Has Syria Used Chemical Weapons?

[Antilogic]

You know what might have hit the fan:

The White House has acknowledged that U.S. intelligence assessments indicate "with varying degrees of confidence" that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons during the country's ongoing civil war, but has cautioned that it still needs more evidence.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, speaking in the United Arab Emirates, said that such an action "violates every convention of warfare."

The Associated Press says Hagel did not offer details on what kind of weapons were used, how much chemical was involved or whether casualties resulted. But Secretary of State John Kerry was quoted by the AP as saying two attacks were thought to have taken place.

...

A White House official reiterated much of what was in the letter sent to Capitol Hill, but added that "all options were on the table in terms of our response."

The official said that reports of the use of chemical weapons in Aleppo in March was one of the incidents being examined.

...

Larry added that U.S. intelligence officials say the possibility of the use of chemical weapons in Syria is a "strong maybe" rather than a "slam dunk," a term that was used to describe Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which were never found.

The blog link provided has a handful of updates as well as the text of the letter sent from the White House on the subject. The chemical weapon in question is sarin gas.

So, what response do you think the international community will have if these allegations prove true?

 

[Praise_Satan]

I don't really care. Let them kill each other. After the war is over, put the losing side on trial for warcrimes.

 

[Borachio]

If you don't really care, why put the losing side on trial?
----------------------------------------------------


Wasn't Assad bound to use chemical weapons in the end? What has he got to lose?

I think the most likely response is some kind of aerial intervention (should/when these allegations prove true). I can't see any Nato ground forces being used - as public opinion is likely against it. And there aren't any major resources at stake for some government to claim intervention would be in the their national interest, as an excuse. (That last sentence doesn't make much sense. I'll rewrite it in a bit, maybe.)

 

[Antilogic]

I think Assad would have had some restraint in his use of the weapons if there was a question as to whether or not he could seek asylum in Russia or another nation that had friendly relations with him. Since the recent Russian attitude towards Assad's regime has been chilly at best and is worsening, I agree with Borachio's thinking.

The question is whether these recent intelligence reports add anything to the general suspicion of Assad. If he's actually used chemical weapons, then we could see a UN or NATO intervention in the form of air superiority and targeted strikes on Assad's airbases and munitions depots, or some other limited form of intervention that does not require the commitment of ground troops.

 

[Praise_Satan]

If you don't really care, why put the losing side on trial?
----------------------------------------------------

It's not my war to fight. It's not my problem but those accused of war crimes or whatever (bogus or real) deserve a fair independent trial. Not gonna happen tho. If the rebels win, they'll execute the government supporters. If the government wins, they'll execute the rebels. Let them kill each other. Not my job to go over there killing people. Not my right to order anyone to go over there to kill for me. I'm not paying for murder.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

"all options were on the table in terms of our response."

No, no, no, no, no...

Here we go again, another Middle East War.

 

[Antilogic]

The fact that we are seeing a very similar script playing out--the Obama administration is now demanding UN inspectors be let into Syria to examine for traces of sarin while putting all options on the table--on the freaking 10th anniversary of another Middle Eastern war launched under questionable intelligence is ironic as all hell. It'd be comical if it weren't so tragic.

 

[lovett]

The situation in Syria is drastically different from that in Iraq.

 

[Antilogic]

The situation in Syria is drastically different from that in Iraq.

The situation definitely is, but that's not what I said.

 

[emzie]

I'm not big on stopping civil wars, but there's a point where doing nothing is worse. If Assad actually did use sarin gas on a wide scale... there's a moral obligation to stop him. I don't mean an Iraq-style quagmire, but rather, raids to secure as much of the chemical weapon stockpile as possible.

Of course, there's the chance that chemical weapons are the only thing between Assad and a genocide of Alawites. In that case, the obligation extends to peacekeeping forces between parties.

 

[Leoreth]

The fact that we are seeing a very similar script playing out--the Obama administration is now demanding UN inspectors be let into Syria to examine for traces of sarin while putting all options on the table--on the freaking 10th anniversary of another Middle Eastern war launched under questionable intelligence is ironic as all hell. It'd be comical if it weren't so tragic.

This sounds more like the administration is searching for a way to keep face while trying to keep out of the conflict without looking weak in light of their previous red line rhetoric.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Couldn't we just add another dozen turns years of sanctions?

 

[Borachio]

I think a third option needs to be followed. Like a massive, and I mean really hugely massive, UN intervention by peacekeepers.

Like:

• a no fly zone over the whole of Syria;
• several million minimally armed people in blue hats establishing a buffer zone between the Alawites and the rest;
• Salvation Army soup kitchens at every street corner;
• a truth and reconciliation commission.

 

[innonimatu]

I'm not big on stopping civil wars, but there's a point where doing nothing is worse. If Assad actually did use sarin gas on a wide scale... there's a moral obligation to stop him. I don't mean an Iraq-style quagmire, but rather, raids to secure as much of the chemical weapon stockpile as possible.

Of course, there's the chance that chemical weapons are the only thing between Assad and a genocide of Alawites. In that case, the obligation extends to peacekeeping forces between parties.

Who is supplying the weapons that fuel the war in Syria? The rebels are not fighting with syrian stockpiles of weapons and ammunition.

If this US administration actually wanted to stop the war, and with that all possibility of use of whatever weapons, all it had to do was cease providing those weapons and tell its allies to back down and cease doing it also.

 

[Patroklos]

I honestly don't think the government used chemical weapons simply because they have no motive to do so.

1.) the specific instance normally sited is extremely small scale and conventional weapons would have been more effective in that instance. Why exposé yourself to the pitfalls of their use when your they provided you no benefit?

2.) you will note that every announcement supposedly confirming there use,at least here in the US, is loaded with qualifiers and exceptions.

3.) the only one with a motive is actually the opposition. The second Obama came up with that red line they have every reason to pin chemical weapon use on Assad to get US military support, and given the actions the last couple months I have no problem believing they are capable of doing this.

 

[VilePilot]

Well.. I guess that is it for Assad. Nice knowing you buddy.

 

[GhostWriter16]

No, no, no, no, no...

Here we go again, another Middle East War.

Exactly. Obama is an epic fail, once again.

Yeah, the troops who are supporting Al Qeida are really fighting for our freedoms...

Obama is an absolute idiot. But hey, what's new?

They must really want to bankrupt us. There is no human being who is stupid enough to genuinely think these wars are a good idea....

 

[VilePilot]

There is no human being who is stupid enough to genuinely think these wars are a good idea....

5k dead soldiers in Iraq, another 1.5k dead contractors

Compared to other wars that isn't even a war.

350,000 die in a single battle in WW1 lol

 

[GhostWriter16]

5k dead soldiers in Iraq, another 1.5k dead contractors

Compared to other wars that isn't even a war.

350,000 die in a single battle in WW1 lol

Sick and disgusting cheapening of human life. Not to mention that the World Wars, BOTH OF THEM, were immoral as well, and we should never have participated in either of them.

100,000 people died during the Iraq War, most of them were just Middle Easterners so most immoral Americans don't care.

I was specifically referencing the waste of money from these wars but the physical death is even worse...

 

[Dreadnought]

Exactly. Obama is an epic fail, once again.

Yeah, the troops who are supporting Al Qeida are really fighting for our freedoms...

Obama is an absolute idiot. But hey, what's new?

They must really want to bankrupt us. There is no human being who is stupid enough to genuinely think these wars are a good idea....

Can't tell if you're being sarcastic.