[QUOTE=DiosaBellissima]
I don’t have the ability to search for it at the moment (excellent debating, I know), but I’ve read in other threads here on this topic, as well as in a few articles, that blowing up the chemical weapons wouldn’t necessarily release the gas into the air. Something about the weapons being a little more complex inside and requiring a series of specific actions to create the gas itself, rather than just boom.
[/QUOTE]
A lot of them are binary systems, and mixing them in an explosion probably wouldn’t be as effective as mixing them the way they are supposed to be mixed.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
If memory serves me it’s a gas and would travel with the wind. I wouldn’t want to test your theory on what happens when you blow a pile of it up. I think it’s mixed on site as needed and if that’s the case it’s a risky venture to destroy it in a haphazard manner.
[/QUOTE]
So, we should do nothing because blowing it up (and thus rendering it completely unusable to Assad) might be hazardous? That’s…an interesting view point. Do you think it would be more hazardous to blow them up at a military base than it will be to allow Assad to mix them properly and use them in a civilian area, as he’s done lately??
If he can’t mix it, he’ll shoot them or torture then or run over them with a tank. They will still be dead. I don’t believe the difference is the ill will we would earn.
But I digress from the OP.
True, but one of the few times the international community has actually come together to prohibit something was for the use of chemical weapons in war. It’s one of the few things that nearly everyone agrees on that we shouldn’t collectively do, and by and large since the treaties were initially laid out in the early 20’s we all have been pretty good to abide by them. That, in itself is something nearly miraculous, and we should certainly continue to do so. Or, to put it another way, if we can’t maintain THIS prohibition then what good are any of these treaties and why should anyone take them seriously? Why should anyone attempt to expand on them to other things if this one, which nearly every nation fundamentally agrees we shouldn’t do is tossed out?
Interestingly enough, former Iranian President Rafsanjani who’s in vastly better position than Paul, Buchanan, or Limbaugh apparantly believes that Assad was responsible, though he’s been forced to walk it back.
Oh, he goes much further than that. Limbaugh asks, "“Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?” So maybe Obama did it! Now I consider that a nutjob conspiracy theory, peddled by a demagogue with a gullible audience. So I don’t consider his allegations to be especially authoritative. (In terms of logic, there’s no fallacy in evaluating the track record of information sources: ad hominem would involve me attacking the arguer rather than assess factual claims. Scroll down to the last section: Ad hominem - Wikipedia )
The Saudis. Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack
That’s a website I’ve never heard of who has a reporter that they say has worked for AP and NPR. There’s a more authoritative discussion by peacenik foreign policy expert William R. Polk here. Many of his questions are plausibly addressed below.
You sure about that? They are big supporters of Assad’s regime, which has one of their few foreign military ports. Most players are propping their parochial interests.
This is good info. There were also reportedly some operational mistakes on the ground by Assad’s army.
The OP’s quesion is legitimate and I hope to see the Der Speigel information studied critically over the next several days. It’s not unknown for US intelligence to plant stories in the foreign press in the anticipation that they will blow back to the US.
I wonder what Secretary Kerry (a Vietnam Vet) thinks about the Rebels executing people. Maybe we should attack them too to show that this behavior will not be tolerated.
Maybe he can explain the concept of bombing from afar versus no “boots on the ground” and say it with a straight face having acknowledged we sent the CIA over there. Are they wearing sandals? Do they not count as people?
After that he can explain how we would secure the sarin gas if things go south (which he said we would do) without sending in troops. Are we going to carpet bomb the country or does he know the precise location of all the material.
I was cautious originally but now I’m verging towards the sceptical and that’s very uncomfortable. I would like to be able to trust the UK and the US govts on such important issues but not only can I not but it seems they go out of the way for foster suspicion and mistrust.
When it comes down to it we have been offered no more than ‘it was him, trust us’ assertions pretending to be evidence. We have unanswered questions, dubious self-interested sources and a varying on source number of unquestionably dead gassed people.
There’s something that doesn’t smell right about this and one clue may be Obama’s admission that the request to use force is part of a wider get rid of Assad plan. I fear we may be being led one step down the garden path at a time.
Assad’s regime is brutal and evil but when it comes right down to it I’d rather his WMD’s did not fall into terrorist faction hands in the follow up civil war that will follow his fall. I cannot envisage any scenario at all where this won’t happen.
The simple truth is - our governments - by their own words and actions have lost public trust. And it may well be that this is stopping them from doing what might be necessary.
But the onus is not on the public to start trusting them it’s on them to regain our trust.
Speaking for myself this means - no more lies, evasions and half truths when questioned by our legislative representatives. No more secret courts, no more treating whistleblowers like spies and a severely constrained surveillance programs with strong, informed and transparent democratic oversight.
The State has to ask itself - how can we win back public respect and trust. It shows no sign of realising as illustrated by trying to get us to sign up for another slippery slope Middle Eastern adventure without even evidence as flimsy as the Powell dog and pony show.
How can they win that trust? That’s their problem and no - they cannot hide behind all this ‘how we know is too secret to tell you’ bullshit.
No - we don’t trust you. No - we aren’t going to take your word for it. Not ever again.
The notion that the Israelis are behind this in planting false evidence is very silly, though I suppose inevitable to those who see the Israelis behind everything.
The Israelis have no interest in manipulating the US into eliminating Assad in favour of Islamicist rebels. Assad is the devil they know and have lived with for many years. The article never articulates exactly why it would be in Israeli interests to have the US attack Assad, which presumably would aid the rebels.
