Intervention in Syria NOW

[colker]

The recent chemical attack is one of the worst atrocities in History. This is not i 1915: chemical weapons are strictly forbidden. The POTUS says it´s impractical to oust Assad, the perpretator of this crime. Meanwhile people are shocked everywhere and won´t look elsewhere for practical things to do. This could be a moment when real journalism move people to stand their ground and demand action from the powers in charge; one of those moments.
I say Nato should invade and fvck Putin if he stands behind Assad. Next in line is Isis territory.
Bring Assad to Haia and hang him.

[EightySixer]

I think that the administration is very closely watching how Russia/Putin respond to this, and that will dictate the strategy.

It is a delicate situation, the ties involved and the potential for major war breaking out is very real.

The feel for me is that the gun may still be concealed in the coat pocket, but the hand is gripping and the finger is on the trigger.

[sk_tle]

According to some humanitarian NGOs the chemical weapons have been used since the start of the war in Syria. I'm not saying it makes it more acceptable, quite the opposite but the fact we talk about it now most probably serves someone's agenda.

[bigbill]

The Iranians and Russians have a presence on Syrian military bases. If we bomb their military to remove the ability to deliver chemical weapons, we risk killing Iranians and Russians. We're fighting ISIS and neither Russia or Iran is opposed to us doing that and in some cases is fighting alongside us. We had a red line and it was crossed, the solution was a deal with the Russians to take all Syria's chemical weapons, then we decided that was enough. Now here we are. Do you risk American troops in a foreign country's civil war to stop the use of chemical weapons? What if we find out that the rebels used them?

[vertical_doug]

I never understood the artificial red line that killing civilians with chemical weapons is somehow worse than killing civilians with conventional weapons. They both result in dead civilians. Yes, chemical weapons can be horrible deaths, but so can conventional deaths from napalm, cluster bombs and any other number of conventional weapons.

The real problem is not having a plan period. If Assad said he'd stop using chemical weapons, but will continue to kill civilians with conventional, is it all of a sudden acceptable?

[EightySixer]

What if we find out that the rebels used them?

I read the same thing this morning, something to the effect of the bombs dropped hit rebel chemical weapon stores and were not actually chemical bombs.

[Scott G.]

According to some humanitarian NGOs the chemical weapons have been used since the start of the war in Syria. I'm not saying it makes it more acceptable, quite the opposite but the fact we talk about it now most probably serves someone's agenda.

Since we went to war with the Kaiser 100 years ago today, here is your agenda poster.

edith_cavell_crime_des_barbares.jpg

[jlyon]

Well we intervened in Iraq and look how well that has turned out.

It seems that anytime the US gets involved it includes funding weapons and in the end it seems that this just kills more people. Good and bad.

I beginning to believe that quite a bit of the world's conflicts are manufactured (by which organizations I don't know) to secure funds for Weapons and military infrastructure to continue in their power plays.


Probably the best thing we could do is accept all the people fleeing form Syria and set them up as future citizens.

[colker]

I never understood the artificial red line that killing civilians with chemical weapons is somehow worse than killing civilians with conventional weapons. They both result in dead civilians. Yes, chemical weapons can be horrible deaths, but so can conventional deaths from napalm, cluster bombs and any other number of conventional weapons.

The real problem is not having a plan period. If Assad said he'd stop using chemical weapons, but will continue to kill civilians with conventional, is it all of a sudden acceptable?

The line was drawn in WW1: chemical attacks is one of the most cowardly in war.
As stupid as it seems, there are ethics and rules of combat. Even if war is just the ultimate grab for power and pillage, there is a tradition of ethics and ruling that many empires have employed. Big Bill knows this one better than me.

[colker]

I read the same thing this morning, something to the effect of the bombs dropped hit rebel chemical weapon stores and were not actually chemical bombs.

This is fabricated. Unless the village was a couple feet away from the stores i can´t see how gas would travel and hit far away. It´s not how those weapons work: they disperse in the atmosphere. It´s not a nuclear cloud.

[djg714]

Why NATO? Would you send your kids to that fight?

[davids]

This is not our fight, although God knows we helped create the conditions and parties.

Intervention is a lose-lose-lose-lose-lose. I can't see a way in that has a peaceful - let alone democratic - outcome.

[monadnocky]

For what it's worth, it's my understanding that almost all chemical weapons are binary in nature (for safety purposes), and the two sub-components are almost never stored together. The notion that bombs hit some type of storage depot where the weapons were being stored by rebels is pure russian propaganda.

I don't see how intervention will make this anything but worse, perhaps cataclysmically so.

[vertical_doug]

The line was drawn in WW1: chemical attacks is one of the most cowardly in war.
As stupid as it seems, there are ethics and rules of combat. Even if war is just the ultimate grab for power and pillage, there is a tradition of ethics and ruling that many empires have employed. Big Bill knows this one better than me.

I know the standard argument. I am merely pointing out that it is arbitrary. Why not draw the line at targeting and killing civilians? (Except in this case, America has a on-going crimes against humanity campaign running with drone strikes)

The use of cowardly is always an interesting choice of words when discussing chemical weapons. How is using sarin an act of cowardice and using napalm not an act of cowardice when attacking civilians ?

You either have a reason and justification for intervening in Syria regardless of the weapons Assad is using or you don't. Using Chemical weapons as some rallying point and red line just tries to simplify the argument while requiring no plan.

[bigbill]

The chemical weapon argument has to do with escalation but it's useless to apply to a leader who is desperate to remain in power. An argument was made during WW2 to gas Iwo Jima since there was no civilian population on the island. That was ultimately shot down because of fear of escalation by Japan who also had chemical weapons. Nations agree to fight wars in a certain manner with some ground rules. That doesn't really work anymore. It all comes down to how dirty you want to get.

As far as the weapons being a rebel stash that was hit by artillery, the Russians reported that. FWIW.

[colker]

As far as the weapons being a rebel stash that was hit by artillery, the Russians reported that. FWIW.

Syria is complicated. Poor syrians, God forgot these people.

[colker]

I know the standard argument. I am merely pointing out that it is arbitrary. Why not draw the line at targeting and killing civilians? (Except in this case, America has a on-going crimes against humanity campaign running with drone strikes)

The use of cowardly is always an interesting choice of words when discussing chemical weapons. How is using sarin an act of cowardice and using napalm not an act of cowardice when attacking civilians ?

You either have a reason and justification for intervening in Syria regardless of the weapons Assad is using or you don't. Using Chemical weapons as some rallying point and red line just tries to simplify the argument while requiring no plan.

Targeting civilians is strictly forbidden under conventions. And then you have guerrilla wars like Vietnam and Palestine where you can´t distinguish army from civilllian or worse, when heavy artillery is placed and hid by civilian shields.
Otoh serbian commanders were trialed in Haia for massacre, genocide and rape so there is still a line armies should not cross. There is a difference between defeat and trial and hang in Haia.

EDIT: Dresden is still a shame. So is HIroshima and Nagasaki. That does not mean rules are not in place.

[colker]

This is not our fight, although God knows we helped create the conditions and parties.

Intervention is a lose-lose-lose-lose-lose. I can't see a way in that has a peaceful - let alone democratic - outcome.

INtervention to prevent the massacre of civllians. NO other point is relevant. If there will be democracy or which democracy is secondary.

[davids]

INtervention to prevent the massacre of civllians. NO other point is relevant. If there will be democracy or which democracy is secondary.

OK.

So, why now, and not four years ago?

And what, exactly, are you proposing be done?

[Len J]

When are Brazilian troops landing?