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

[DinoDoc]

How does your comment even begin to contradict what I said: Obama was right not to start bombing the place because he didn't have enough solid information.

US intelligence and officials from his Admin are on record and still haven't backed away from backing the claim that the attack originated from the government forces. His Admin has also specifically rejected the report you cite.

[DinoDoc]

So you'd rather Obama either gives 100% military backing or doesn't offer any diplomatic or other support at all? Do you favour that black and white approach to all international conflicts?

In the case of Syria, yes. The time to intervene would have been before the secular opposition collapsed and was replaced by Al-Qaeda and other Islamist backed militants.

[snoopy369]

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.

I think that it's simply that they are weapons explicitly created to kill a large number of civilians. Tactical nukes aren't really WMDs, for example - their use likely wouldn't cause a massive global retaliation. Most weapons are focused on killing soldiers or damaging military equipment; NBCs are largely intended to kill people, civilian or military. Even if you tried to primarily focus them on a military target, you'd likely have a lot of backsplash onto civilian targets.

Also, you can't discount the WWI effect. Mustard gas and the other similar weapons truly horrified in the post-WWI analysis; it may well be simply that memory that attaches the horrific stigma to them.

[DaShi]

US intelligence and officials from his Admin are on record and still haven't backed away from backing the claim that the attack originated from the government forces. His Admin has also specifically rejected the report you cite.

Your statements still don't contradict what dannubis said. Also, they are not accurate, based on the evidence you posted. I can only assume that you either ate a lot of lead paint as a child, hope that if you keep repeating the same lies over and over they will become true, or both.

[DaShi]

In the case of Syria, yes. The time to intervene would have been before the secular opposition collapsed and was replaced by Al-Qaeda and other Islamist backed militants.

You are arguing from hindsight (again). This contributes nothing to what should be done now, also it may not be entirely correct.

[DaShi]

I think that it's simply that they are weapons explicitly created to kill a large number of civilians. Tactical nukes aren't really WMDs, for example - their use likely wouldn't cause a massive global retaliation. Most weapons are focused on killing soldiers or damaging military equipment; NBCs are largely intended to kill people, civilian or military. Even if you tried to primarily focus them on a military target, you'd likely have a lot of backsplash onto civilian targets.

Also, you can't discount the WWI effect. Mustard gas and the other similar weapons truly horrified in the post-WWI analysis; it may well be simply that memory that attaches the horrific stigma to them.

There are also long term consequences to the environment and the health of those nearby who survived. Chemical weapons are basically the poor man's nukes.

[Elok]

It's indiscriminate, has horrible long term effects on survivors and with a simple wind change can do horrific damage to civilian populations. It's always a bit ironic when we ban some weapons for being too 'nasty', but when it comes to gas I think it's quite reasonable.

In the context of Assad, though, hasn't he been using his conventional weapons quite indiscriminately anyway? Like I said, I haven't been following it--I tend not to go in-depth on news like that, since it's depressing and I can't do anything about it--but I thought our big problem with him from the start was that he murdered the fvck out of anyone in the same general area as the opposition, suspected of being part of the opposition, babysitting the opposition's kids, etc. As for long-term side effects on survivors, plain ol' bullets and shrapnel can, and frequently do, leave survivors maimed, blinded, mutilated, paralyzed, or brain-damaged. Spray a minigun across a crowded street, and the "lucky" ones who don't get torn in half will almost certainly be crippled for life in some way. What does gas do that's worse than that?

[Elok]

I think that it's simply that they are weapons explicitly created to kill a large number of civilians. Tactical nukes aren't really WMDs, for example - their use likely wouldn't cause a massive global retaliation. Most weapons are focused on killing soldiers or damaging military equipment; NBCs are largely intended to kill people, civilian or military. Even if you tried to primarily focus them on a military target, you'd likely have a lot of backsplash onto civilian targets.

I'm going over the Wiki article on tactical nukes, and I think you could use gas in a similar way, at least in some situations. E.g., gassing a formation of troops to capture their equipment/supplies/documents or avoid damaging infrastructure they're guarding. Whatever they were created for (weren't the first ones designed to break trench warfare stalemates, i.e. for use against military personnel?), I can envision some legitimate military use for them. Not that I'd call them responsible or ethical--like I said, I'd group them with cluster bombs or landmines.

Also, you can't discount the WWI effect. Mustard gas and the other similar weapons truly horrified in the post-WWI analysis; it may well be simply that memory that attaches the horrific stigma to them.

Oh, I know there's a strong factor of culturally-ingrained revulsion. I just think gut reactions are a bad grounds for policy.

[Sava]

Syria is old news. Republicans are back to searching for the TRUTH about Benghazi

[Dinner]

That's after he let the Libyan rebels get routed and nearly annihilated through indecisiveness facilitating months of attrition warfare as well as the infiltration of radicals into the rebel cause. Granted, that didn't cause US deaths, just some nameless brown people. Is that a win for you?

And you might remember how Republicans flip flopped like hell wrt Libya. When Obama didn't immediately order an invasion (because he wanted to see who the rebels were and if they actually had a chance of success) the Republicans demanded he immediately invade with ground troops. Then when Obama did take action the Republicans cried big crocodile tears about how the UN hadn't authorized it and therefor it was an illegal war. Yeah, this out of the same chicken hawks who demanded we invade Iraq UN or no UN. They're just disingenuous liars and that's why most people simply ignore their endless belly aching.

[Dinner]

Syria is old news. Republicans are back to searching for the TRUTH about Benghazi

Sad but true. Last week one of the dullards was declaring on Fox that he'd "found the smoking gun" because a memo was stamped with Hillary's name and said from the office of the secretary of state... As literally every single memo since Jefferson was President has been stamped with the name of the Sec of State. Memos about clogged toilets and every little thing imaginable are stamped that way because it is SOP. It's hard to tell who is more delusional the Republican politicians coming up with the lies or the idiots who believe their invented nonsense.

[Sava]

Sad but true. Last week one of the dullards was declaring on Fox that he'd "found the smoking gun" because a memo was stamped with Hillary's name and said from the office of the secretary of state... As literally every single memo since Jefferson was President has been stamped with the name of the Sec of State. Memos about clogged toilets and every little thing imaginable are stamped that way because it is SOP. It's hard to tell who is more delusional the Republican politicians coming up with the lies or the idiots who believe their invented nonsense.

They are such an embarrassment. I would think we're going to have at least 20 years of Dem presidents because they are such idiots.

[DinoDoc]

Sad but true. Last week one of the dullards...

Which dullard? The deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Libya at the time of the Benghazi terrorist attacks, the deputy coordinator for Operations in the State Department's Counterterrorism Bureau, or might it be a diplomatic security officer who was the regional security officer in Libya?

[Elok]

They are such an embarrassment. I would think we're going to have at least 20 years of Dem presidents because they are such idiots.

That would require the average person knowing about, and caring about, the ins and outs of all that. I'd wager that 90% of those who know the details (on either side of the aisle) have accepted that it's simply a cynical political move designed to generate noise and confusion. Certainly I expect no better from pols of either party.

[dannubis]

US intelligence and officials from his Admin are on record and still haven't backed away from backing the claim that the attack originated from the government forces. His Admin has also specifically rejected the report you cite.

I am not saying they are correct. I am saying nobody knows right now and thus it is a good thing he didn't invade, i.e. this decision was the right one...