Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[Rashiminos]

But wait. Are you suggesting the US intervene on the side of the terrorists?

I'm not, but which terrorists are you referring to here?

It doesn't. Obama isn't getting what he wants. He has no choice but to intervene at this point it seems.

How does this statement show me that you believe you know what Obama wants?

He drew the red line in an effort convince Assad not to use chemical weapons.

Whether or not Assad used the weapons is useless, most Western governments have already condemned his regime.

Not intervening means the US loses face and the terrorists win.

And we don't want the terrorists winning, now do we?

So Obama has bought into this limited realm of possibilities to choose from?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I didn't think it was worth quibbling over it but since you can't let it go, it comes down to a bunch of still unsubstantiated claims by the Syrian government with no evidence of casualties. The Syrian government claim may also be interpreted as stalling for time as military action is not going to happen with UN staff on the ground.

I didn't claim that the statements must be true. Now did I? I merely stated that the facts presented in the article are. That the Syrian government claims their troops were once again attacked with sarin.

It's not as if it's not reported, as you claim...

Now you are just making stuff up.

Perhaps because you feel like it justifies your preconceived position?

Have you heard of these devices called "mirrors"? Perhaps you should check one out.

 

[Rashiminos]

Have you heard of these devices called "mirrors"? Perhaps you should check one out.

There's some risk of there not being a reflection to see.

 

[dexters]

I didn't claim that the statements must be true. Now did I? I merely stated that the facts presented in the article are. That the Syrian government claims their troops were attacked with sarin for 3 days.

Now you are just making stuff up.

Have you heard of these devices called "mirrors"? Perhaps you should check one out.

My issue was with the source and I didn't even bother critiquing the contents. I'm not sure what your arguing exactly.

That my position on xinhua as a biased source is incorrect or that Syrian government claims they were gassed is such a huge story that counters the existing narrative that it must be true.

If it's not the latter, let's stick to talking about sources

And let's leave the ad homenims out.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

How does this statement show me that you believe you know what Obama wants?

Well, I believe I know. That should show you. It doesn't matter though, I thought we were taking it as a given Obama doesn't want to get involved for the sake of argument?

So Obama has bought into this limited realm of possibilities to choose from?

No; some possibilities are just worse than others.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Again, no conclusive evidence. Why does the US insist on using military force over unproven allegations. Talk about violating international law.

Lenin was right. Nothing but a proletarian revolution will save us from imperialist wars.

Back to work...

Read my posts, DAG, I didn't say Russia was socialist. I specifically said they are, like the US, an opportunist DOB. That's Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie.

Don't tell me about China.

NB: the Chinese and Cuban doctors are doing humanitarian work. That was my point. Call me naive, but most world leaders and citizens would rather see doctors than missiles in their countries.

Nome sayin'?

Sent via mobile.

 

[Rashiminos]

Well, I believe I know. That should show you. It doesn't matter though, I thought we were taking it as a given Obama doesn't want to get involved for the sake of argument?

And then at some point you concluded he wasn't getting what he wanted. I think it's possible to discredit the notion that someone wants something when the courses of action arrayed before him seem counter to that goal. It's not disproof, but I'm not sure how we could get such disproof anyways.

No; some possibilities are just worse than others.

Maybe so, but in limiting the discourse, is there not an inducement to certain kinds of action by describing the "other" possibilities as "worse."

'If you're not with us, then you're with the terrorists?'

 

[Borachio]

I'm not, but which terrorists are you referring to here?

Um. I'd say - given the context of my post - most of those who are fighting the Assad regime. I think the original and 'legitimate' opposition forces of the FSA have now been almost comprehensively swamped by all sorts of Al Qaeda-like groups that it's practically impossible to describe them as anything other than terrorists.

Of course, one could legitimately describe the Assad regime as terrorist too.

Is there a "good" side to support in this?

Isn't any military intervention pretty meaningless? In that there doesn't really seem to be any clear goal to aim for.

I wonder how reliable this link is.
http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/

 

[classical_hero]

Again, no conclusive evidence. Why does the US insist on using military force over unproven allegations. Talk about violating international law.

Because President Obama made an irresponsible statement that is now being interpreted as him being weak, but it also allowed the rebels to think about using Chemical weapons and blame Assad for them. Once he made the statement he has to act otherwise it was pointless.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Is there a "good" side to support in this?

Isn't any military intervention pretty meaningless? In that there doesn't really seem to be any clear goal to aim for.

There isn't a good side. Obama doesn't want to get involved because there are no good options.

Call me naive, but most world leaders and citizens would rather see doctors than missiles in their countries.

This is an accurate statement. But who are the world leaders and citizens going to listen to?

 

[bugwar]

The evolution towards bots doing all the sanctioned killing of humans continues, as noted in a an article in Time magazine:

“...The discretion was partly because Israel is not being called upon to take part in the strikes the United States is planning –
which the Israelis gather will involve only cruise missiles, so as not to endanger U.S. pilots — and partly because Washington
prefers to emphasize the support for the strikes from other quarters.”

Bolded text added by me.

Source: http://world.time.com/2013/08/29/is...s-masks-as-u-s-ponders-syria-missile-strikes/

 

[Rashiminos]

So this is like Pakistan and Yemen, only larger.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Cruise missiles aren't drones.

 

[bugwar]

So this is like Pakistan and Yemen, only larger.

Well, if you consider a government using chemical weapons on their own population to be 'like' Pakistan and Yemen, then yep.

 

[bugwar]

Cruise missiles aren't drones.

Your point being?

 

[classical_hero]

Why haven't we seen mass protests about all this war sabre rattling?

 

[Rashiminos]

Well, if you consider a government using chemical weapons on their own population to be 'like' Pakistan and Yemen, then yep.

I thought we weren't waiting for that determination.

Why haven't we seen mass protests about all this war sabre rattling?

GWOT

It's also not an election year (in the US).

 

[bugwar]

Why haven't we seen mass protests about all this war sabre rattling?

Um, cuz most people don't care if you send in robots to kill arabs?

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Your point being?

Your post seemed to imply they were. Considering you had a picture of a drone.

 

[bugwar]

I thought we weren't waiting for that determination.


GWOT

Depends.
If Obama believes his [classified, don't let ordinary Americans see it] sources, he may already have made the determination.

I'll be just amazed if he takes any concrete action.