Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[DemonicAppleGuY]

The Congress shall have power to .... declare war.

Except you know, since the War Powers Act. Which delegates that power to the President.

 

[Defiant47]

Update

WASHINGTON — Delaying what had loomed as an imminent strike, President Barack Obama abruptly announced Saturday he will seek congressional approval before launching any military action meant to punish Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons in an attack that killed hundreds.

With Navy ships on standby in the Mediterranean Sea ready to launch their cruise missiles, Obama said he had decided the United States should take military action and that he believes he has “the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization.”

At the same time, he said, “I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course and our actions will be even more effective.” Congress is scheduled to return from a summer vacation on Sept. 9.

The president didn’t say so, but his strategy carries enormous risks to his and the nation’s credibility, which the administration has argued forcefully is on the line in Syria. Obama long ago said the use of chemical weapons was a “red line” that Syrian President Bashar Assad would not be allowed to cross with impunity.

Only this week, British Prime Minister David Cameron suffered a humiliating defeat when the House of Commons refused to support his call for military action against Syria.

Either way, the developments marked a stunning turn in an episode in which Obama has struggled to gain international support for a strike, while dozens of lawmakers at home urged him to seek their backing.

Halfway around the world, Syrians awoke Saturday to state television broadcasts of tanks, planes and other weapons of war, and troops training, all to a soundtrack of martial music. Assad’s government blames rebels in the Aug. 21 attack, and has threatened retaliation if it is attacked.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...a-will-not-be-about-imminent-military-action/

Discussion

Obama ought to do the right thing regardless of congress. He better be damned sure that congress will approve this, otherwise he's just sentenced thousands to hundreds of thousands of Syrians, and potentially others as well due to the precedent, to a gruesome death.

It will be a sad day for humanity if we have a repeat of what happened in the UK.

 

[Borachio]

The thing about Cameron, though, is that the UK government lost an immense amount of credibility (basically we were conned), and hence power, over Iraq and the WMD in whenever it was.

Previously the PM could have sanctioned military action directly without a Parliamentary debate.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Where's the evidence that the government was actually behind the attacks?

 

[JollyRoger]

I'm thinking it could be the ghost of Saddam using WMDs.

 

[Defiant47]

Where's the evidence that the government was actually behind the attacks?

Update

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/john-kerry-syria.html?_r=0

Declassified intelligence report:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...cal-weapons-assessment.html?smid=tw-thecaucus

Please pay attention.

 

[Borachio]

While I agree that the Assad regime is responsible, that last link only seems to repeatedly state that their "assessment" is that the Assad regime is responsible. There's a great deal of hearsay "evidence" but nothing tangible that I could see. (Mind you, I haven't examined it with as much attention as perhaps I should. It is thin on facts though, imo.)

Still, it doesn't make much sense for the Assad regime to carry out such an attack. The most likely (or a possible one, which has been already mentioned, I think) scenario, to my way of thinking, is that some section of the Syrian military (for reasons unknown) has acted without Assad's direct authorization.

Yet, why would anyone stockpile chemical weapons if they had no intention of ever using them?

How many chemical weapons does the US have?

 

[Defiant47]

While I agree that the Assad regime is responsible, that last link only seems to repeatedly state that their "assessment" is that the Assad regime is responsible. There's a great deal of hearsay "evidence" but nothing tangible that I could see.

There's enough evidence to build a strong case.

You want tangible? How about this:

1. American satellites and surveillance watch over Damascus
2. Missiles are launched from government-controlled areas into rebel-controlled areas
3. Hours later, people around the site of the missile detonation start dying with symptoms akin to a chemical attack

If that ain't tangible evidence, I don't know what is. And that's not the only source.

Still, it doesn't make much sense for the Assad regime to carry out such an attack.

Stop trying to personify Asaad as a normal person who does things that make sense. He has fired on peaceful protesters, sparking this civil war, thereby losing all credibility as "someone who makes sense".

It makes perfect sense that an inhuman monster like Asaad would gas-attack the rebel strongholds that continued to defiantly stand their ground in Asaad's capital city.

The most likely (or a possible one, which has been already mentioned, I think) scenario, to my way of thinking, is that some section of the Syrian military (for reasons unknown) has acted without Assad's direct authorization.

Doesn't change anything in a meaningful way IMO.

Yet, why would anyone stockpile chemical weapons if they had no intention of ever using them?

The same reason someone would stockpile nuclear weapons. The same reason my avatar has the B-36 Peacemaker in the middle of the "peace sign". To preserve the peace.

Actually using chemical weapons, on the other hand, is an atrocity.

 

[Borachio]

Stop trying to personify Asaad as a normal person who does things that make sense. He has fired on peaceful protesters, sparking this civil war, thereby losing all credibility as "someone who makes sense".

It makes perfect sense that an inhuman monster like Asaad would gas-attack the rebel strongholds that continued to defiantly stand their ground in Asaad's capital city.

I'll do a deal with you. You stop demonizing people and I'll stop personifying them as normal.

 

[Defiant47]

I'll do a deal with you. You stop demonizing people and I'll stop personifying them as normal.

No compromises on fact-based assessments. Asaad gave orders to fire on protesters, with little care for civilian deaths. Similar to Gaddafi. There's really nothing to "debate" about his character.

 

[Lone Wolf]

The purpose was never to impose regimes. It was to destroy regimes. And, in the process, the countries themselves, their social fabric and their infrastructure.

An underrated Onion cartoon...

Spoiler :

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Please pay attention.

Because there's no such thing as bias.

And why would Assad use chemical weapons, knowing that it would invite Western intervention?

 

[illram]

Not surprised by what Obama is doing. I do not envy his position right now. He faces negative public opinion and has no international allies willing to put their money where their mouth is. However I have to think that if he had public support and an international consensus he would not wait for Congress. He has embraced broad Presidential authority before and he arguably has the authority to issue a limited strike without approval. This is stalling, but I cannot really blame him.

 

[Defiant47]

Because there's no such thing as bias.

Because bias proves that the exact opposite of what is being presented is the truth.

And why would Assad use chemical weapons, knowing that it would invite Western intervention?

This has already been addressed.

Because he's a monster? Because the rebel groups in Damascus were holding him off successfully? Because he gambled that Western populations would be too selfish to intervene?

Your inquiry is with little merit, seeing as Western intervention is not occurring, especially if Obama's plea is shut down in congress.

 

[Hakim]

There's enough evidence to build a strong case.

You want tangible? How about this:

1. American satellites and surveillance watch over Damascus
2. Missiles are launched from government-controlled areas into rebel-controlled areas
3. Hours later, people around the site of the missile detonation start dying with symptoms akin to a chemical attack

This description together with the "panicked calls between Syrian officials" I read about somewhere, makes me wonder if the missile was fired by mistake. Perhaps it was supposed to be an ordinary missile but someone in command simply took the wrong one or didn't know it was loaded with that kind of deadly. This would still put the blame on the regime imo.

 

[Oruc]

Because he's a monster? Because the rebel groups in Damascus were holding him off successfully? Because he gambled that Western populations would be too selfish to intervene?

He's just a man

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

This description together with the "panicked calls between Syrian officials" I read about somewhere, makes me wonder if the missile was fired by mistake. Perhaps it was supposed to be an ordinary missile but someone in command simply took the wrong one or didn't know it was loaded with that kind of deadly. This would still put the blame on the regime imo.

It is possible.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

Because he's a monster? Because the rebel groups in Damascus were holding him off successfully? Because he gambled that Western populations would be too selfish to intervene?

I don't see what's selfish about not wanting to see troops coming home in body bags, in not wanting Syria to become another Iraq? In wanting stability?

The only reason Assad would logically use chemical weapons is if he was losing.

Your inquiry is with little merit, seeing as Western intervention is not occurring, especially if Obama's plea is shut down in congress.

Oh, don't worry, the West will intervene, because Democracy must prevail!

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The Congress shall have power to .... declare war.

Yup, but most military actions don't require a formal declaration of war and as I said either here or the other thread, the Congress passed a law giving the President discretion to take military action without having to get Congressional consent for six months.

 

[Gucumatz]

Its interesting that he is letting this go through Congress. From a political perspective I don't think he has the votes for Congressional approval. Lyndon Johnson always lectured people, never hold a vote until you know you have the votes. Once you have the votes, then you can hold a little debate or whatever to satisfy the whims of the overly emotional... Obama is no LBJ true, but this move seems really strange.

From the press over the last few days it seems they really want to intervene in Syria. Maybe they have been working Congress over these last few days, or maybe there has been a dramatic shift at the White House where they no longer want to intervene (hence throwing it to Congress)