djones520 wrote:

 Mr. Burning wrote:
Will western nations now have to rip up their play books on support and intervention given that democracy in the middle east and beyond is so muddled an enterprise.

Syria appears to be split between a bad ruling faction and bad rebels. Both sides alleged to have used Gas and have committed atrocities in the name of peace and security.

Egypt is at its core a state where the military has the last word, democracy or not. Democracy means banning a former ruling party.

Iran is doing nothing but supporting its brothers in arms in freedom.

Israel does what it wants because western hand wringing leaves them to their own devices.

Saudi Arabia spends upteen billions on supporting a sect of Islam that makes others seem positively enlightened.

Your review is extremely simplistic, and mostly wrong.

BBC wrote:

Medecins Sans Frontieres says hospitals it supports in Syria treated about 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms", of whom 355 have died.

It said the patients had arrived in three hospitals in the Damascus governorate on 21 August - when opposition activists say chemical attacks were launched against rebels.

But MSF says it cannot "scientifically confirm" the use of chemical weapons.

Both sides in the conflict accuse each other of using chemical weapons.

MSF says staff at the hospitals described a large number of patients arriving in the space of less than three hours with symptoms including convulsions, extreme salivation, contracted pupils and sight and respiratory problems.

The charity said many were treated with atropine, a drug administered to those with "neurotoxic symptoms".

"MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack," said MSF Director of Operations Bart Janssens.

"However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events, characterised by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers, strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent.

"This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons."

MSF's disclosure came hours after the UN disarmament chief Angela Kane arrived in Damascus to press the Syrian government to allow access to the site of the alleged chemical weapons attack.

France has joined the UK in accusing Bashar al-Assad's forces of carrying out the attack in the capital's eastern suburbs on Wednesday.

US President Obama has said he is weighing his options and described it as a "big event of grave concern".

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Please quote whole article if you're going to quote.

Can't look at the link I provided?

"MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack," said MSF Director of Operations Bart Janssens.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
The sad part is that it's France, not the US, who's standing up to call for action.

frazzled wrote:
They need our transport. Evidently no one on the planet ever built freight hauling aircraft but the US....ever...
Awfully convenient. Hey Jean Luc...buy some freaking Airbus's already.

 Seaward wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
France's military record is pretty good. Is it just me, but in recent years, Britain and France seem to be gung-ho pushing for military action (Libya, Syria) and the US military ends up being at the beck and call of Britain and France! Are you, as an American taxpayer, happy with this?

Gung ho in the way little brothers with badass older brothers are, yeah.

 Ketara wrote:
Should Britain and France decide to collectively take action, we are currently capable of launching a sustained action in the Middle-East completely independent of the US.

The last time we did that though, the US got a bit stroppy about anyone but them having an independent foreign policy in the West, and threatened to crash our economies unless we toed Washington's line.

 Seaward wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
Should Britain and France decide to collectively take action, we are currently capable of launching a sustained action in the Middle-East completely independent of the US.

The last time we did that though, the US got a bit stroppy about anyone but them having an independent foreign policy in the West, and threatened to crash our economies unless we toed Washington's line.

That doesn't sound terribly independent.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. naval forces are moving closer to Syria as President Barack Obama considers military options for responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Assad government. The president emphasized that a quick intervention in the Syrian civil war was problematic, given the international considerations that should precede a military strike

 Ketara wrote:

Should Britain and France decide to collectively take action, we are currently capable of launching a sustained action in the Middle-East completely independent of the US.

The last time we did that though, the US got a bit stroppy about anyone but them having an independent foreign policy in the West, and threatened to crash our economies unless we toed Washington's line.

 Sasori wrote:

Looks like we are getting ever so closer to doing something.

Brussels/New York, August 24, 2013 -- Three hospitals in Syria's Damascus governorate that are supported by the international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) have reported to MSF that they received approximately 3,600 patients displaying neurotoxic symptoms in less than three hours on the morning of Wednesday, August 21, 2013. Of those patients, 355 reportedly died.

Since 2012, MSF has built a strong and reliable collaboration with medical networks, hospitals and medical points in the Damascus governorate, and has been providing them with drugs, medical equipment and technical support. Due to significant security risks, MSF staff members have not been able to access the facilities.

“Medical staff working in these facilities provided detailed information to MSF doctors regarding large numbers of patients arriving with symptoms including convulsions, excess saliva, pinpoint pupils, blurred vision and respiratory distress,” said Dr. Bart Janssens, MSF director of operations.

Patients were treated using MSF-supplied atropine, a drug used to treat neurotoxic symptoms. MSF is now trying to replenish the facilities’ empty stocks and provide additional medical supplies and guidance.

“MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack,” said Dr. Janssens. “However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events—characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers—strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent. This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons.”

In addition to 1,600 vials of atropine supplied over recent months, MSF has now dispatched 7,000 additional vials to facilities in the area. Treatment of neurotoxic patients is now being fully integrated into MSF’s medical strategies in all its programs in Syria.

“MSF hopes that independent investigators will be given immediate access to shed light on what happened,” said Christopher Stokes, MSF general director. “This latest attack and subsequent massive medical need come on top of an already catastrophic humanitarian situation, characterised by extreme violence, displacement, and deliberate destruction of medical facilities. In the case of such extreme violations of humanitarian law, humanitarian assistance cannot respond effectively and becomes meaningless itself.”

MSF provides medical assistance in Syria through two different approaches. MSF international and national staff operate six hospitals and four health centers in structures fully under the organization’s direct control in the north of Syria. In areas where MSF cannot send its own teams because of insecurity or lack of access, the organization has expanded a program begun two years ago of supporting Syrian medical networks, hospitals and medical posts, by providing drugs, medical equipment, and technical advice and support. Through the latter program, MSF has been supporting 27 hospitals and 56 medical posts throughout Syria.

From June 2012 through the end of June 2013, MSF teams carried out more than 55,000 medical consultations, 2,800 surgical procedures, and assisted in 1,000 births inside Syria. MSF teams have also provided more than 140,000 consultations for Syrian refugees in neighboring countries.

 djones520 wrote:
Ships are moving closer to Syria, but prepping for a massive cruise missile bombardment might be a bit of a stretch.

 djones520 wrote:
Ships are moving closer to Syria, but prepping for a massive cruise missile bombardment might be a bit of a stretch.

 Jihadin wrote:
Not sure how many Tomahawk cruise missiles a destroyer can carry

 Seaward wrote:
Ohmagherd, we need a battleship!

 whembly wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Not sure how many Tomahawk cruise missiles a destroyer can carry

Well... if it's the Arleigh Burke Class Aegis destroyers, it's about 56 missiles per. (give or take I'm sure).

So... that's about 224 missiles... not much, eh?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I can't be the only one who think that $448 million dollars worth of arms and ammo would probably be more cost effective in the long run.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Not sure how many Tomahawk cruise missiles a destroyer can carry

Well... if it's the Arleigh Burke Class Aegis destroyers, it's about 56 missiles per. (give or take I'm sure).

So... that's about 224 missiles... not much, eh?

I may be wrong, but does it not cost $2 million to fire each missle for a grand total of $448 million dollars to fire 224 missles?

I can't be the only one who think that $448 million dollars worth of arms and ammo would probably be more cost effective in the long run.

Just been watching Al Jazeera news. One guy reckons the fatalities may have resulted from a botched rebel attempt to use chemical weapons against the government...

It's just one man's opinion, but if it's true...

 whembly wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Ships are moving closer to Syria, but prepping for a massive cruise missile bombardment might be a bit of a stretch.

How much can 4 destroyers do?

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Ships are moving closer to Syria, but prepping for a massive cruise missile bombardment might be a bit of a stretch.

How much can 4 destroyers do?

A cynical person might think the President was ordering them in so they could be attacked by a Syrian chemical weapon thus injecting the United States into a war he wants but America does not. All it would cost would be a few dead American soldiers, something this president has never had a problem with. He just has to wait for the rebels to get something to deliver their home grown weapons with...

 CptJake wrote:

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Ships are moving closer to Syria, but prepping for a massive cruise missile bombardment might be a bit of a stretch.

How much can 4 destroyers do?

A cynical person might think the President was ordering them in so they could be attacked by a Syrian chemical weapon thus injecting the United States into a war he wants but America does not. All it would cost would be a few dead American soldiers, something this president has never had a problem with. He just has to wait for the rebels to get something to deliver their home grown weapons with...

Your cynical person would only have to do the simplest research to realize attacking a destroyer at sea with chemical weapons and actually achieving even the tiniest effect is well beyond the Syrian military's capability.

“At the moment, I am not totally convinced because the people that are helping them are without any protective clothing and without any respirators,” said Paula Vanninen, director of Verifin, the Finnish Institute for Verification of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

“In a real case, they would also be contaminated and would also be having symptoms.”

John Hart, head of the Chemical and Biological Security Project at Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said he had not seen the telltale evidence in the eyes of the victims that would be compelling evidence of chemical weapons use.

“Of the videos that I’ve seen for the last few hours, none of them show pinpoint pupils… this would indicate exposure to organophosphorus nerve agents,” he said.

Western experts on chemical warfare who have examined at least part of the footage are skeptical that weapons-grade chemical substances were used, although they all emphasize that serious conclusions cannot be reached without thorough on-site examination.

Dan Kaszeta, a former officer of the U.S. Army’s Chemical Corps and a leading private consultant, pointed out a number of details absent from the footage so far: “None of the people treating the casualties or photographing them are wearing any sort of chemical-warfare protective gear,” he says, “and despite that, none of them seem to be harmed.” This would seem to rule out most types of military-grade chemical weapons, including the vast majority of nerve gases, since these substances would not evaporate immediately, especially if they were used in sufficient quantities to kill hundreds of people, but rather leave a level of contamination on clothes and bodies which would harm anyone coming in unprotected contact with them in the hours after an attack. In addition, he says that “there are none of the other signs you would expect to see in the aftermath of a chemical attack, such as intermediate levels of casualties, severe visual problems, vomiting and loss of bowel control.”

Steve Johnson, a leading researcher on the effects of hazardous material exposure at England’s Cranfield University who has worked with Britain’s Ministry of Defense on chemical warfare issues, agrees that “from the details we have seen so far, a large number of casualties over a wide area would mean quite a pervasive dispersal. With that level of chemical agent, you would expect to see a lot of contamination on the casualties coming in, and it would affect those treating them who are not properly protected. We are not seeing that here.”

Stephen Johnson, an expert in weapons and chemical explosives at Cranfield Forensic Institute, said that the video footage looked suspect:

There are, within some of the videos, examples which seem a little hyper-real, and almost as if they’ve been set up. Which is not to say that they are fake but it does cause some concern. Some of the people with foaming, the foam seems to be too white, too pure, and not consistent with the sort of internal injury you might expect to see, which you’d expect to be bloodier or yellower.

Chemical and biological weapons researcher Jean Pascal Zanders said that the footage appears to show victims of asphyxiation, which is not consistent with the use of mustard gas or the nerve agents VX or sarin:

I’m deliberately not using the term chemical weapons here,” he said, adding that the use of “industrial toxicants” was a more likely explanation.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
A cynical person might think the President was ordering them in so they could be attacked by a Syrian chemical weapon thus injecting the United States into a war he wants but America does not.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:
"Your cynical person would only have to do the simplest research to realize attacking a destroyer at sea with chemical weapons and actually achieving even the tiniest effect is well beyond the Syrian military's capability. "

Having done over 20 years at the sharp end which included the 2 month course at Little Rock with the Navy and the 3 month course at the Chemical Warfare school I think I know what can and can not get around the rubber and silicon seals of a protective mask and a hatch seal and chlorine gas can get thru any seal that is rubber or silicon.

In any case all that would be needed is the detection on the meters for the President to have what he needs.

I keep using the term chlorine gas attack for a reason. There is much evidence the rebels have used it several times. I did not say the Syrian military might try it. I said the rebels the President is backing might try it.

Take a look at the picture below:

That is a picture of a chemical weapons launcher and yes those are the rebels showing it off.

 Seaward wrote:
Ohmagherd, we need a battleship!

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:


There has been NO evidence of Sarin being used at all.

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:




There has been NO evidence of Sarin being used at all.