Syria deploys Sarin gas

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**CptJake**

djones520 wrote:
CptJake wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Saddam tried to invade Iran, succesfully invaded Kuwait, and was primed to invade Saudi Arabia until we stepped in.

I think you could make the case that with the battle of Khafji (29 Jan -1 Feb '91) his troops did invade Saudi.

It could probably be argued. I like to look at it as the last impotent flailings of a foe we've effectively destroyed at that point.

At that point they had not been effectively destroyed... It was about 3 weeks before the ground war kicked off.

**Seaward**

whembly wrote:
djones520 wrote:
The US has now confirmed it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/25/hagel-says-evidence-chemical-weapons-were-used-in-syria/

feth.

Now we have to do something... and, I don't wanna...

No, we don't.

Obama's already got his Peace Prize.

**Andrew1975**

CptJake wrote:
djones520 wrote:
CptJake wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Saddam tried to invade Iran, succesfully invaded Kuwait, and was primed to invade Saudi Arabia until we stepped in.

I think you could make the case that with the battle of Khafji (29 Jan -1 Feb '91) his troops did invade Saudi.

It could probably be argued. I like to look at it as the last impotent flailings of a foe we've effectively destroyed at that point.

At that point they had not been effectively destroyed... It was about 3 weeks before the ground war kicked off.

I read he had a rational for that and it actually worked. By showing how bad even his army was beat he could then get the rest of his middle east buddies to stop the US from invading Iraq. It basically worked. We did not invade and occupy Iraq until the 2nd Gulf war and Left Saddam in power because the other Arab Nations would not have western crusaders topple a middle east king and set up a foothold in the region. Saddam knew how to play politics. He would have been a useful ally, as mideast politics seams to baffle the West.

Yes he was eccentric and bloodthirsty, which again it appears you kind of need to be to rule in these regions, but he also knew which side his side his bread was buttered on.

I really don't know what you do about Syria? Neither side is worth backing. I don't think we can do anything until we figure out what is considered a win.

**Jihadin**

There is no "win" in Syria. Withinn a year if US troops going in our fragile economy will pop like a balloon. The cash that supported both OEF and OIF were borrowed from the get go. We will not get support from the UN but I wouldn't discount the "Russians" going in as Peace Keepers or an accident forcing them to expand their holding around their Naval Base there. My money on the russians and Putin. They have no care bear attitude on terrorism or stupidity on RoE (Mychrystal RoE till Patureus changed it) ANd it pretty much gaurantee their access to the Meds. I'm even willing to bet a good case of beer of your choice (notinaly) that Putin would call Bush Jr and inform him..."Hey...some of these chem weapons are from Saddam" just to get a dig on Obama. But the BBQ has to be on one of his ships in one of our naval bases....who would turn a good Texan BBQ while evidence is there to be shared by both parties.

Oh the US politicians and gneral public scream bloody murder we let the russians steam rolled in but I don't care unless your an individual who has deployed. On a side note I did not know Hagel is a two purple heart carrier and I was exstatic he shut down that stupid award to drone operators that would have ranked higher then the purple heart and bronze star. We can give bronze stars but without the Valor device.

CHemo kicking in so really medicated for your all saftey. Lucky me...I do believe I've enough documentation to support the claim to link it to Afghanistan. Which is really coming to light now that a good chunk of troops from OIF and OEF that popping up with cancer, Either non Hodgkin or Hodgkin. So Scruffy, Jake, Ensis, and few others start making a list of contacts with burn out vehicles, bodies you came in contact with, check out a russian wreck?....rack your brains along on who was with you. more from my team are down withTwo cancer. One is Non Hodgkin

**whembly**

Crap... looking serious:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/sarin-tainted-blood/

“It would be very, very difficult for the opposition to fake this. Not only would they need the wherewithal to steal it or brew it up themselves. Then they’d need volunteers who would notionally agree to a possibly lethal exposure,”
...
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, issued a statement saying “It is clear that ‘red lines’ have been crossed and action must be taken to prevent larger scale use.” Feinstein appeared to mean military action to remove Assad from power: “I urge the United Nations Security Council — including Russia — to finally take strong and meaningful action to end this crisis in Syria.”

Why oh why did the administration say that "Red line" speech???

**Andrew1975**

Could this actually be an AQ ploy to draw us into the conflict? Is Assad really stupid enough to use chem weapons?

I'd love for Russia to take this thing over, that would be just fine with me.

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Now we have to do something... and, I don't wanna...

Send humanitarian supplies to Turkey, and maybe hold a naval task force in limbo should Israel become targeted.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Now we have to do something... and, I don't wanna...

Send humanitarian supplies to Turkey, and maybe hold a naval task force in limbo should Israel become targeted.

Oh Dear Great Wienie I actually agree with Dogma on something. Quick someone hold me.

**whembly**

Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Now we have to do something... and, I don't wanna...

Send humanitarian supplies to Turkey, and maybe hold a naval task force in limbo should Israel become targeted.

Oh Dear Great Wienie I actually agree with Dogma on something. Quick someone hold me.

Woah... me too!

**dogma**

whembly wrote:

Why oh why did the administration say that "Red line" speech???

On the first page someone said that it was a bluff, and he was (hopefully) correct. That is how you leverage the most powerful military in the world.

Its Obama's second term, the GOP is free to call him weak for not holding to his statement, but there are numerous clear counterpoints to such an attack given their present platform; so there is little mileage in that (ie. it won't swing voters).

**Dreadclaw69**

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-says-syrian-regime-used-chemical-weapons-164620417--politics.html

The U.S. on Thursday accused Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime of having used chemical weapons, specifically the deadly nerve agent sarin, against rebels seeking to topple him.
But top officials, citing the flawed intelligence that led to the invasion of Iraq, said Washington needs to build what one called an “airtight” case before escalating America's military role in the Syrian civil war.
“We still have some uncertainties about what was used, what kind of chemical was used, where it was used, who used it,” Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told reporters in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Still, he said, “it violates every convention on warfare.”

We accuse Syria of using sarin, but we don't actually know what was used, where it was used, or who used it..........

**EmilCrane**

I'm surprised we don't have naval assets over there already, usually the US sends a carrier battlegroup to state sternly at whoever is making trouble these days.

**Dreadclaw69**

EmilCrane wrote:
I'm surprised we don't have naval assets over there already, usually the US sends a carrier battlegroup to state sternly at whoever is making trouble these days.

Yeah, I think they're busy with Iran

**djones520**

EmilCrane wrote:
I'm surprised we don't have naval assets over there already, usually the US sends a carrier battlegroup to state sternly at whoever is making trouble these days.

The US 6th Fleet operates in the Mediterranean and Atlantic. They'd be the most likely to respond.

**Andrew1975**

whembly wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
whembly wrote:

Now we have to do something... and, I don't wanna...

Send humanitarian supplies to Turkey, and maybe hold a naval task force in limbo should Israel become targeted.

Oh Dear Great Wienie I actually agree with Dogma on something. Quick someone hold me.

Woah... me too!

Thirded. There is usually a carrier group hovering around their anyway.

**CptJake**

Plenty of ground based aircraft can fly the trip from Europe or bases we use in the Middle East too...

**dogma**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

We accuse Syria of using sarin, but we don't actually know what was used, where it was used, or who used it..........

When did an official source accuse the Assad regime of using chemical weapons?

I see plenty of news articles claiming that to be the case (and even the Daily Mail qualified its headline in the first sentence), but no official sources claiming such a thing.

Plenty of official sources are claiming that evidence of such an attack exists, but no one has made a definitive claim.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:

We accuse Syria of using sarin, but we don't actually know what was used, where it was used, or who used it..........

When did an official source accuse the Assad regime of using chemical weapons?

I see plenty of news articles claiming that to be the case (and even the Daily Mail qualified its headline in the first sentence), but no official sources claiming such a thing.

Plenty of official sources are claiming that evidence of such an attack exists, but no one has made a definitive claim.

The US SECDEF stated it.

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:

The US SECDEF stated it.

The US SecDef stated that the US intelligence apparatus has assessed, with varying degrees of confidence, that the Assad government has used chemical weapons on a small scale; particularly the chemical agent sarin.

I suppose that is an accusation, but not in the context of the post I initially quoted; which presumed that rightful accusation could only follow from certainty.

**Jihadin**

Whats the chances of sending in a UN team to verify it. If the location was known. If its confirmed...then its persistant agent. means we and all of them are truly screwed. Non persistant will burn themselves out within 36-48 hours. The persistant will last little over a year....longer if its in a shaded spot Have to literally burn the area out or remove everything along with 6 ft of dirt to ensure you have everything.....when in doubt you double or triple the affected area and then haul it in sealed 55 gallon containers and incenerate them. You also have to keep the area moistion to avoid spreading out even more......Or we let russia come in and do it and if you never seen what Super Tropical Bleach does when on skin its not a good site to see....but it works....and can remove like 4 layers of paint off.

**Ouze**

dogma wrote:
When did an official source accuse the Assad regime of using chemical weapons?

The last time I tried asking for some reasonable proof, I got accused of being the tin-foiled driver of the anti-Israel derpmobile conspiracy express, so good luck with this line of thought.

**Jihadin**

Hagel confirmed it, Fernstein to, McCain, and a few other. Obama wants the UN to confirmed it.

edit

Top-ranking lawmakers on both sides of the aisle declared Thursday that the "red line" in Syria has been crossed, calling for "strong" U.S. and international intervention after administration officials revealed the intelligence community believes chemical weapons were used.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate intelligence committee, were among those urging swift action.

McCain, who has long called for more involvement in Syria, voiced concern that the administration would use "caveats" to avoid acting on the new intelligence. He said America's enemies are paying "close attention" to whether the U.S. follows through, as the White House signaled it wanted to see more proof before responding to the new information.

"I worry that the president and the administration will use these caveats as an excuse not to act right away or act at all," McCain told Fox News. "The president clearly stated that it was a red line and that it couldn't be crossed without the United States taking vigorous action."

He called for the U.S. to help establish a no-fly zone and "safe zone" in Syria, as well as provide weapons to the "right people."

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel first revealed the intelligence assessment, which was detailed in a letter to select members of Congress, while speaking to reporters on a visit to Abu Dhabi. The administration then released those letters, which said U.S. intelligence determined with varying degrees of confidence that "the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin."

Secretary of State John Kerry further confirmed that there were two documented instances of chemical weapons use.

The White House, however, stressed that this was not enough to confirm how the nerve gas was released -- though acknowledged it is "very likely" to have originated with the regime of Bashar Assad -- and pressed the United Nations for a "comprehensive" investigation. The letter from the White House director of the Office of Legislative Affairs to leading members of the Senate Armed Services Committee said the assessment was based in part on "physiological samples."

A White House official also urged caution, invoking the Iraq war as an example of why the administration should be absolutely certain before going forward.

"Given our own history with intelligence assessments, including intelligence assessments related to WMD, it's very important that we are able to establish this with certainty and that we are able to provide information that is airtight ... to underpin all of our decision-making," the official said. "That is, I think, the threshold that is demanded given how serious this issue is."

A senior U.S. defense official told Fox News the Defense Department has been preparing a wide range of contingency plans for military involvement in Syria for the past year. President Obama has seen the plans and is fully aware of those options.

The options, according to this official, range from establishing no-fly zones to creating humanitarian zones to launching strikes on chemical weapons sites, select regime leadership and other targets. The official emphasized that no decisions have been made about whether to further involve the U.S. military in Syria and that there are still many questions that need to be answered first.

A United Nations spokesman said the chemical weapon findings reinforce the need for U.N. officials to "be given the requested swift and unfettered access to Syria that it needs to determine whether chemical weapons have indeed been used."

McCain, speaking to Fox News, said in his view the red line "was crossed."

Feinstein, an important voice on matters of intelligence and security, also said it is "clear" those lines have been crossed and "action must be taken to prevent larger scale use."

She added, in a statement: "Syria has the ability to kill tens of thousands with its chemical weapons. The world must come together to prevent this by unified action which results in the secure containment of Syria's significant stockpile of chemical weapons. On the basis of this new assessment, which is matched by France and the United Kingdom, I urge the United Nations Security Council -- including Russia -- to finally take strong and meaningful action to end this crisis in Syria."

President Obama has said the use of chemical weapons would be a "game-changer" in the U.S. position on intervening in the two-year-old Syrian civil war. Obama said last August that "a red line for us" would be the movement or use of chemical weapons, adding "that would change my calculus."

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., reacting to the reports Thursday, said the "number one" goal should be to "secure the chemical weapons before they fall into the wrong hands."

"I think the red line's been crossed and the question is, now what?" Graham said on Fox News.

Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., also said in a statement the assessment is "deeply troubling and, if correct, means that President Obama's red line has certainly been crossed."

But Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., argued that it is not in the United States' "best interest" to go into Syria. "We cannot be absolutely sure about the extent to which Assad's forces have used chemical weapons, although we know they have them," he said in a statement.

Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, said more information is needed.

"Precisely because the president takes this issue so seriously, we have an obligation to fully investigate any and all evidence of chemical weapons use within Syria," she said in a statement. "That is why we are currently pressing for a comprehensive United Nations investigation that can credibly evaluate the evidence and establish what took place. We are also working with our friends and allies, and the Syrian opposition, to procure, share and evaluate additional information associated with reports of the use of chemical weapons so that we can establish the facts."

Asked if this crossed a "red line" for the U.S., Hagel likewise said they are still trying to assess.

"It violates every convention of warfare," he said.

In a statement Thursday, a spokesperson for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that he takes the letter to Congress "seriously," but that the UN is not in a position to comment on assessments based on national intelligence information.

"Senior advisers at UN Headquarters have been in contact with the US authorities on the latest developments," the spokesperson said. "The Secretary-General has already put together a technical expert team to conduct a fact-finding mission to look into all serious allegations of the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria."

According to the spokesperson, the fact-finding team is on stand-by and ready to deploy in 24-48 hours.

"The Secretary-General has consistently urged the Syrian authorities to provide full and unfettered access to the team. He renews this urgent call today."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/25/hagel-says-evidence-chemical-weapons-were-used-in-syria/?test=latestnews#ixzz2RY8Prc7K

**Frazzled**

djones520 wrote:
dogma wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:

We accuse Syria of using sarin, but we don't actually know what was used, where it was used, or who used it..........

When did an official source accuse the Assad regime of using chemical weapons?

I see plenty of news articles claiming that to be the case (and even the Daily Mail qualified its headline in the first sentence), but no official sources claiming such a thing.

Plenty of official sources are claiming that evidence of such an attack exists, but no one has made a definitive claim.

The US SECDEF stated it.

Am I the only person who thinks everytime they see this guy that someone dragged him out of a bar not five minutes before....

Not saying this is a bad thing actually.

**Monster Rain**

Ouze wrote:
dogma wrote:
When did an official source accuse the Assad regime of using chemical weapons?

The last time I tried asking for some reasonable proof, I got accused of being the tin-foiled driver of the anti-Israel derpmobile conspiracy express, so good luck with this line of thought.

Is that what you interpreted that as? How adorable. Here it is again:

I already explained to you that there's a difference between wanting better evidence, which is reasonable, and postulating that it was all made up for nefarious reasons, which is rather silly to do without any evidence to support the claim.

**Dreadclaw69**

If Obama wants the UN to verify it then maybe he has to good sense to let them deal with it

**Easy E**

Maybe we can get france to do something about it.

That seems the pattern lately, right?

**Andrew1975**

Easy E wrote:
Maybe we can get france to do something about it.

That seems the pattern lately, right?

Not really. France rattled the sabers on Libya, the US still spent more money than our allies combined there.

**djones520**

Andrew1975 wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Maybe we can get france to do something about it.

That seems the pattern lately, right?

Not really. France rattled the sabers on Libya, the US still spent more money than our allies combined there.

Mali. France did most of the work, we just carried them in there.

**Andrew1975**

djones520 wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:
Easy E wrote:
Maybe we can get france to do something about it.

That seems the pattern lately, right?

Not really. France rattled the sabers on Libya, the US still spent more money than our allies combined there.

Mali. France did most of the work, we just carried them in there.

Oh right, forgot about that one. To be fair though, Mali was a French colony in the past. Was anyone really interested in going there besides the French? I don't remember there being much of a call up for that one. It's also Frances backyard, they should handle the problems there without US help.

**whembly**

The administration has been backpedaling from his red line for awhile now:

Obama first laid down his red line on chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war in August 2012. “A red line for us is (if) we see a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around, or being utilized. That would change my calculus” on whether a U.S. intervention is merited, the president said…

While the administration did not discuss specifics, outside experts interpreted the reference to movement of chemical weapons as addressing the potential removal from storage and transport of chemical weapons for firing or for proliferation to nonstate actors. However, when the Syrian military was detected in December apparently loading sarin into aerial munitions, the administration indicated that its red line was actually carrying out a chemical attack, not readying for one.

Weeee!

Will a strongly stern letter from the U.N. suffice?