Could the Syrian rebels caused the chemical attack?

[diverdog]

This report is interesting but I wonder if it is Assad propaganda.

http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-news-rebels-admit-gas-attack-result-of-mishandling-chemical-weapons

[olevetonahill]

This report is interesting but I wonder if it is Assad propaganda.

http://www.examiner.com/article/breaking-news-rebels-admit-gas-attack-result-of-mishandling-chemical-weapons

Who knows? Who cares? Both sides =Shat. let em kill each other off,

[FaninAma]

There is an AP reporter in Syria who has interviewed rebels who handled chemical weapons that were supplied by the Saudis. You must ask yourself who benefits most from the last incident.

[SoonerorLater]

It's a sad day for me when I read something like this and come as close to believing Putin as I do John Kerry.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2013/09/05/obama-kerry-putin-syria-russia-g-20/2769683/

[olevetonahill]

There is an AP reporter in Syria who has interviewed rebels who handled chemical weapons that were supplied by the Saudis. You must ask yourself who benefits most from the last incident.


And again I ask Who GAS?

[badger]

It's a very sad situation where innocents are being caught in the crossfire in a conflict they want no part of and wouldn't be a part of if not for where they were born/live.

I'm sure there's an important lesson in here for the rest of us somewhere. At the very least, that our actions can have negative consequences on others, whether we want them to or not.

[KantoSooner]

Badger, what on earth did you mean by that last? That the US/West/Obama Admin/Bush Admin/White people whatever are somehow responsible for a dictator gassing his own people without reference to whether they are little kids or not?

Really?

I mean, it sounds all caring and all that, but really? Can you imagine a universe in which that's true? Or in which it's true in any meaningful sense? The wings of a butterfly in the Amazon may be said to cause hurricanes, too. How about our inaction? Are we to be 'blamed' for the 'results' of inaction as well?

At what point does suburban guilt dissipate? We were instrumental in the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1955 (I think). Does that make the USofA 'responsible' for the treatment of Bahai's in Iranian prisons in 2013?

We have no, zero, zip, zilch, nada to do with what's going on in Syria today. Even our (hopefully) robust clandestine activities are no more than little ripples on a sea of tensions. Some of them going back 1500 years or more. It is important for Americans to realize that we are not our brother's keeper in this case. If we see something that we can do to help, great. If not, we owe no debt or respsonsibility in the slightest to do anything.

[badger]

I'm not sure how you got that out of what I typed

[olevetonahill]

What he said^
There always has been and always will be this kind of crap going on. Dont matter what part of the world. Hell look at the American Indians and their treatment of other tribes, Our treatment of all of em. We are NOT our brothers keeper and even if we were theose people over there are NOT our brothers. Both sides of that ****storm hate us. **** em .

[KantoSooner]

Badger, Your first paragraph, in juxtaposition with the second, seemed to pretty clearly indicate that 'our actions' can have 'negative consequences on others'; in that specific case, 'innocents being caught in the crossfire'. And that this was a 'lesson' that we should learn. To me, that implied a causal link between something 'we' had done and the gassing of little babies. I am sorry if my interpretation was off base.
We spend so much time in this country fluttering and panting about our supposed blood sins that I do tend to overreact to such statements.
You're still one of my favorite posters.
XXX OOO

[badger]

I was thinking more in terms of "If I yell at the TV tonight as I watch football, I will wake my toddler and she will be very unhappy with me."

I was not thinking in terms of "If the U.S. wasn't such meddling meddlers, blah blah Obamacare blah blah Ron/Rand Paul blah blah communist muslim extremist terrorist nazi fascist north koreans."

In Syria's case, I don't think either side - rulers or opposition - wanted an outcome where large numbers of women, children and other innocents would die.

[KantoSooner]

But both Bashar and his father have had no compunction in erasing whole small cities when anti-gov rioting there was a bit too persistent. They were and are bloodthirsty men who fool the world by wearing suits.

[Skysooner]

I was thinking more in terms of "If I yell at the TV tonight as I watch football, I will wake my toddler and she will be very unhappy with me."

I was not thinking in terms of "If the U.S. wasn't such meddling meddlers, blah blah Obamacare blah blah Ron/Rand Paul blah blah communist muslim extremist terrorist nazi fascist north koreans."

In Syria's case, I don't think either side - rulers or opposition - wanted an outcome where large numbers of women, children and other innocents would die.

I totally got what you were saying. Not sure how it was misconstrued.

Also in terms of the post, I think there is a very good chance the rebels did this. I'm totally against launching attacks. An attack in this case without congressional authorization would be an impeachable offense (at least imo).

[FaninAma]

And again I ask Who GAS?
It matters only in respect that the decision to get involved in Syria is based on what is disputed information at best. It also matters because if this reporter's version of events is accurate then the Saudis are being deceitful in trying to draw us into this conflict to do their dirty work.

[SoonerorLater]

There are no good guys in this mess and I don't want the U.S. to be the hired muscle for whatever cabal we are getting in bed with. I don't care who gassed who. Let them settle their own problems. Not our business.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Kill'm all...let God sort'm out...

[8timechamps]

There was a time when the US could have inflicted some real damage on Assad and his regime, and it's possible a US interdiction could have helped the people of Syria regain their country. That time passed a long time ago.

Now, there isn't even a reliable source that can determine how much of the rebel resistance is The Free Syria Army, and how much is splinter groups including Al-Queda.

Ask yourself, what does the US stand to gain from even a limited missile strike? I say absolutely nothing.

Now ask yourself what does the US stand to lose from even a limited missile strike? I say a lot.

The US has absolutely no reason to intervene in the mess that is Syria. None.

[olevetonahill]

It matters only in respect that the decision to get involved in Syria is based on what is disputed information at best. It also matters because if this reporter's version of events is accurate then the Saudis are being deceitful in trying to draw us into this conflict to do their dirty work.

And again WGAF. Stay the **** out of there.

[8timechamps]

The more I think about the chemical attack, the more I think it was a rebel attack.

I know very little about Assad, the man. However, what I do know about him as the leader of Syria tells me that he's not a stupid man. He does seem to have some brutal dictator qualities, and has been classified by some as a megalomaniac, but that's different than being outright stupid.

If Assad was going to utilize his chemical weapon stockpile, why did he wait until now? This civil war has been going on for nearly two years, what reason would he have to wait? Then there's this purported attack, why there? From what I've been able to find, that area was not a weak front for Assad, and he had some strategic control of the area (or at least sufficient troops in the region), why would he choose that area to gas?

I'm not defending Assad, and for all I know he is crazy enough to have gassed those folks. Maybe he is the epitome of all that is evil, and knew exactly what he was doing. But, that's the problem, do we know for sure that he did it?

Supposedly, select members of congress have seen the "proof" that he did, in fact, do it. If there is really proof that would implicate him in these actions, why not show the American people? There are ways to disclose information while protecting sources.

[soonercruiser]

I totally got what you were saying. Not sure how it was misconstrued.

Also in terms of the post, I think there is a very good chance the rebels did this. I'm totally against launching attacks. An attack in this case without congressional authorization would be an impeachable offense (at least imo).

I reported a story on another post....about a classified info leak that the Israelis had intercepted a high level Syrian communication where a general in the field is being chewed out in Arabic for having taken the personal initiative to order the chemical attack. That was touted to be one of Obama's extra pieces of evidence.

[KantoSooner]

There is also intercepts of the Syrian army preparing for a 'special' strike. Preparations which included passing out gas masks and protective suits. Sounds like a bit more than some 'rogue' officer taking initiative.
following the attack, there were continued intercepts that included conversations regarding the 'efficiency' of the strike.

Is it 'possible' that the rebels did this to make Assad look bad? Of course. It's also 'possible' that when I stick a dollar in a slot machine in Vegas, I'll win a billion dollars in return. It is possible.

[SoonerProphet]

There is also intercepts of the Syrian army preparing for a 'special' strike. Preparations which included passing out gas masks and protective suits. Sounds like a bit more than some 'rogue' officer taking initiative.
following the attack, there were continued intercepts that included conversations regarding the 'efficiency' of the strike.

Is it 'possible' that the rebels did this to make Assad look bad? Of course. It's also 'possible' that when I stick a dollar in a slot machine in Vegas, I'll win a billion dollars in return. It is possible.

One might look at the UN results of the Khan al Assal attack was supposedly not weapons grade, or Ha'aretz reports that attacks outside Aleppo were carried out by rebels, or UN's Carla del Ponte stating the evidence of rebels using chemicals in the past should give most pause in passing out blame.

[ouwasp]

like in my other exasperated thread, I sarcastically suggest hitting both, or all three, five, whatever number of sides. Hey, we want to send a message, make it loud and clear!

But vet's right. Just leave it alone. Or maybe airdrop a lot of extra machine guns/ammo so their massive killing of one another will not offend our sensibilities so much!

[KantoSooner]

One might look at the UN results of the Khan al Assal attack was supposedly not weapons grade, or Ha'aretz reports that attacks outside Aleppo were carried out by rebels, or UN's Carla del Ponte stating the evidence of rebels using chemicals in the past should give most pause in passing out blame.

Weil, I guess we're down to the realization that there will never be enough evidence for some. Hell, some people believe that 9/11 was an 'Inside Job' and that Area 51 contains aliens working ferverishly with the US government on some nefarious project or other. Not to put your opinions in that extreme a light but to highlight that the spectrum of opinion is broad.

It is unfortunate that the protocol of our dinner party debates is going to allow a nation state actor to use these weapons with impunity; but that's an often cited weakness with parliamentary government: we require of ourselves standards of proof appropriate to criminal court cases when dealing with people who have long since left any common standard of decency in their rearview mirror. In this case, happily, the innocents who end up paying for our rhetorical niceties will 'only' be Syrian children, not American kids. That's some sort of comfort. I suppose.

[Skysooner]

I reported a story on another post....about a classified info leak that the Israelis had intercepted a high level Syrian communication where a general in the field is being chewed out in Arabic for having taken the personal initiative to order the chemical attack. That was touted to be one of Obama's extra pieces of evidence.

I heard some of that on talk radio too. This is basically one of those situations where we just let them knock each other off. What does it do for us? We have zero business being there. Even talking about it has caused Iran and Hezbollah to threaten retaliation. If it weren't for oil, this place would be one of the most ignored places on earth outside of SE Asia.

Why don't we intervene in places like Cambodia or Myanmar? it is because there is nothing there of value to the rest of the world.

Don't get me wrong. The use of chemical weapons is a travesty, but without knowledge of who used them, why, etc., it is just another reason for a President to use military might and not call it a war. With congressional authorization then it can be legitimized.

[SoonerProphet]

Weil, I guess we're down to the realization that there will never be enough evidence for some. Hell, some people believe that 9/11 was an 'Inside Job' and that Area 51 contains aliens working ferverishly with the US government on some nefarious project or other. Not to put your opinions in that extreme a light but to highlight that the spectrum of opinion is broad.

It is unfortunate that the protocol of our dinner party debates is going to allow a nationstate actor to use these weapons with impunity; but that's an often cited weakness with parliamentary government: we require of ourselves standards of proof appropriate to criminal court cases when dealing with people who have long since left any common standard of decency in their rearview mirror. In this case, happily, the innocents who end up paying for our rhetorical niceties will 'only' be Syrian children, not American kids. That's some sort of comfort. I suppose.

This ain't Bob Lazar or Alex Jones type sh!t. We've been over this, it appears that many find our "proof" to be less than convincing.

[KantoSooner]

And those many are entitlted to their opinions. I find it convincing and utterly in keeping with 4 decades of rule by the House of Assad. You don't. So be it. I'm not in favor of strikes, but wouldn't be terribly upset if we did and we could wreak havoc on their military capacity if we so choose, with close to zero chance of blowback.

All that said, we are forever forbidden to so much as curl a lip about WMD if we do nothing now. So accept that as a consequence.

[KantoSooner]

this place would be one of the most ignored places on earth outside of SE Asia.

Why don't we intervene in places like Cambodia or Myanmar? it is because there is nothing there of value to the rest of the world.

.

Huh? SE Asia in general is probably No. 2 in the world for us, behind only Europe. More oil, for instance, passes through Singapore than through the Straits of Hormuz daily.

Cambodia has nice ruins, land mines and pot on pizza (apparently invented by Danish peacekeepers in the 90's - love those frisky bastidges). But hasn't had anything more than a garden variety authoritarian goverment since the Vietnamese put paid to the Khmer Rough close to 30 years ago. Don't know what we'd fix there.

Myanmar is a mess, but the government is slowly disintegrating under some weird form of engagement from its neighbors. With Khun Sa and the rest of the Golden Triangle drug lords in retirement and the various mountain tribes taking a breather, there's not a great deal to fix there, either. Even 'The Lady' is now serving in parliament and asking foreigners to invest.

And SE Asia has fantastic beaches, excellent beer/food and stunning women. Three things utterly lacking in the arc from Oran to Islamabad.

[SoonerProphet]

And those many are entitlted to their opinions. I find it convincing and utterly in keeping with 4 decades of rule by the House of Assad. You don't. So be it. I'm not in favor of strikes, but wouldn't be terribly upset if we did and we could wreak havoc on their military capacity if we so choose, with close to zero chance of blowback.

All that said, we are forever forbidden to so much as curl a lip about WMD if we do nothing now. So accept that as a consequence.

There is no doubt in my mind that Assad could have used chemical weapons. There is also no doubt in my mind that the region has had it's fair share of false flag operations, therefore I am hesitant to assign blame on any group within and without the country.

Zero chance of blowback, really?

Think the ship sailed on the whole WMD thing in 03, had to be a dip sh!t to buy that steaming pile then and a utter dupe to buy it now.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

And while the argument is made as to the usage of sarin, explosive distributor type, shell type, blah blah blah, we're still staring down the barrel of the fact that the Arab Spring has injected some pretty hefty doses of validity to some pretty shady players. The advancement of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, al Qaeda in sects of the Syrian rebels, Hezbollah promising retaliation, the Iranians jumping in the mix, the split in Hamas, and God knows what other sticks of dynamite will be thrown into the water if a single, solitary U.S. piece of hardware hits a single, solitary piece of Syrian government hardware.

Point being, this is a United Nations baby all day long. Let the OPCW do their work, let the diplomats hammer out the details, let the Russians continue to balk in thinly veiled support of their dancing puppet state for the sole purpose of preserving a foothold in the region, let them all eat cake. Nothing will happen in the long run, Bashar al Assad will eventually squash the rebellion, the sects within the rebellion will continue to find focus in the oppressive regime instead of the U.S., and domestically we'll be none worse for the wear. We'll sabre rattle, blame the flop on the Russians blocking the Security Council vote, and shrug our shoulders. And we'll posture heavily, demanding the U.N. establish stronger restrictions on CBRNEs and we'll look good in doing so, limpwristed as Europe in appearance, not spending blood and bones in the effort, and Putin will get to lift more weights as he puts another self-appointed check in the Russian diplomatic win column.

Meanwhile, we slowly continue to lose any traction whatsoever in the region with anyone but the House of Saud (the only one that really matters anyway), the Ruskies continue to sell outdated, ****ty weapons to any wanky dictator that has a few bucks, and the world will continue to spin with the U.S. just that much more removed from the constant state of conflict until some other humanitarian atrocity jumps up to the forefront to which we'll posture again, sabre rattle some more, and watch the Russians play the other side of the fence so A) the money keeps flowing and B) they can poke us in the eye during our wonderful crusade for democracy and freedom in our new bastardization of the Truman Doctrine.

Point being, let them eat cake. Or choke on sarin, whichever comes first.

[Skysooner]

Huh? SE Asia in general is probably No. 2 in the world for us, behind only Europe. More oil, for instance, passes through Singapore than through the Straits of Hormuz daily.

Cambodia has nice ruins, land mines and pot on pizza (apparently invented by Danish peacekeepers in the 90's - love those frisky bastidges). But hasn't had anything more than a garden variety authoritarian goverment since the Vietnamese put paid to the Khmer Rough close to 30 years ago. Don't know what we'd fix there.

Myanmar is a mess, but the government is slowly disintegrating under some weird form of engagement from its neighbors. With Khun Sa and the rest of the Golden Triangle drug lords in retirement and the various mountain tribes taking a breather, there's not a great deal to fix there, either. Even 'The Lady' is now serving in parliament and asking foreigners to invest.

And SE Asia has fantastic beaches, excellent beer/food and stunning women. Three things utterly lacking in the arc from Oran to Islamabad.

Mainly talking selectively. We intervene where our interests are. Syria should not be one of them regardless of oil.

[SCOUT]

And while the argument is made as to the usage of sarin, explosive distributor type, shell type, blah blah blah, we're still staring down the barrel of the fact that the Arab Spring has injected some pretty hefty doses of validity to some pretty shady players. The advancement of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, al Qaeda in sects of the Syrian rebels, Hezbollah promising retaliation, the Iranians jumping in the mix, the split in Hamas, and God knows what other sticks of dynamite will be thrown into the water if a single, solitary U.S. piece of hardware hits a single, solitary piece of Syrian government hardware.

Point being, this is a United Nations baby all day long. Let the OPCW do their work, let the diplomats hammer out the details, let the Russians continue to balk in thinly veiled support of their dancing puppet state for the sole purpose of preserving a foothold in the region, let them all eat cake. Nothing will happen in the long run, Bashar al Assad will eventually squash the rebellion, the sects within the rebellion will continue to find focus in the oppressive regime instead of the U.S., and domestically we'll be none worse for the wear. We'll sabre rattle, blame the flop on the Russians blocking the Security Council vote, and shrug our shoulders. And we'll posture heavily, demanding the U.N. establish stronger restrictions on CBRNEs and we'll look good in doing so, limpwristed as Europe in appearance, not spending blood and bones in the effort, and Putin will get to lift more weights as he puts another self-appointed check in the Russian diplomatic win column.

Meanwhile, we slowly continue to lose any traction whatsoever in the region with anyone but the House of Saud (the only one that really matters anyway), the Ruskies continue to sell outdated, ****ty weapons to any wanky dictator that has a few bucks, and the world will continue to spin with the U.S. just that much more removed from the constant state of conflict until some other humanitarian atrocity jumps up to the forefront to which we'll posture again, sabre rattle some more, and watch the Russians play the other side of the fence so A) the money keeps flowing and B) they can poke us in the eye during our wonderful crusade for democracy and freedom in our new bastardization of the Truman Doctrine.

Point being, let them eat cake. Or choke on sarin, whichever comes first.
This should be our foreign policy as it relates to Syria.

[SoonerStormchaser]

Wanna bet whoever used the Sarin got it from the hidden Iraqi stockpiles?

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Wanna bet whoever used the Sarin got it from the hidden Iraqi stockpiles?

I wouldn't take that bet with YOUR money. I remember how the theory was posed that the Iraqi stockpiles hit the Syrian border with mucho quickness. Hold these for me, Bashar. I'll come pick up my stuff later.

[SoonerProphet]

Doesn't sarin have a shelf life of like five years or something? What kind of factors lead to degradation?

[FaninAma]

Weil, I guess we're down to the realization that there will never be enough evidence for some. Hell, some people believe that 9/11 was an 'Inside Job' and that Area 51 contains aliens working ferverishly with the US government on some nefarious project or other. Not to put your opinions in that extreme a light but to highlight that the spectrum of opinion is broad.

It is unfortunate that the protocol of our dinner party debates is going to allow a nation state actor to use these weapons with impunity; but that's an often cited weakness with parliamentary government: we require of ourselves standards of proof appropriate to criminal court cases when dealing with people who have long since left any common standard of decency in their rearview mirror. In this case, happily, the innocents who end up paying for our rhetorical niceties will 'only' be Syrian children, not American kids. That's some sort of comfort. I suppose.

So, you assume your opinion is supported by the report with the most veracity so automatically you resort to the transparent tactic of relegating opposing reports to the status of debunked conspiracy theories.

Who intercepted the Syrian Army communications? What was their meathod of intercepting these messages? Is there any possibility of a false flag operation including the " intercepted " communications?

Our intelligence sources can intercept these sensitive communications but we have no clue about what happened in Benghazi and are unable to bring those responsible for killing Americans to justice?

Since we are the protectors of all innocents across the globe we better send in some military resources to combat the muslims killing Christians in Nigeria and Egypt. How about doing something to combat the drug cartels responsible for a hundred thousand murders and even more kidnappings in Mexico over the past 7 years. Lets be consistent here.

[8timechamps]

So, you assume your opinion is supported by the report with the most veracity so automatically you resort to the transparent tactic of relegating opposing reports to the status of debunked conspiracy theories.

Who intercepted the Syrian Army communications? What was their meathod of intercepting these messages? Is there any possibility of a false flag operation including the " intercepted " communications?

Our intelligence sources can intercept these sensitive communications but we have no clue about what happened in Benghazi and are unable to bring those responsible for killing Americans to justice?

Since we are the protectors of all innocents across the globe we better send in some military resources to combat the muslims killing Christians in Nigeria and Egypt. How about doing something to combat the drug cartels responsible for a hundred thousand murders and even more kidnappings in Mexico over the past 7 years. Lets be consistent here.

I second this argument.

Kanto, your "proof" comes from where? I haven't seen any "proof". I'm not saying I don't believe our government, but I'm saying I don't fully believe our government.

I keep asking myself "what do we (the US) gain from interdiction?", and I still cannot come up with an answer. I know the company line is "we can't walk away from these atrocities". Fine, but if that's true, why this one? Why now? There are many other parts of the world suffering through atrocities, do those not count?

This is about this administration saving face and taking the hardline. The foreign policy of this administration has been weak from day one, launching Tomahawk missiles into the middle of a civil war isn't the place to start changing. We have NO business in Syria.

We always talk about how pathetic the UN is, well now it's time to give the UN some bite. If we truly do have "proof" that Assad orchestrated the chemical attacks, then turn that proof over to the UN. Let the UN lead the way.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I second this argument.

Kanto, your "proof" comes from where? I haven't seen any "proof". I'm not saying I don't believe our government, but I'm saying I don't fully believe our government.

I keep asking myself "what do we (the US) gain from interdiction?", and I still cannot come up with an answer. I know the company line is "we can't walk away from these atrocities". Fine, but if that's true, why this one? Why now? There are many other parts of the world suffering through atrocities, do those not count?

This is about this administration saving face and taking the hardline. The foreign policy of this administration has been weak from day one, launching Tomahawk missiles into the middle of a civil war isn't the place to start changing. We have NO business in Syria.

We always talk about how pathetic the UN is, well now it's time to give the UN some bite. If we truly do have "proof" that Assad orchestrated the chemical attacks, then turn that proof over to the UN. Let the UN lead the way.

Word.

[KantoSooner]

Fair enough. I doubt if there would be sufficient 'proof' of much of anything for youse guys. It looks as though you'll win the day and there won't be strikes. Fine on that front, too. But let's not pretend that there are any serious doubts that Assad's boy launcehd the missile strikes on their own people.
It would appear that a diplo solution has been reached: we'll all stand around and negotiate 'international control' of Assad's weapons for a while, until the news folk go off to cover that critical cat-up-tree-in-Cleveland story and then quietly go back to status quo ante.
The moment for a meaningful consequence for use of WMD has passed in this instance anyway. Instead we've all been properly 'questioning authority' and clothing our lack of decisiveness and resolve in robes of 'prudence'. We'll get a chance to see how that goes.

[okie52]

Hell, I find the whole WMD deaths overblown. There have been 100,000 deaths attributable to the Syrian civil war and about 1,000 of those are from gas. What difference does it make when you are dead?

What are our interests in Syria? That Assad be overthrown and replaced by a rebel group that may eliminate minorities in Syria? Why do we need to be the only country that punishes Assad?

Where is the rest of world when it comes time to actually enforce this global morality?

[8timechamps]

Fair enough. I doubt if there would be sufficient 'proof' of much of anything for youse guys. It looks as though you'll win the day and there won't be strikes. Fine on that front, too. But let's not pretend that there are any serious doubts that Assad's boy launcehd the missile strikes on their own people.
It would appear that a diplo solution has been reached: we'll all stand around and negotiate 'international control' of Assad's weapons for a while, until the news folk go off to cover that critical cat-up-tree-in-Cleveland story and then quietly go back to status quo ante.
The moment for a meaningful consequence for use of WMD has passed in this instance anyway. Instead we've all been properly 'questioning authority' and clothing our lack of decisiveness and resolve in robes of 'prudence'. We'll get a chance to see how that goes.

Why is this such an urgent issue now? The Syrian civil war is going on two years old, and chemical weapons have been used prior to the latest incident. Why all of a sudden is this a situation that the US must act on? (I'm not asking you for answers, more rhetorical).

I still have serious doubt that Assad had any part of the chemical weapons launch. I am by no means saying it's impossible, just that I have yet to see any proof of those actions. Which leads me to another issue, if there is proof, why have we not seen it? If Obama was really *this* close to calling for the strike, and he has to know by now how much the country is against it, why not offer the proof to the citizens? What's with all of the congressional secrecy? Clearly the element of surprise is long gone, why the cloak and dagger stuff?

Given what this country has gone through in the past decade and a half, and the enormous economic affect it has had, I think a lack of decisiveness on this issue is in order. Maybe a similar strategy would have been beneficial prior to the second Gulf War. Barring an imminent threat to our national security, a pause in action is never a bad move.

[KantoSooner]

Why is this such a big deal? Chemical weapons are a big deal because they are fundamentally different from 'normal' bombs and bullets. Yes, yes, you end up dead with both, but with Chem, Bio, Radiological weapons, you can't aim them, they kill lots of people at once, and you can't stop them.
So, they're worse than 'normal' weapons. And the only way to prevent their use is to ban their use utterly. Decent nations will respect a ban, indecent ones will require extreme sanction from the international community. Whether we have the balls to do so is the question on the table right now.
The earlier uses of chem weapons in Syria were not documented or documentable for a variety of reasons; mostly because they were in hot combat zones and the weapons researchers didn't much feel like going there for samples and interviews.
Which brings us to 'proof'. Here's what we've got on this incident:

1. Syria has a stockpile of chemical weapons. On top of pretty much open knowledge for anyone who follows military affairs for the past 30 years or so, they've now admitted it themselves. There's no debate on this. Do the rebels? Maybe. That's the unproven in this case.

2. We have intercepts of military communications prior to and after the chemical weapons were released documenting Syrian army units suiting up in chem gear getting ready for special attack. These have been shown to Allies and neutrals. The only challenges are coming from those with strong motivation to do whatever to prevent Syria from suffering the consequences of their actions. Hell, even the Chinese are silent on this.

3. We have an actual chemical attack using sarin gas. Sarin is known to be a big part of the Syrian stockpile. This is confirmed by UN inspectors having nothing to do with the US or other supposedly untrustworthy sources.

Short of a personal confession from Assad, I am not sure the case gets any clearer.

All that said, I'm ambivalent on an attack. It should have been done earlier; all the hand wringing has largely robbed the smack down of its sting.
And, we're learning to live in a world of nuclear proliferation, I'm sure we can muddle through one in which chem and bio weapons are used on occaision as well. Let's just not kid ourselves that such a decision is not precisely what we are considering and downplay the consequences. We are opening a door that has been shut pretty tight since the end of WWII. We have no right to **** and moan when bad things walk through that door.

[8timechamps]

Why is this such a big deal? Chemical weapons are a big deal because they are fundamentally different from 'normal' bombs and bullets. Yes, yes, you end up dead with both, but with Chem, Bio, Radiological weapons, you can't aim them, they kill lots of people at once, and you can't stop them.
So, they're worse than 'normal' weapons. And the only way to prevent their use is to ban their use utterly. Decent nations will respect a ban, indecent ones will require extreme sanction from the international community. Whether we have the balls to do so is the question on the table right now.
The earlier uses of chem weapons in Syria were not documented or documentable for a variety of reasons; mostly because they were in hot combat zones and the weapons researchers didn't much feel like going there for samples and interviews.

That's my issue, if it's the use of chemical weapons that has made this an urgent matter, does it only become urgent if it's easy or convenient to investigate? That seems like an excuse. If we're all about the world upholding the vow to never allow the use of these weapons, does that really mean "never", or "occasionally, unless it looks bad enough"? Again, there are serious atrocities happening all over the world, why is this the only one that's urgent?



Which brings us to 'proof'. Here's what we've got on this incident:

1. Syria has a stockpile of chemical weapons. On top of pretty much open knowledge for anyone who follows military affairs for the past 30 years or so, they've now admitted it themselves. There's no debate on this. Do the rebels? Maybe. That's the unproven in this case.

Like you said, this has been fairly common knowledge for a long time. In fact, we knew Syria held these type of weapons during the very first gulf war, a time when US troops were within range of them. That alone doesn't support the urgent nature of this latest issue.



2. We have intercepts of military communications prior to and after the chemical weapons were released documenting Syrian army units suiting up in chem gear getting ready for special attack. These have been shown to Allies and neutrals. The only challenges are coming from those with strong motivation to do whatever to prevent Syria from suffering the consequences of their actions. Hell, even the Chinese are silent on this.

I've heard this, and it's by far the most compelling reason given to date. However, there is some skepticism about the authenticity of the intercepts. I guess that's always going to be the case, so I can overlook that. Still, this isn't the first time chemical weapons have been used. In fact, Sadam Hussien used used chemical weapons on his populace once upon a time, and that wasn't enough (at the time) for the US to take action. Since there is a history of chemical weapons use in the region, and a history of the US not intervening, why now?



3. We have an actual chemical attack using sarin gas. Sarin is known to be a big part of the Syrian stockpile. This is confirmed by UN inspectors having nothing to do with the US or other supposedly untrustworthy sources.

If I'm not mistaken, the Iraqi attack on the Kurds was sarin, so my point above addresses that. I'm not entirely sure there are chemical weapons other than sarin nowadays. In my deployment to the middle east, in 1990, sarin was the assumed gas, the one we safe-guarded against.



Short of a personal confession from Assad, I am not sure the case gets any clearer.

From where I stand, I still don't think it's that clear. Maybe I'm looking for too much...




All that said, I'm ambivalent on an attack. It should have been done earlier; all the hand wringing has largely robbed the smack down of its sting.
And, we're learning to live in a world of nuclear proliferation, I'm sure we can muddle through one in which chem and bio weapons are used on occaision as well. Let's just not kid ourselves that such a decision is not precisely what we are considering and downplay the consequences. We are opening a door that has been shut pretty tight since the end of WWII. We have no right to **** and moan when bad things walk through that door.

I'm still firmly against any kind of forceful action in Syria as I fear the blowback won't be as minimal as Washington would have us believe. Otherwise, I agree with your final thought.

[KantoSooner]

Regarding the earlier uses of gas (and I believe all of them were sarin though VX was preferred when the US had an arsenal...), I think the reasoning was first the difficulty and second plausible deniability. In short, it was possible to kind of ignore it and pretend it hadn't happened.
It's ****ty, but so long as there's no 'proof' no one reeeeaaaaalllly knows what you're going to do when faced with a dead bang certain use.
We're now moving forward to test the hypothesis that the reasoning of the last 60 years or more has been wrong. We'll see what happens.
Finally, as to blowback, my basic feeling is that a strike would have very little impact. Syria is already cooperating with terrorist groups as fast as they can. That won't change. Syria themselves has no capability to do jack as a nation state actor. other groups, whether Syria backed or not are not going to change their stance towards us on the basis of our striking Syria. Those who hate us and are actively working against us will continue to do so; nobody new will be motivated.

Errant thought: I wonder how good our intel is on unit locations of the rebels? I wonder if we know whether and where, say, the Al-Nusra boys are holding their jamboree campout? If so, might it be possible for several of those many dozens of cruise missiles to 'go astray'? One can always hope.

[Breadburner]

Who's the enemy.....???

[8timechamps]

Regarding the earlier uses of gas (and I believe all of them were sarin though VX was preferred when the US had an arsenal...), I think the reasoning was first the difficulty and second plausible deniability. In short, it was possible to kind of ignore it and pretend it hadn't happened.
It's ****ty, but so long as there's no 'proof' no one reeeeaaaaalllly knows what you're going to do when faced with a dead bang certain use.
We're now moving forward to test the hypothesis that the reasoning of the last 60 years or more has been wrong. We'll see what happens.
Finally, as to blowback, my basic feeling is that a strike would have very little impact. Syria is already cooperating with terrorist groups as fast as they can. That won't change. Syria themselves has no capability to do jack as a nation state actor. other groups, whether Syria backed or not are not going to change their stance towards us on the basis of our striking Syria. Those who hate us and are actively working against us will continue to do so; nobody new will be motivated.

Errant thought: I wonder how good our intel is on unit locations of the rebels? I wonder if we know whether and where, say, the Al-Nusra boys are holding their jamboree campout? If so, might it be possible for several of those many dozens of cruise missiles to 'go astray'? One can always hope.

Regarding the blowback:

I have no fear that Syria (as a nation state) will do anything to directly retaliate against the US, that's not my fear. My fear is that the blowback will come in the form of Russian involved support. Putin has all but said a strike would "force' him to provide advanced anti-air missile systems to both Syria and Iran. Since it's clear that Iran is "full speed ahead" in their progress to obtain a nuclear weapon, that could spell trouble for any US/Israeli attempt to take out the nuclear facility in Iran. A nuclear armed Iran is absolutely a threat to our national security.

Second, I think the absolute worst thing that can happen is for either Syria, or a rebel group to launch a strike on Israel. Once Israel is involved, you can bet Iran is involved. And, by association, the US is involved. And at that point, the "no boots on the ground" is going to be out the window.

The region has been a powder keg, waiting to blow for several decades. This could finally be the fuse that ignites it.

In addition, I'm not sure Russia sits this out if we attack. Now, they have more than a client-state interest. Putin has gone on the record as "warning" against military action. There could come a point when he has to decide if Russian involvement is the only way to save face...and I wouldn't put anything past him, and his former KGB buddies.

[KantoSooner]

I don't think the Russians are quite as devoted to the Iranians as you posit. You'll recall that Putin himself made some very revealing comments regarding his attitude towards Muslims following the Beslan school massacre. In essence, he said that the muslims regarded all non-muslims as nothing more than dust to be swept away and that the war between them and the western world would continue until one or the other was obliterated. Combine that with Russia's track record of never giving anybody their front line materiel and I seriously doubt they'll put anything more than what they already have done for sale to the Iranians.

And remember that Iran has very little money for arms and shares a common border with Russia. Two more factors weighing against Vlad doing anything rash in their favor. He and his FSB mates are dedicated to restoring Russia as a super power and they don't much care about ideology.It's pure realpolitik (Kissinger would have a field day). In a strange way, they are the best allies we could possibly have right now because they are, in a strategic sense, utterly predictable and their interests, while not aligning with ours, are also not necessarily at odds. They don't even care about the oil/gas because they've got their own.

Yes, the region is a powder keg, but frankly is no more so now than it has been since, probably, 1967 or so. Israel is paradoxically, more secure now than at any time in the recent past. No one is going to pursue an invasion (not sucessfully, at least) and they are well placed to devastate anyone who decides to lob missiles their way.

The area is likely to keep on going much as it has for the last little while. While we can nol remake it as we wish, neither is it likely to go off the rails. We need to contain what's going on there, coopt what we can, when we can and understand that such alliances are of convenience, are not based on shared interests/values and won't last too long. Hopefully the Arab nations (and Turks and Persians) get the religion bug out of their noses someday and move on to being modern countries. That's likely more something our grandchildren will encounter, however.

[8timechamps]

I agree that the region is no more primed for an explosion now than it has been, but I do think the variable that could change that is the US intervention in Syria. You could be entirely correct, and Putin's comments are more political posturing (and that wouldn't surprise me either), but as you also mention, he's jockeying himself/Russia as "still" being a super-power. He almost seems to want the cold war era standoff with the US, and there's no better way to do that than to supply our enemies/their allies with weapons.

It's interesting, because in yesterday's letter (the OpEd from the NYT), Putin specifically mentions the interest in Iran not pursuing a nuclear weapon. Yet he says on the same day, that he may feel the need to provide Iran with an advanced missile system. Who knows what his real intentions are?!

I have no real worries that Russia wants war. They are not in a position to enter war (at any level). My concern is their assistance to Syria and Iran, and while the Russians aren't going to outfit Iran with the top of the line in military hardware, they would have no problem with back-loading them (or the Syrians) with all the cold war era equipment they could handle.

I'm not worried about a Syrian or an Iranian standoff with the US, because neither would last very long. My concern is with the state of Israel in the region. I know the Israelis can handle themselves, but any conflict that includes Israel will most definitely include all anti-Israel nation/states. Israel against Syria is a no win situation for the Syrians. Israel against a large part of the Muslim world is a different story. In that scenario, the US would be involved.

I don't lose sleep at night worrying that we are close to being drawn into another war in the ME, but I do think there is a better chance than not that if we intervene in Syria, something could ignite.

The real issue is just how poorly this has been handled. As much as I am against a strike, I almost wish Obama would have just done it. This back and forth makes the US look weak, and keeps the ME conversation alive. We either need to be in, or out. I prefer out.

[KantoSooner]

Well said. Agree. Had we done the strike immediately after the gas attack, it'd be old news now and no one would care. The moment has passed. Give Putin his 15 minutes and be done with it.
If I had to respond to Putin's cute op-ed, I'd tenor it along the lines of, "I'm sorry that America's internal discussions can be opaque to a foreign audience. Our 150 year discussion regarding 'exceptionalism' is one of those topics. It's surprising that a career secret policeman with some specialization in North American affairs would not be aware of this, but so be it. We thank Mr. Putin for his contribution to our policy debate, welcome his input at any time and want to join with him as a partner in such frank give and take. If he so desires, he's welcome to address our people as we expect to address his people. He can teach me to ride a horse shirtless; I'll teach him how to play hoops."

And go look at the stats on the 'Iron Dome' missile defense system. It's in early shake down operations now, but could be an utter game changer.

[8timechamps]

Well said. Agree. Had we done the strike immediately after the gas attack, it'd be old news now and no one would care. The moment has passed. Give Putin his 15 minutes and be done with it.
If I had to respond to Putin's cute op-ed, I'd tenor it along the lines of, "I'm sorry that America's internal discussions can be opaque to a foreign audience. Our 150 year discussion regarding 'exceptionalism' is one of those topics. It's surprising that a career secret policeman with some specialization in North American affairs would not be aware of this, but so be it. We thank Mr. Putin for his contribution to our policy debate, welcome his input at any time and want to join with him as a partner in such frank give and take. If he so desires, he's welcome to address our people as we expect to address his people. He can teach me to ride a horse shirtless; I'll teach him how to play hoops."

And go look at the stats on the 'Iron Dome' missile defense system. It's in early shake down operations now, but could be an utter game changer.

What you just wrote was better than any speech written for, or delivered by Obama. I'm not a die hard anti-Obama guy either, but this has been embarrassing.

And yes, the Iron Dome is pretty amazing.