Hundreds (allegedly) dead in Syrian chemical weapons attack

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.

**BaronIveagh**

Crablezworth wrote:
[
What does that even mean?

I once had a pint at the Oyster House with David Kincaid, Gerry Adams, two historians and a cop during Irishfest in Pittsburgh. That conversation went surreal places. BTW: Even a rock (semi) star like Kincaid thought Bill Clinton got too much ass. (This is a guy who would import girlfriends from Germany and the Netherlands so he had a steady supply of mind blowing ass to tap at the time, though I hear he's settled down since then)

**Seaward**

Ouze wrote:
I would not define anything about going to fight in Syria as "defending our country".

I would, but let's grant for a moment that it isn't. Do you think we should have intervened during the Rwandan genocide despite it not threatening our national security?

**AlmightyWalrus**

Mr Hyena wrote:

Iraq and Afghanistan is another example of why lack of assistance by the majority of the EU (otherwise known as the useless majority) is why it failed.

In 2009 (most recent data I could find at a glance without having to dig through loads of numbers), there were 17 European nations that gave more foreign aid as a percentage of GDP than the US. "Useless" indeed.

Seaward wrote:
Ouze wrote:
I would not define anything about going to fight in Syria as "defending our country".

I would, but let's grant for a moment that it isn't. Do you think we should have intervened during the Rwandan genocide despite it not threatening our national security?

A rare moment, I agree with Seaward. "With great power comes great responsibility" and all that.

On that note, I think part of the reason why us non-Europeans expect the US to go in and solve stuff like this is because (in the words of He-Man), you have the power. You're so much more powerful than anyone else on Earth that we believe you to have a responsibility to use that power to do good. Take my native Sweden for example; even if we upped military spending to go back to the sort of military capability we had during the Cold War there'd be no way that we'd be able to do anything more than provide a token military force for an international mission. There are more people in NYC than in our entire country; it just wouldn't be possible. The US, meanwhile, enjoys the advantages of having the world's third largest population and having a well-educated populace (well, relatively, let's not go into the whole Honey Boo-Boo thing

). Sure, other nations have well-educated populaces as well, letting them punch above their weight (again, Sweden and similar countries), but being a country of 300 million people pulling in roughly the same direction while having a good educational system gives you loads of perks simply by giving you loads of influential intellectuals, but having those perks will make other, less powerful nations ask you to use your priviliged position to do good for humanity as a whole, as opposed to just looking out for yourselves. It's more or less individualism vs. socialism on a national scale.

**Warpig1815**

Mr. Hyena wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:What is it with you and the constant England bashing?

Scotland has went along with many attrocities committed by the British Empire, hand in hand with England. Hell sometimes they sent Scottish people because they were worse.

We are not some put upon "victim" nation. If we get independence I fear attitudes like yours will multiply and turn the bitter Scottish stereotype into a reality.

Might be because of the Imperialism that is causing it to oppress a nation.

Wait, that'll be the same Imperialism that came from a United Kingdom, that was once ruled by a Scottish Stuart dynasty, and is currently ruled by a mixed Germanic dynasty descendant from the very same Stuart dynasty - and yet you still have the audacity to blame it on the English?

May I ask, how on earth is Scotland an oppressed nation? All due respect to Scotland and the Scottish - because as an Englishman I feel they are very much a valuable and indispensable part of Great Britain and I personally have nothing against the Scottish people - but as a nation, you were willing participants in the 1707 Act of Union. The Imperialism you speak of brought widespread enlightenment to the world - a judiciary system, improved scientific, technological and medical understanding, a economic system that, arguably, now allows you yourself to put bread on the table and a roof over your head in a reliable manner.

You can argue all you like about the 'atrocities' caused by the British Empire (Note the word British - it's talking about Scotland being in there too), and I'll fully agree that there were - For example, colonial treatment of the Aboriginal tribes was appalling and downright shameful, so much so that we killed off all of the native Tanzanians - but I suppose you'll gently skip over the Border Reivers and the mass killings there? Or how about the pre-dominantly Scottish Jacobite sympathisers who ruthlessly eliminated any opposition to their political ideals? Furthermore, the so called Imperialism Britain spread was very much aided by Scottish regiments such as the Black Watch, the Scots Guards and the Scots Greys. Men, born in Scotland, raised in Scotland, but proud of a United Kingdom. I'm guessing though, you'll happily take the credit for the more glorious victories Scottish regiments have taken part in - Waterloo, Balaklava, WW1, WW2...

Turning to the recent Scottish Nationalist whinging - what exactly is Scotland going to do, should they become independent? I'm guessing your going to leave England the deficit (Thus negating any part Scotland may have played in ramping it up), run off with all the North Sea oil (Which, lets face it, has a massively fluctuating price) and to top it all off, you'll nicely hand over all responsibility of failing banks like RBS and HBOS to the English and Welsh (No doubt claiming it was our fault we didn't regulate YOUR banks). So, what are you going to do from there on? Perhaps you'll try to get in with the EU? - Good luck with that one. I'm sure Germany is just raring to hand out more money to a small, independent nation...

I would like to clarify that I don't hate Scotland or the Scottish - I just dislike the rather senseless arguments the SNP has come out with lately. I'm reckon they'll play Braveheart on repeat just before the referendum, just to get you all fired up...

**Frazzled**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Ouze wrote:

Yeah, specifically, our yoke - not everyone else in the worlds.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

You do have a hard time with reading comprehension, don't you? It doesn't say 'Just Us 'muricans' it says all men. Everyone has those rights. Every where in every nation on this globe. Jefferson was right in that.

Nothing there says that we have to risk terrorist attacks in a country thousands of miles away. Your argument is nonsensical.

Looks like the French and British are now getting cold feet. Awesome.

**Alpharius**

This thread is generating a ridiculous number of alerts.

It is times like this when I really do wish there was no Off Topic Forum here on Dakka Dakka.

FINAL WARNING FOR ALL!

Abide by all of the rules of this site, or prepare to have your posting privileges suspended.

**Frazzled**

It is? Why? Am I missing the hostility?

**Experiment 626**

Frazzled wrote:
BaronIveagh wrote:
Ouze wrote:

Yeah, specifically, our yoke - not everyone else in the worlds.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

You do have a hard time with reading comprehension, don't you? It doesn't say 'Just Us 'muricans' it says all men. Everyone has those rights. Every where in every nation on this globe. Jefferson was right in that.

Nothing there says that we have to risk terrorist attacks in a country thousands of miles away. Your argument is nonsensical.

Looks like the French and British are now getting cold feet. Awesome.

Looks like Cameron is being forced to go through the motions of putting the issue to a debate in the Commons before commiting anything actually... While he can go over the head of the House and simply send in military support, it would be political suicide to do so.

While it looks like Canada is willing to support any military effort, (we could send medical teams, spec forces, and/or some F-18's), odds are our old canoes won't get them there in time...
At most it looks like Canada's government will authorise the use of the HMCS Toronto to act as an added escort to the 4 US ships already in the area.

**Some_Call_Me_Tim?**

Frazzled wrote:
It is? Why? Am I missing the hostility?

Same here. Maybe the alerts are being done for ideological reasons, which would explain it.

~Tim?

**CptJake**

You mean you guys don't automatically hit the alarm button on every post you disagree with?

**whembly**

CptJake wrote:
You mean you guys don't automatically hit the alarm button on every post you disagree with?

I don't think I've ever hit that button...

This thread is causing problems? I know it's being pulled in all sorts of direction...

**BaronIveagh**

Frazzled wrote:

Nothing there says that we have to risk terrorist attacks in a country thousands of miles away. Your argument is nonsensical.

Not to put too fine a point on it Frazz, but would you rather risk terrorist attacks in the US or a country thousands of miles away?

My argument is that the US has a moral obligation to do something. It might no be send troops, but action is required. Sitting back and letting it go to hell is most certainly not in it's national interest, and supporting Assad is abhorrent to the basic values the US was founded on.

**Warpig1815**

I'm with whembly on the matter - I do apologise to everyone for my tangent at Mr. Hyena so I'll stay on topic from now on, but I wasn't aware it was causing that much of a problem. I've never even pressed that button - ever.

**Frazzled**

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
It is? Why? Am I missing the hostility?

Same here. Maybe the alerts are being done for ideological reasons, which would explain it.

~Tim?

Clearly, they are jealous of our manly manliness.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Nothing there says that we have to risk terrorist attacks in a country thousands of miles away. Your argument is nonsensical.

Not to put too fine a point on it Frazz, but would you rather risk terrorist attacks in the US or a country thousands of miles away?

My argument is that the US has a moral obligation to do something. It might no be send troops, but action is required. Sitting back and letting it go to hell is most certainly not in it's national interest, and supporting Assad is abhorrent to the basic values the US was founded on.

I reject your question. Attacking Syria will in no way secure safety in themainland US. If thats a concern pull our our forces out of the rest of the world and put them on the border.

We have no moral obligation to do anything. The theory of the White Man's burden died out with the British Empire.

**whembly**

Here's someone I really respect... Michael Totten:

I’ve wanted to watch Syria’s Bashar al-Assad get his clock cleaned for eight years, so it feels rather strange that I’m a bit ambivalent all of a sudden now that it looks like the United States might actually take action against him. Before we get into that, though, let’s look at how we got to this point and what we might expect in the near future.

The Syrian government allegedly used chemical weapons in a suburb of Damascus and killed at least hundreds of civilians and possibly more than a thousand.

“We do not believe that, given the delivery systems, using rockets, that the opposition could have carried out these attacks,” President Barack Obama said to NewsHour. “We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out.”

I can’t verify that, but I’ll accept it as most likely for now. The administration has access to hard intelligence data the rest of us can’t see. And anyway it’s not hard to believe that a war criminal who owns chemical weapons would commit a war crime with chemical weapons. No one’s fingering the King of Belgium for the deed.

It’s possible that Al Qaeda or the Free Syria Army got a hold of these weapons and did this themselves, but the thousands of survivors are certain the government did it.

So are the Israelis.

They could be wrong. Everyone could be wrong. It happens. But it’s spectacularly unlikely that everybody is lying. Conspiracy theories and convoluted explanations are almost never correct. Straightforward explanations are the right ones 99 percent of the time.

I don’t believe everything the government says, but lies about this sort of thing are much less common than lies about, say, the opposing candidate’s tax plan during campaign season. And anyway, why would the White House lie about this? The idea that Barack Obama is ginning up a fake excuse to bomb Syria makes no kind of sense. He has clearly been against getting involved if he can help it. He ran as the opposite sort of president from George W. Bush and he wants to govern that way. It must drive him crazy that he’s weighing an intervention against an Arab Baathist dictatorship over weapons of mass destruction, but that's what's happening.

So now there’s talk of cruise missile attacks that will last a couple of days at the most. We’ll have to wait and see if that pans out, but that’s the word from “senior US officials” as of late Wednesday. Assad’s forces are evacuating what they suspect are the target sites, so this might not even turn out to be a big deal.

This isn’t about regime-change. Not at this time, anyway. “I want to make clear that the options that we are considering are not about regime change.” That was Jay Carney, the White House spokesman. Americans can rest assured that they’re safe from another long war—at least for now—and Assad can rest assured that he's safe as well.

This is about enforcing the Obama’s red line on the use of chemical weapons. He told Assad there’d be hell to pay if he used them, and if he doesn’t enforce it, he’ll lose credibility. It’s really not okay if a state sponsor of international terrorism thinks he has a green light to use weapons of mass destruction against civilians. It’s not okay if anyone does. Even if you don’t care a fig about Syrians, well, they aren’t the only ones within range.

If Obama doesn’t enforce this, he’ll also lose credibility on the other red line he’s drawn in the Middle East—the one against Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.

He desperately wants to convince Iran to abandon that program without going to war. The only way that’s even remotely possible, however unlikely, is if the Iranian government believes he’ll declare war if it doesn’t stop at some point. So if Assad gets to step over his red line, Tehran’s rulers will have every reason to believe they can step over theirs.

That’s the theory, anyway. That’s what this is about. I am not going to get in the way (not that it would make any difference), and I am not going to protest.

But a much better case could be made that the very existence of these chemical weapons stocks pose a threat not only to Syrians, but also to Syria’s immediate neighbors and even to people in more distant parts of the world. Because if Assad is overthrown by the rebels, that country will disintegrate into absolute chaos. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah are already running around, and without the government in place to secure its stockpiles of weapons, anybody could go in there and get them and use them against whoever they feel like using them against.

The US, however, isn’t making that case and apparently plans to do nothing about it. So nothing on the ground is likely to change. Military action should be used to advance some kind of strategic objective, but unless the White House is keeping its plan a secret from everyone, it doesn’t look as if that’s going to happen.

See what I mean who's watching this?

**CptJake**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Nothing there says that we have to risk terrorist attacks in a country thousands of miles away. Your argument is nonsensical.

Not to put too fine a point on it Frazz, but would you rather risk terrorist attacks in the US or a country thousands of miles away?

My argument is that the US has a moral obligation to do something. It might no be send troops, but action is required. Sitting back and letting it go to hell is most certainly not in it's national interest, and supporting Assad is abhorrent to the basic values the US was founded on.

I hate do gooders who let feeling guide what should be policy decisions. There is zero 'moral obligation' that can't be as easily and as justifiably ignored as all the other times we have ignored the do gooders' call to Do Something!. Moral Obligation (or at least the definition of it you seem to hold) has NOTHING to do with national interest. Allowing Assad to remain in a civil war with the rebels (who have elements even worse than Assad's regime) is not abhorrent to the basic values the US was founded on (nor is it supporting Assad, that is a silly premise). That would be why the founders refrained from being mega active across the globe, except when it came to pushing for US commercial and military interests. They didn't seek to interfere in the internal actions of other nations due to some Moral Obligation you seem to attribute to them.

If 'supporting Assad' is abhorrent and should be fought against, do you think we ought to impose sanctions on Russia, Iran and the Chinese for their support? How far are you willing to let your feelings that Something Must Be Done take our country down the road? Would sinking Russian ships in the AO supporting Assad be morally correct and therefore we should be obligated to doing so? How about shooting down Iranian aircraft bringing in supplies?

**Ahtman**

Uk Says attack on Syria would be legal, justified

LONDON (AP) — Britain's leaders said Thursday it would be legal under humanitarian doctrine to launch a military strike against Syria even without authorization from the United Nations Security Council.

Prime Minister David Cameron's office said the legal conditions have been met for taking action against Syria for allegedly launching a chemical attack against civilians in a Damascus suburb last week. The British leader has been at the forefront of calls for action, but his push is likely to be slowed by objections from the opposition Labour Party and a stand-off at the U.N.

Cameron's office released intelligence and legal documents meant to bolster the case that chemical weapons were used by the Syrian government and that retaliation would be justified. The documents were made public in advance of what is likely to be an emotionally charged debate in the British Parliament.

In addition to a legal summary, Downing Street released the Joint Intelligence Committee assessment that concludes it was "highly likely" that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 that killed hundreds of civilians.

**BaronIveagh**

CptJake wrote:

I hate do gooders who let feeling guide what should be policy decisions.

Yes, because letting people who are in favor of torture and blood for oil worked out so well.

CptJake wrote:
Allowing Assad to remain in a civil war with the rebels (who have elements even worse than Assad's regime) is not abhorrent to the basic values the US was founded on (nor is it supporting Assad, that is a silly premise).

So, freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are just a myth? So, then, tell me who is this king, this Emperor of the United States I've heard nothing about then? Where are the slaves and the bound men? How is it possible there is outcry against domestic spying, when any such fools who would speak against their masters should have been disappeared long ago by the Secret Police?

The support of butchers and tyrants like Assad is very much abhorrent to the principals of the United States. He represents quite a bit of what is wrong with tyranny. While there are rebel elements far worse, numerically these are in the minority. However,they have been getting support, and aid, and reinforcement where the rest have only been getting token support from the West. This has led to them being more effective, and thus gaining local manpower and support, because they're winning, not because the people of Syria necessarily back what they stand for.

All sorts of people make a rebellion. After all, there were Catholics that supported a little colonial rebellion 200+ years ago and you know what scum those papists are.

CptJake wrote:

If 'supporting Assad' is abhorrent and should be fought against, do you think we ought to impose sanctions on Russia, Iran and the Chinese for their support?

We already have sanctions on Iran. Personal opinion, we should have had sanctions on Chinese trade a long time ago, slave and near slave labor there has been slaughtering the US domestic production and has led to the current economic situation.

**Warpig1815**

Chinese trade is a bit of a double edged sword - It sucks a lot of western domestic trade dry, but at the same time, at least from what I can see in the UK, the Chinese are suckers for the 'Western lifestyle'. Luxury clothes, cars and commodities that are pretty much un-producable in China (The very saw low quality manpower that churns out however many billion tons of cheap crap killing the West's economy is, funnily enough, inadequate for high quality merchandise) are all bought in from abroad - aka the USA and UK. It's absurd that as much as we loath them for taking away our monopoly, we still can't live without what custom they do give us...

**BaronIveagh**

Warpig1815 wrote:
It's absurd that as much as we loath them for taking away our monopoly, we still can't live without what custom they do give us...

See, in the US case that's a lie that gets bandied about rather frequently. (Might be true for England). The short term shock to the stock market would be severe, but but the sudden increase in demand for domestic goods would rapidly offset this. My God, people might even be able ot get non-fast food jobs that pay a decent wage. Wal-Mart would go out of business. There would be jubilation in the streets.

**xole**

whembly wrote:
See what I mean who's watching this?

If Iran thinks that allowing Syria to use chemical weapons is the same as allowing Iran to build nuclear ones, they are welcome to try it.

That is, after all, something that is going to happen eventually, anyways.

And who said anything particularly bad in this thread?

**Soladrin**

BaronIveagh wrote:
Warpig1815 wrote:
It's absurd that as much as we loath them for taking away our monopoly, we still can't live without what custom they do give us...

See, in the US case that's a lie that gets bandied about rather frequently. (Might be true for England). The short term shock to the stock market would be severe, but but the sudden increase in demand for domestic goods would rapidly offset this. My God, people might even be able ot get non-fast food jobs that pay a decent wage. Wal-Mart would go out of business. There would be jubilation in the streets.

And domestic goods would get cheaper?

Obviously I don't know how it is there in shops, but domestics goods are always too expensive, losing china's trade wouldn't decrease those prices.

**BaronIveagh**

Soladrin wrote:

And domestic goods would get cheaper? Obviously I don't know how it is there in shops, but domestics goods are always too expensive, losing china's trade wouldn't decrease those prices.

Chinese prices are cheaper, but domestic not much more expensive, though some brands use 'Made in America' to charge more.

Cost of living would rise slightly, and there would be short term economic effects, but average income would rise more if more products are being produced domestically.

**Warpig1815**

To be honest, it's probably a lie here too. Once, way back in the mists of time, England was renowned for quality goods - now however we have a complete influx of 'Made in China' with little incentive from past governments (I'm looking at you Labour) to increase our own production. Made in England is very much in short supply now, with most of our jobs seemingly falling into the tertiary services category. However, I should maybe revise my statement that we can't live without Chinese custom - rather though it still plays a large part in the British economy. This year alone we have more than 100,000 Chinese students (Second only in number to your own USA). Each paying around £50,000, this the economy a £5 bn boost (Some $7 billion). And that's without the exports to China which numbered to some £11 billion in July alone. So, it seems that even if we could survive without Chinese trade, it would still be a substantial blow should sanctions cut that trade off.

**easysauce**

something must be done,

this is something...

lets do it.

not really the best methodology of thinking,

again, there is no tangable benifit to going in, maybe there is some murky feel good aspect, but I doubt we would want anyone coming over here to solve our politcal issues, so why we have a "moral responsability" to interfere in someone elses backyard is not the clear cut obligation some think it is.

there is are very tangable benifits to staying out, saving money, time, effort, and the inevitable collateral damage, and the backlash that creates with creating new terrorists ect.

**Warpig1815**

@easysauce - The thing is that it's now transcended mere political differences and maneuvering. It's now descended into attacks on innocents. They may not be our innocents, but they are still somebodies innocents. Hence, unless a political resolvement can be made (Which Assad is plainly not going to back down to), then the only action that would stop the killing of innocent people would be to remove the perpetrators. I can understand why there is opposition to it - the USA and UK have not even pulled out Afghanistan before becoming embroiled in Syria and nobody wants another long war so soon, but if you ignore this war crime (For that's what it is) - how can any of us then complain when War crimes are visited on us? (Hypothetically)

It is a tough one, I'm in two minds about it, but ignoring Syria in 2011 has got us to this point, so what will happen if we ignore it further? An increased Russian influence should Assad win? Increased Al-Quaeda influence should the FSA win? Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

**Ouze**

BaronIveagh wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Allowing Assad to remain in a civil war with the rebels (who have elements even worse than Assad's regime) is not abhorrent to the basic values the US was founded on (nor is it supporting Assad, that is a silly premise).

So, freedom, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are just a myth?

Seriously, how are you not getting this? You seem to honestly believe the document that laid down the principles of law in our country was also a dictate that we invade any country that is unfree; and make them like us. Is that actually what you think?

**Warpig1815**

I think what he's getting at Ouze, is that America is no simply the only ones entitled to those ideals. As far as I can see from the quote you provided he's merely saying that if America (By extension the West) is allowed those ideals, then why should we America and the West stand by whilst others are refused them - hence, in an effort to make the whole world a better place, it is the moral duty of the privileged ones, to help others gain those privileges. Of course, that's just my interpretation of his words - both of you feel free to correct me if that's not what he's getting at...

**PhantomViper**

Warpig1815 wrote:
I think what he's getting at Ouze, is that America is no simply the only ones entitled to those ideals. As far as I can see from the quote you provided he's merely saying that if America (By extension the West) is allowed those ideals, then why should we America and the West stand by whilst others are refused them - hence, in an effort to make the whole world a better place, it is the moral duty of the privileged ones, to help others gain those privileges. Of course, that's just my interpretation of his words - both of you feel free to correct me if that's not what he's getting at...

Middle Eastern Muslims call those "ideals" Western Cultural Imperialism and those "ideals" have done wonders for the people of both Iraq and Afghanistan...

**Warpig1815**

I didn't say I agreed with him, just that that's what I thought he was getting at. And yes, those ideals haven't worked in Iraq or Afghanistan (At least on the face of it - how many of us can truly say what the normal, less extremist, Iraqi thinks of it?), but other countries do enjoy better lifestyles now that western ideals have influenced them...