with it

 

[Fuchs66]

Can we not forget, when comparing other historical uses of chemical weapons (and Agent Orange however nasty is debatable) that the CWC didn't come into force until 1997.

 

[andysays]

Can we not forget, when comparing other historical uses of chemical weapons (and Agent Orange however nasty is debatable) that the CWC didn't come into force until 1997.

True, but not really relevant (excuse the Wiki c&p):

The Geneva Protocol, officially known as the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, is an International treaty prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons. It was signed at Geneva June 17, 1925 and entered into force on February 8, 1928​

And you can attempt to debate the non-chemical/biological nature of AO if you like, but i don't think you'll get very far...

 

[teqniq]

Depending on who you listen to it seems that the US administration really hasn't got clue whodunnit:

AP Sources: Intelligence on Weapons No 'Slam Dunk'

The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.

President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.

"We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out," Obama said in an interview with "NewsHour" on PBS. "And if that's so, then there need to be international consequences."

However, multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture — a reference to then-CIA Director George Tenet's insistence in 2002 that U.S. intelligence showing Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a "slam dunk" — intelligence that turned out to be wrong....

 

[Fuchs66]

True, but not really relevant (excuse the Wiki c&p):

The Geneva Protocol, officially known as the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, is an International treaty prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons. It was signed at Geneva June 17, 1925 and entered into force on February 8, 1928​

And you can attempt to debate the non-chemical/biological nature of AO if you like, but i don't think you'll get very far...

True but the Geneva Protocol was imperfect (leading to occasional use of chemical weapons throughout the 20th century by various states) hence the CWC, which, as is now well known, Syria is not a State Party to. The use of chemical agents in Syria (if that is what truly happened, and in my own personal opinion this is what happened) is the first use of such weapons since the CWC came into force.

As far as AO is concerned its all (unfortunately) a matter of interpretation, the toxic effects on humans (as severe as they are) were not the main purpose of its use.

 

[JHE]

Mr Blair, world statesman and man of wealth and wisdom, has explained that the West must intervene to oppose both Bashar the Butcher and the theocrats of al-Qaeda etc.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/tony-blair-west-must-take-sides-in-middle-east-1-3062958

The article is quite forthright and, predictably, has more than a touch of 'I was right all along'. His objectives go far beyond punishing the alleged culprit in the recent use of chemical weapons.

It is time we took a side: the side of the people who want what we want; who see our societies for all their faults as something to admire; who know that they should not be faced with a choice between tyranny and theocracy. I detest the implicit notion behind so much of our commentary — that the Arabs or even worse, the people of Islam are unable to understand what a free society looks like, that they can’t be trusted with something so modern as a polity where religion is in its proper place. It isn’t true. What is true is that there is a life-and-death struggle going on about the future of Islam and the attempt by extreme ideologues to create a political Islam at odds both with the open-minded tradition of Islam and the modern world.

In this struggle, we should not be neutral. From the threat of the Iranian regime to the pulverising of Syria to the pains of the Egyptian revolution, from Libya to Tunisia, in Africa, Central Asia and the Far East, wherever this extremism is destroying the lives of innocent people, we should be at their side and on it.

I know as one of the architects of policy after 9/11 the controversy, anguish and cost of the decisions taken. I understand why, now, the pendulum has swung so heavily the other way. But it is not necessary to revert to that policy to make a difference. And the forces that made those interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan so difficult are of course the very forces at the heart of the storm today.

They have to be defeated. We should defeat them, however long it takes; because otherwise they will not disappear. They will grow stronger until, at a later time, there will be another crossroads and this time there will be no choice.

The frustrating thing, though, is that, though he has such big objectives, he doesn't (i) identify the forces in Syria that he wants to support (these people who admire Western democracy) and (ii) he doesn't spell out exactly what the West should do to achieve his objectives in Syria. He must be talking about more than flinging missiles at Assad's army, but he doesn't explain how these real or imaginary pro-Western forces are going to be brought to victory.

 

[Fuchs66]

Mr Blair, world statesman and man of wealth and wisdom, has explained that the West must intervene to oppose both Bashar the Butcher and the theocrats of al-Qaeda etc.

With comments like that from the idiot it's not a great surprised I ended up sitting in various holes in the ground in Iraq.

How does he intend to achieve this?

A bit of nuclear vitrification? Kill 'em all let God sort 'em out" sort of thing?

 

[Barking_Mad]

Given the widespread news coverage of Syria over the past week and frequent reporting of the conflict for the past twenty months, it seems surprising that anyone wouldn’t know where Damascus was.
But Rob Manuel of usvsth3m told the Independent that preliminary analysis showed 19 of 1,150 people who responded to the quiz this morning had done so from computers inside the Houses of Parliament. Of those responses, one guessed Damascus was in Western Mongolia.
He said "I can tell you that, as of writing this sentence, there have been 19 answers sent through the Houses of Parliament's proxy servers: 18 were very close, but one guess was in the middle of western Mongolia. I hope that respondent isn't in charge of anything military. "

http://toys.usvsth3m.com/damascus/

 

[dylanredefined]

what's the real difference between the use of chemical weapons in syria and the use of depleted uranium in iraq? if anything the depleted uranium's worse as sarin disappears after a while.

D.U. will not kill you Sarin will

 

[dylanredefined]

Well quite. There's no military solution to this whatever way you look at it. The only solution is a negotiated political settlement with humanitarian aid at its heart. And even that's deeply problematic and unlikely.

Or one side could win the war massacre and drive out its enemies. That's what the end of the war will look like nothing the west can do will stop it or improve the end. Negotiations are difficult when both sides just want the other side dead.

 

[Pickman's model]

D.U. will not kill you Sarin will

once again you don't know what you're talking about. it's almost embarrassing, your utter ignorance.

if it doesn't kill people why do they put it in ammunition?

 

[dylanredefined]

once again you don't know what you're talking about. it's almost embarrassing, your utter ignorance.

if it doesn't kill people why do they put it in ammunition?

It won't kill unless it is fired at you at high velocity sarin will kill you with a few drops on your skin.
They make ammo out of it as its cheap and dense. Sort of like you I guess

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Here's some folks who can testify that DU isn't very nice. DU doesn't just kill people, it kills random unborn people too.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=d...urce=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=0GAfUpakHeeU0AX4i4DACA

 

[Tankus]

Plus the military that uses it
http://www.ivaw.org/resources/depleted-uranium

 

[Frumious B.]

The Guardian's May 26 report on DU in Iraq: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/26/iraqis-cant-turn-backs-on-deadly-legacy

The dust in Iraq...carries, according to Dr Jawad Al-Ali, "the seeds of our death". An internationally respected cancer specialist at the Sadr teaching hospital in Basra, Dr Ali told me that in 1999, and today his warning is irrefutable. "Before the Gulf war," he said, "we had two or three cancer patients a month. Now we have 30 to 35 dying every month. Our studies indicate that 40 to 48% of the population in this area will get cancer: in five years' time to begin with, then long after. That's almost half the population. Most of my own family have it, and we have no history of the disease. It is like Chernobyl here; the genetic effects are new to us; the mushrooms grow huge; even the grapes in my garden have mutated and can't be eaten."

 

[ska invita]

if anything the depleted uranium's worse as sarin disappears after a while.

I dont think Sarin is in the frame here though:


“At the moment, I am not totally convinced because the people that are helping them are without any protective clothing and without any respirators,” said Paula Vanninen, director of Verifin, the Finnish Institute for Verification of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

“In a real case, they would also be contaminated and would also be having symptoms.”

John Hart, head of the Chemical and Biological Security Project at Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said he had not seen the telltale evidence in the eyes of the victims that would be compelling evidence of chemical weapons use.

“Of the videos that I’ve seen for the last few hours, none of them show pinpoint pupils… this would indicate exposure to organophosphorus nerve agents,” he said.

Gwyn Winfield, editor of CBRNe World magazine, which specialises in chemical weapons issues, said the evidence did not suggest that the chemicals used were of the weapons-grade that the Syrian army possesses in its stockpiles.

“We’re not seeing reports that doctors and nurses… are becoming fatalities, so that would suggest that the toxicity of it isn’t what we would consider military sarin. It may well be that it is a lower-grade,” Winfield told AFP.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013...-distract-from-spying-and-other-scandals.html

 

[Frumious B.]

Blair is saying most emphatically that we should help kill the Shia:

there is a life-and-death struggle going on about the future of Islam and the attempt by extreme ideologues to create a political Islam at odds both with the open-minded tradition of Islam and the modern world. In this struggle, we should not be neutral.

"Political Islam" is code for Shia - they are the ones who believe rulers should be clerics. So this is Blair playing divide and rule, just like the US. He's saying the West should support the Sunni. This message is intended to keep the Shia in a perpetual state of fear of extinction. He's promoting more killings in every Arab country, primarily to weaken Iran and protect US/Israeli interests. Drive the moderates into extremism, get all the extremists to kill each other and keep all the Arab regimes weak. That way Israel is safe, Al-Qaeda is too busy to export terror to the West, the oil is safe and Iran is too weak and too busy with local conflicts to be capable of much else. Plus we can sell lots and lots of weapons to all sides.

 

[JHE]

"Political Islam" is code for Shia...

Nah... Read Blair's article. He is just as opposed to the (Sunni) Moss Bros in Egypt and (Sunni) al-Q as he is to the (Shi-ite) regime in Tehran.

 

[DotCommunist]

who cares what the recusant war criminal thinks?

 

[J Ed]

Hezbollah mobilising in Southern Lebanon https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/nownews/hezbollah-mobilizing-troops-in-southern-lebanon

 

[Tankus]

It can't be important anyway! ,as half of the MPs have already left to go down the pub , or home ,some of the fukkers didn't even bother to turn up...!

So....what's Miley Cyrus done today ? Has Kim Khadishan's arse got any bigger this week? Is Zeta Jones going to be the new face for eharmony ?

 

[JHE]

It can't be important anyway! ,as half of the MPs have already left to go down the pub , or home ,some of the fukkers didn't even bother to turn up...!

To be fair, it is possible that some of them are listening to the debate, just as I am and you are.

 

[Frumious B.]

Nah... Read Blair's article. He is just as opposed to the (Sunni) Moss Bros in Egypt and (Sunni) al-Q as he is to the (Shi-ite) regime in Tehran.

So he's saying 'kill all Shia and a few Sunni extremists'. That accelerates the conversion of moderate Shia to extremism. And has the same effect on moderate Sunnis.

 

[JHE]

You think Moss Bros is just "a few"?

Come on. Forget it. He just ain't saying what you say he's saying.

His hope/wish/fantasy is that there is a large political base across the Muslim world for Western-style democracy and the West should stick its military oar in - and keep sticking it in - to help that pro-Western faction to gain and hold power.

 

[Frumious B.]

So you're saying he's an idealist, fantasist democracy builder. I'm saying he's a ruthless realist capitalist.