"Let me be perfectly clear...make no mistake about it": Syria Edition

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Neosporin and a topical analgesic

[Sava]

i did a little today

the top edge of the tip was just hurting too much

maybe like one otehr teim taht happens

[Sava]

israel bombed something

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/israeli-strike-on-syria-targeted-weapons-shipment-90916.html?hp=r2

An Israeli airstrike against Syria was targeting a shipment of advanced missiles bound for the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, Israeli officials confirmed Saturday.

It was the second Israeli strike this year against Syria and the latest salvo in its long-running effort to disrupt Hezbollah's quest to build an arsenal capable of defending against Israel's air force and spreading destruction inside the Jewish state.

The officials said the attack took place early Friday and was aimed at sophisticated "game-changing" weapons, but not chemical arms. One official said the target was a shipment of advanced, long-range ground-to-ground missiles but was not more specific.

STOP SAYING "GAME CHANGING"

YOU KNOW WHAT WOULD CHANGE THE GAME
IF SOMEONE INVETED A GOAT THAT SHOT NUCLEAR PLASMA LASER MISSILES OUT ITS ****ING ASS

AND EVEN THEN

ITS STILL WAR

DUMB****S

[Aeson]

It would be game-changing if they stop using that term ...

[DinoDoc]

Hilarious. I guess this is why he's usually never without his teleprompter:

The origins of this dilemma can be traced in large part to a weekend last August, when alarming intelligence reports suggested the besieged Syrian government might be preparing to use chemical weapons. After months of keeping a distance from the conflict, Mr. Obama felt he had to become more directly engaged.

In a frenetic series of meetings, the White House devised a 48-hour plan to deter President Bashar al-Assad of Syria by using intermediaries like Russia and Iran to send a message that one official summarized as, “Are you crazy?” But when Mr. Obama emerged to issue the public version of the warning, he went further than many aides realized he would.

Moving or using large quantities of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and “change my calculus,” the president declared in response to a question at a news conference, to the surprise of some of the advisers who had attended the weekend meetings and wondered where the “red line” came from. With such an evocative phrase, the president had defined his policy in a way some advisers wish they could take back.

“The idea was to put a chill into the Assad regime without actually trapping the president into any predetermined action,” said one senior official, who, like others, discussed the internal debate on the condition of anonymity. But “what the president said in August was unscripted,” another official said. Mr. Obama was thinking of a chemical attack that would cause mass fatalities, not relatively small-scale episodes like those now being investigated, except the “nuance got completely dropped.”

As a result, the president seems to be moving closer to providing lethal assistance to the Syrian rebels, even though he rejected such a policy just months ago. American officials have even discussed with European allies the prospect of airstrikes to take out Syrian air defenses, airplanes and missile delivery systems, if government use of chemical weapons is confirmed.

[SlowwHand]

Chemical weapons count as WMD, as far as I've ever been concerned. If he starts agreeing with me, he also agrees with Bush. What a dilemma.

[Dinner]

Except, you know, there weren't any WMDs in Iraq so, no, he wouldn't be agreeing with Bush.

[SlowwHand]

You're saying that thousands of people weren't gassed in Iraq? If that's what you're saying, don't talk to me.

[Elok]

Question: what makes chemical weapons worse than the conventional kind? I mean, yeah, it's an ugly way to go, but I'd rather be gassed than, say, bleed out after getting gut-shot, or die of internal bleeding or infection. Gas is a lot quicker. Not sure if immolation is better or worse. Gas is indiscriminate, but not much more so than most bombs AFAIK. They're scaleable--not sure if that's the right word, but you can kill a few people with them or a lot, depending on how much you use. Not like nukes, which frag entire cities at a minimum, or biological weapons which are intrinsically uncontrollable. Why are chemicals lumped in with the real monsters?

[Colon™]

Question: what makes chemical weapons worse than the conventional kind? I mean, yeah, it's an ugly way to go, but I'd rather be gassed than, say, bleed out after getting gut-shot, or die of internal bleeding or infection. Gas is a lot quicker. Not sure if immolation is better or worse. Gas is indiscriminate, but not much more so than most bombs AFAIK. They're scaleable--not sure if that's the right word, but you can kill a few people with them or a lot, depending on how much you use. Not like nukes, which frag entire cities at a minimum, or biological weapons which are intrinsically uncontrollable. Why are chemicals lumped in with the real monsters?

I do think chemical weapons are much more indiscriminate than bombs. Sure, they can miss or even be aimed intentionally at civilians, but in principle they can be pinpointed at enemy combatants. That simply isn't possible with chemical weapons.

[Elok]

I suppose it depends on the chemical agent in question. Are modern agents sufficiently toxic that a few stray molecules, once the cloud has dissipated, can kill? I've heard a number of claims like "[small amount measured in grams or milligrams] of [substance] can be fatal," but even one milligram represents a very large number of molecules, and a gas diffusing in a relatively open area will thin out really quick since volume increases exponentially and blahblahblah. But, of course, they're unreliable, because wind will blow some where you don't want it, and some will linger in enclosed spots.

I suppose, on reflection, I'd lump them together with stuff like landmines, cluster bombs, and napalm--nasty as hell, but not "WMD." Nukes or a gently tweaked variola virus could murder millions in one shot without breaking a sweat. You'd need an insane amount of gas for that.

[dannubis]

It appears that Obama was right yet again not to jump the gun...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

I wonder when people like Zev will stop demanding action and big explosions each time they feel an itch.

[Colon™]

Wezil, North Korea isn't a member of the UN Human Rights Council. I can't recall they ever were, nor that of its predecessor (the Commission on Human Rights), contrary to what some tool here claims. The process of periodic reviews do allow any other UN member to make comments, but those have no hand in composing the review - only Council members do.

Here's a brief of the review on Canada: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR...ril2013am.aspx

Seems reasonable enough to me.

For the record, here's the review on Russia, made a few days later: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/UPR...ril2013pm.aspx

I'm sure anyone can tell the issues raised here are on another level compared to Canada.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Ok, so rebels using Sarin gas... war... and world is full of idiots who support it.

[DinoDoc]

It appears that Obama was right yet again not to jump the gun...

Except he still believes that the Syrian government was responsible for the use of such weapons not the rebels: 'No information' Syria rebels used chemical arms