Debates
24 Aug 13
29 Aug 13
Originally posted by JS357UN chemical weapons inspectors were so important to Obama and now they are not? That kind of inconsistency deserves increased scrutiny even from you.
I question the fundamental assumption of this thread. In today's world, there is no "outside." What is happening in Syria threatens the world. The only thing we lack is an effective international force. The EU was formed in part to end the cycle of war upon war in Europe. I know the usual people will squawk, but the solution is for the world to be able to say, ...[text shortened]... eaceably or we will finish it the other way." The day will come, probably after much pain.
http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/28/us_and_syria_trade_places_on_chemical_weapons_inspections
29 Aug 13
The post that was quoted here has been removedI think AThousandYoung was referring to the intended target, rather than the intensity of the chemical. His point was that they were using it as a defoliant, to deny the NLF foliage cover and as part of a scorched earth policy, rather than as a direct weapon against soldiers/civilians. Under current international law this isn't sustainable. The convention against scorched earth has not been ratified by the U.S. however the Environmental Modification Convention explicitly ruling out herbicidal warfare was written in 1977 and has since been ratified by the US (1980).
Britain used 2,4,5-T (one of two components of Agent Orange) for the same reasons in Malaya; they decided that the Malay crisis was a policing matter and therefore that the Geneva convention didn't apply. They abandoned the policy as being counter-productive, they had a declared intent to win "hearts and minds". In Vietnam the U.S. "solved" the legality problem by denying that herbicides and napalm are chemical weapons. The British position in the 1950's seems to allow the use of chemical weapons in internal policing matters which does contradict their current argument against Syria.
30 Aug 13
The post that was quoted here has been removedAll of the argumentative terminology of legal butchery which is war is elastic or slippery. What are chemical weapons? High explosives are in fact chemicals, which explode and expand at such rates as render people dead immediately. Introduction of copper and lead (chemicals), 125 grains at 2000 feet per second also causes death.
30 Aug 13
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-usa-idUSBRE97S0YB20130829
(Reuters) - The U.S. and its allies have "no smoking gun" proving Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad personally ordered his forces to use chemical weapons to attack a rebel-held Damascus neighborhood, U.S. national security officials said on Thursday.
In secret intelligence assessments and a still-unreleased report summarizing U.S. intelligence on the alleged gas attack on August 21, U.S. agencies express high confidence that Syrian government forces carried out the attack, and that Assad's government therefore bears responsibility, the officials said.
"This was not a rogue operation," one U.S. official said.
However the evidence does not prove that Assad himself ordered that chemical munitions be used, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Evidence that forces loyal to Assad were responsible goes beyond the circumstantial to include electronic intercepts and some tentative scientific samples from the neighborhood which was attacked, officials said.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
30 Aug 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhen I say "What is happening in Syria threatens the world" I do not assume it is the government that is gassing civilians.
UN chemical weapons inspectors were so important to Obama and now they are not? That kind of inconsistency deserves increased scrutiny even from you.
http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/28/us_and_syria_trade_places_on_chemical_weapons_inspections
30 Aug 13
3 edits
Originally posted by normbenignExplosives and bullets do not cause injury by direct chemical action. They rely on transforming chemical energy into kinetic energy and inflicting the damage physically. That's why they're not considered chemical weapons. Neither is napalm; napalm is incendiary, not chemical.
All of the argumentative terminology of legal butchery which is war is elastic or slippery. What are chemical weapons? High explosives are in fact chemicals, which explode and expand at such rates as render people dead immediately. Introduction of copper and lead (chemicals), 125 grains at 2000 feet per second also causes death.
Apocalypse Now
I love the smell of napalm in the morning... It smells like...victory.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
30 Aug 13
Originally posted by Metal BrainNo big deal for me. Inconsistency does deserve increased scrutiny. But the article you cited indicates some administration frustration with the overall UN process, not specific to the inspections.
UN chemical weapons inspectors were so important to Obama and now they are not? That kind of inconsistency deserves increased scrutiny even from you.
http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/28/us_and_syria_trade_places_on_chemical_weapons_inspections
30 Aug 13
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAgain, this is splitting hairs. Dead is dead. In Rwanda 2 million souls were killed by goons with machetes. Are they less dead than people killed with Sarin gas?
Explosives and bullets do not cause injury by direct chemical action. They rely on transforming chemical energy into kinetic energy and inflicting the damage physically. That's why they're not considered chemical weapons. Neither is napalm; napalm is incendiary, not chemical.
Apocalypse Now
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2KRVX6KG5w
I love the smell of napalm in the morning... It smells like...victory.