Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[bhsup]

It's times like this that I really wish the UN were allowed to independently raise their own army specifically for situations like this.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

So does North Korea show we do play games so long as your country is large enough to actually force us into an actual war as opposed to a 7 day bombing campaign?

Naw Bush was all distracted by fictitious WMD's to stop NK from getting real ones. Now they have them and not much can be done. Iran doesn't and Obama probably won't let them, given our recent history of bombing the hell out of everyone. He's on pace to shame 'ol Raygun in the race for the title of most trigger happy POTUS.

 

[kramerfan86]

Naw Bush was all distracted by fictitious WMD's to stop NK from getting real ones. Now they have them and not much can be done. Iran doesn't and Obama probably won't let them, given our recent history of bombing the hell out of everyone. He's on pace to shame 'ol Raygun in the race for the title of most trigger happy POTUS.

North Korea's nuclear status is dubious, they dont really have the ability to hit anyone with a nuke right now so if the goal is to stop people from gaining that ability the door is still open on North Korea. The reason we havent attacked them is the same reason we havent attacked Iran, they can fight back to a degree. Not enough to win, but they are large enough to actually make a fight out of it unlike all our recent victims like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya who we could essentially demilitarize in a week. So we talk tough, but we dont bully them too hard.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's still credible enough to put Seoul at too high of a risk to be worth an attack on them.

Iran can't fight back better than any of the other countries we've bombed, they are using the same old tech for the most part. Stealth bombers and Tomahawks walk all over USSR era and slightly newer air defenses.

They still fly F-4's with no part supplies for god sakes.

 

[kramerfan86]

They arent exactly russia, but lets not act like their armed forces are as weak as Saddam's whom we had already essentially disarmed or Afghanistan which was non-existant. To properly dismantle the nuke program we'd probably have to actually invade, and Iran has a much larger population and military to mount a violent resistance.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

We're not talking about an invasion, just bombing the crap out of them. They won't be able to stop that

 

[Ajidica]

We're not talking about an invasion, just bombing the crap out of them. They won't be able to stop that

If I remember a BBC piece right, the Iranians have purchased some pretty nice Russian-made anti-aircraft equipment. While we could quite easily slice through their defenses, it won't be as easy as bombing Iraq and definitely will take casualties.

 

[innonimatu]

Update

http://globalnews.ca/news/803542/kerry-makes-justification-for-strike-in-syria/

WASHINGTON – Secretary of State John Kerry says there is “undeniable” evidence of a large-scale chemical weapons attack in Syria, with intelligence strongly pointing to Bashar Assad’s government

.

Discussion

The WMD card is so worn out... they don't even make an effort, do they?

 

[Cutlass]

We're not talking about an invasion, just bombing the crap out of them. They won't be able to stop that

You can't bomb things buried under a mountain without using nukes. The Iranians have had too much time to prepare for this.

 

[kramerfan86]

We're not talking about an invasion, just bombing the crap out of them. They won't be able to stop that

So why are we bothering? They are too far along and too bunkered in for bombing to stop them. Either accept nuclear Iran or dont, a half measure like bombing which simply delays on a month timescale is a waste of everyone's time.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

So why are we bothering? They are too far along and too bunkered in for bombing to stop them. Either accept nuclear Iran or dont, a half measure like bombing which simply delays on a month timescale is a waste of everyone's time.

Unless we bomb them back to the stone age

 

[Antilogic]

Wait a second, did we start talking about bombing Iran too?

 

[Defiant47]

Wait a second, did we start talking about bombing Iran too?

American democracy and stability is needed in many places.

 

[Antilogic]

I'd post a frowny face but then I'd have to tack on 5chars.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

American democracy and stability is needed in many places.

Iran isn't going to form a US-friendly regime on its own

 

[hobbsyoyo]

If I remember a BBC piece right, the Iranians have purchased some pretty nice Russian-made anti-aircraft equipment. While we could quite easily slice through their defenses, it won't be as easy as bombing Iraq and definitely will take casualties.

Yes, I don't mean to act like it would be easy and bloodless, but it can be done.

You can't bomb things buried under a mountain without using nukes. The Iranians have had too much time to prepare for this.

As if we haven't been preparing? Remember we didn't have a stealth helicopter...until we did and used it to nab OBL. We have most definitley been researching penetration weapons.

And Stuxnet doesn't care if you are 500ft below ground.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

And Stuxnet doesn't care if you are 500ft below ground.

I <3 Stuxnet.

 

[Lord Baal]

Then maybe you ought to avoid phrasings like "should not."

Ah, semantics. The last resort of the one who does not have an actual argument.

If I stated that Saddam being a US stooge should/ did not give someone the right to excuse his actions, then I would be implying that someone, whether in this thread or outside of it, had excused those actions. When I say that Saddam being a US stooge should/ did not excuse his actions, I am merely stating that his actions are inexcusable. If I say that a woman being scantily clad does not excuse rape, am I implying that anyone in this thread has said that it does?

As for switching from "should" to "did," while the two words mean slightly different things it is obvious from context that I am not using them to mean different things. "Should not" indicates I blieve such an excuse would be undesirable, "did not" means such an excuse didn't happen. Contextually, they boil down to the same damn thing in my original post, so why do you bring it up at all? It was a simple mistake in any event; I did not bother to go back to the original post to check my precise wording.

If you're going to resort to semantic arguments, at least get your semantics right.

 

[asbestos]

so, some tentative evidence that the rebels may have used chemical weapons. but what is suspicious is that the regime is still blocking access to some sites.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...els-may-have-used-sarin-in-syria-8604920.html

A United Nations inquiry into human rights abuses in Syria has found evidence that rebel forces may have used chemical weapons, its lead investigator has revealed.

Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said that testimony gathered from casualties and medical staff indicated that the nerve agent sarin was used by rebel fighters.

&#8220;Our investigators have been in neighbouring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,&#8221; Ms Del Ponte said in an interview broadcast on Swiss-Italian television on Sunday.

&#8220;This was used on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities,&#8221; she added.

Ms Del Ponte said the inquiry has yet to see any direct evidence suggesting that government forces have used chemical weapons, but said further investigation was required before this possibility could be ruled out.

The UN commission, which is investigating human rights abuses in Syria since the start of the civil war, later released a statement distancing itself from the allegations. It said that investigators had &#8220;not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict&#8221;.

The White House said it was &#8220;highly skeptical&#8221; of suggestions that Syrian rebels used chemical weapons. &#8220;We find it highly likely that chemical weapons, if they were in fact used in Syria - and there is certainly evidence that they were - that the Assad regime was responsible,&#8221; spokesman Jay Carney said.

The allegations come nearly two weeks after the United States said it had &#8220;varying degrees of confidence&#8221; that sarin gas had been used by Syria&#8217;s government on its people.

President Barack Obama declared last year that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, would cross a &#8220;red line&#8221; and change US calculations on whether or not it should intervene in the conflict.

Calls for the US to launch military action against the Syrian regime have grown stronger since claims that it used chemical weapons first emerged. Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham are the most prominent among those calling for a no-fly zone in some parts of the country, similar to the one which was introduced in Libya.

Each side in Syria&#8217;s two-year-old conflict has accused the other of using chemical weapons &#8211; an action that which would constitute a war crime under international law. Two of the alleged attacks took place in Aleppo in March and Homs in December.

An investigation looking specifically into claims of chemical weapons use in Syria was ordered by the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, in late March. The Syrian government wants the UN team to investigate only the Aleppo attack, but the UN has insisted that the inquiry cover both incidents.

An official involved with the investigation into chemical weapons in Syria use told The Independent yesterday that a two-person advance team was waiting in Cyprus to enter Syria and perform onsite inspections. But nearly six weeks after Syria initially asked for such an inquiry, investigators have been unable to enter the country.

&#8220;The Syrian government wants an inspection of just one site in Aleppo, we have asked for inspections for two places,&#8221; the official said.

The official added: &#8220;There is no substitute to onsite inspections and that is what we are waiting for.&#8221;

The investigation to which Ms Del Ponte referred was launched in August 2011 to look into war crimes and other human rights violations in Syria. It is separate from that which was announced by Ban Ki-Moon into chemical weapons use.

A UN source told The Independent that Ms Del Ponte&#8217;s investigation is broader than the one focusing purely on chemical weapons use, but that chemical weapons falls under its remit.

The source said that the commission gathered over 1000 testimonies from those in Syria via Skype, and from those who have fled Syria into neighbouring countries.

Meanwhile, the Foreign Office expressed concern yesterday over the claims, but called for more investigation.

A spokesman said: "Use of chemical weapons is a war crime and reports of their use is extremely concerning. Evidence is limited at this time and we are working actively with our allies, partners and the UN to get more and better information.&#8221;

The allegations by Ms Del Ponte come after Israel carried out a series of air strikes on Syrian military targets early Sunday. Israeli officials have said the strikes were against long-range missiles being transported to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

The Syrian civil war, which began with anti-government protests in March 2011, has now claimed an estimated 70,000 lives and forced 1.2 million Syrian refugees to flee.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Check out this article from Global Research:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/doctor...-weapons-claims-are-aiding-terrorists/5346870

Apparently there were no actual MSF doctors on the scene and they are reporting terrorist hearsay.

Disgusting.

Check out this interview with Assad. BTW, I am not for or against Assad, I am against terrorism and if the US is serious about the war on terror, why are they supporting these non-Syrian Takfiris?

http://www.globalresearch.ca/presid...yria-will-never-become-a-western-puppet-state

The Syrian government is winning.

Sharknado... Nuff said!

Sent via mobile.