http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/25/us-intelligence-confidence-syria-sarin-gas http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/26/w...ects-assad-used-chemical-weapons.html?hp&_r=0 http://www.france24.com/en/20130425...al-weapons-white-house-britain-cross-red-line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin Sarin, or GB, is an organophosphorus compound with the formula [(CH3)2CHO]CH3P(O)F. It is a colorless, odorless liquid,[4] used as a chemical weapon owing to its extreme potency as a nerve agent. It has been classified as a weapon of mass destruction in UN Resolution 687. Production and stockpiling of sarin was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 where it is classified as a Schedule 1 substance. -------------- Any thoughts on what will trigger intervention by NATO? I mean America,Britain and France +extras. Will they waited for another "confirmed" use... or will it take more than sarin? Raz
I'm not sure anything would trigger an intervention at this stage. There's no appetite for another fight in the muslim world.
Well more importantly there's no reliable unified govt. to run the country afterwards AFAIK. Until that's worked out odds are good the fighting would continue well after Assad and his regime were broken and power vaccuums tend to benefit less-than-savory groups in that area. I think that's the biggest difference between Lybia and Syria, and why the different approaches were taken.
I'd agree. The FSA was the closest to any decent alternative and that wasn't great. Thing is I see it as a bit of a catch-22. We're less likely to intervene unless there's a decent, moderate group to replace Assad, but by not helping we're making that a lot less likely. The rebels (if that's the word?) need support and they're going to get it from somewhere. If the West doesn't want to offer it then other, less savoury groups are going to. Like whichever one it was that announced an allegiance with Al Quaeda. I wondered at the time if that would of happened if they could of got weapons etc. from somewhere else.
We're not seeing the politicians demanding intervention. We're not seeing photos or videos of victims. We're not seeing the media reminding the people how this was a "trigger event". There's no viable options for intervention. You can be sure there are western entities working to find and secure the stockpile at the appropriate time. Syria is a mess. It will take a lot to re-build it if and when Assad goes. However, no one want another exercise in nation building.
We started with Iraq and Afghanistan; why stop at Syria? Words solve nothing so condemning the Assad regime in speeches is fruitless. If we, i.e. the West, are truly against the deployment of chemical weapons, I say direct physical intervention is not only necessary but right. "We have not the stomach for it," you say? "We can't afford it," you say? We could stomach it, we could afford it, if we really wanted to. But far too many people are happy to say they oppose something rather than show they oppose it. I'll leave you with a quote from Desmond Tutu- “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”
I hope it would be confirmed, and with a much higher confidence rate than 'some guys said so'. The last war that got started over WMD 'evidence' turned out to be a trillion dollar wild goose chase. The articles you linked use a lot of words like 'would', 'likely', 'may' and 'were believed'. Not a great confidence builder that a) it was used in the first place and b) by whom, if at all.
Yes, but they're not on the headlines of the evening television news yet. When they become the lead off story on all the networks then there will be a push to "do something".
Question related to photos. I switched from getting my news from the bbc website to mostly reading Reuters a few months ago. The latter always seems to have much better photos, like they have better access across the world, and I'm not sure why.
My thoughts are with those in this war it is terrible. My country has been fighting for over a decade, we are tired of war. For what it is worth I do not believe that the middle east will ever see peace. Let them settle their own fight.
Are you going to strap on some body armour and an M-16 and fight the war you're mongering for? No? I thought not.
I strapped on body armor and an M-16 to fight for my country in Iraq and Afghanistan. You don't know me or what I've done. Yet you think you can judge me from behind a computer screen. Who the hell do you think you are?
I don't suppose you saw any WMD's when you were in Iraq? I think the question that should be asked is who benefits from the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syria Gov?
But are you willing to go and fight in Syria having served in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you willing to send others to fight in Syria knowing what they are going to face? The question doesn't change because you served before. If anything it makes it more relevant because you know the cost better than anyone. Would you volunteer to spend another 12 months away from your family dodging IEDs to fight Assad's regime?
I'll tell you who DOESN'T benefit. Israel. From an objective standpoint, Israel is far better off with Assad in control than with the Islamist element within the FSA gaining power. Yet Israel intelligence has published findings that Assad has used chemical weapons repeatedly in the past few months. http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/...s-chemical-weapons-would-be-game-changer?lite Seems like a reliable source to me given that their pragmatic self-interest is with Assad, not the FSA.
I think that's quite a logical assumption, if such a thing exists. However I think we should also consider that some sides within the Israeli power structures, perhaps with the influence of other major powers, may see taking down Iran's ally as a more important goal than keeping the current stability in place. Just a thought of course.
US media just gave a special TV report from the VP that wasn't definitive but sounded a whole lot like justification for impending air strikes against Syrian military targets.
Not going to lie, I'm pretty disappointed the UK has bowed out of intervening. I'm too tired to go into why I think interventionalism is a good thing in general, but focusing just on the chemical attacks I think something needs to happen. What's the point in having international laws if nothing happens when you break them? Even if you don't respond to it militarily at least put out a trial for Assad or something. Yeah it won't be much more than a symbolic gesture but its something at least and its better than the normal "you're very naughty" speech people have been giving for pretty much 2 years now.
So what do you replace it with? I guess there's enough young people prepare to die but for what? People from the Middle East should be allowed to vote in the US elections. The results effect them more than it does US residents
