Ryan_m_b said:I don't support military intervention by the west. At the very least there needs to be more time to let UN inspectors to do their work and return with solid data. What I would support though is immediate delivery of medical supplies, particularly Nerve Agent Antidote Kits, to as many people as possible in areas of conflict.
russ_watters said:Since such actions have been done many times before and never caused a constitutional crisis before, I don't see why this would.
Pythagorean said:The MP's voting against Cameron basically said that there wasn't enough evidence that the regime was responsible for the attack.
I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.
Arab League urges UN-backed action in Syria
Foreign ministers seek "necessary deterrent measures" against Syrian regime ...
... oh, just the ministers not the league itself?Arab League foreign ministers have urged ...
... oh, just two of them ?Saudi Arabia and the Syrian opposition pleaded with League members..
However, some influential members of the League, including Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Tunisia and Algeria, have expressed opposition to foreign military intervention.
jim hardy said:Lisa I don't know quite how to interpret that article you linked.
The headline infers it is the official position of the league
but when I read the body it backs down quite a bit.
First line: ... oh, just the ministers not the league itself?
... oh, just two of them ?
Two for, five against ?
That's about same as public opinion here in US.
For all I know this could be Saddam's leftover nerve gas and it got set off by accident..Officials inside the Central Intelligence Agency knew that Saudi Arabia was serious about toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad when the Saudi king named Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud to lead the effort.
They believed that Prince Bandar, a veteran of the diplomatic intrigues of Washington and the Arab world, could deliver what the CIA couldn't: planeloads of money and arms, and, as one U.S. diplomat put it, wasta, Arabic for under-the-table clout.
Prince Bandar—for two decades one of the most influential deal makers in Washington as Saudi ambassador but who had largely disappeared from public view—is now reprising his role as a geopolitical operator. This time it is to advance the Saudi kingdom's top foreign-policy goal, defeating Syrian President Assad and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies.
......
...
...
Not everyone in the Obama administration is comfortable with the new U.S. partnership with the Saudis on Syria. Some officials said they fear it carries the same risk of spinning out of control as an earlier project in which Prince Bandar was involved—the 1980s CIA program of secretly financing the Contras in Nicaragua against a leftist government. The covert program led to criminal convictions for U.S. operatives and international rebukes.
"This has the potential to go badly," one former official said, citing the risk weapons will end up in the hands of violent anti-Western Islamists.
Pythagorean said:As far as I've remembered in my little anecdotal world, congress has never really had to rely on their image. I guess a final-term president doesn't, either.
I don't think it has ever happened. What makes you think it would happen here? And you're not equating a vote to reject approval of use of force with a vote stating not to use force, are you? I'm not sure if that has happened either, but they wouldn't be the same thing.Vanadium 50 said:There have been cases where Congress has said nothing and the President has acted. But have there been prior cases where Congress - who holds the sole power to declare war - has said "No, do not declare war" and the President has attacked anyway?
30 years? We'll know for sure either way in a few MONTHS. Clinton did when he erred by not doing anything about Rwanda. Does anyone actually believe that the Syrian civil war will get LESS violent if we do nothing? The smart money would say that in a few months, tens of thousands more will be dead from dozens of chemical weapons attacks. That's my bet if we do nothing. It may even still happen if we just lob a few cruise missiles: a shot across the bow only works if they think you're serious about sinking the ship and Obama has already assured Assad he won't.lisab said:The Arab League has urged the UN to take action against Syria:
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/20139118235327617.html
Their pleas will probably fall on deaf ears in the Security Council (Russia, China).
If non-US PFers haven't picked up on it, there is a growing sentiment in the US to just keep out of the business of other countries. More specifically, Americans ask, "Why us? Why are WE the world's police?"
The Arab League's members have more than enough resources to take care of this themselves. So what if they did? Could the US, France, and maybe the UK give them cover in the UN?
Personally, I back Obama on his views on this, that it's an atrocity that must not be shrugged off. I'm weary as hell of war but I can't believe the world is willing to let this go unpunished. I can only hope that we won't look back on this in 30 years and just hang our heads in regret. So if the Arab League wants to step in and do what should be done, my hat is off to them in making this tough moral and political decision.
BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today.
Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.
The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.
President Bashar Assad’s forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.
British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action.
The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.
They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime.
They are. That's why this is just British tabloid newspaper sensationalism.Pythagorean said:Plot twist?
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/revealed-britain-sold-nerve-gas-2242520
Though I think these chemicals are rather common outside of chemical warfare.
The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin
mheslep said:As for the effectiveness of a potential US attack, the bar need not be that all of the Syria's chemical weapons stores are destroyed. Rather, the main point is to deter Assad, make the regime pay a cost. The Assad government is in a fight for its survival which it may well lose. Attacks on, for example, Assad's vulnerable air power will be felt. Even if Assad manages more chemical attacks post US intervention, the point is made to others (e.g. N. Korea) that the use of these weapons will extract a high cost.
mheslep said:The discussion of US military action in Syria often conflates two related but separate issues of i) the use of chemical weapons against civilians by the Assad government and ii) the ongoing civil war and all of its consequences. Despite the confusing US policy statements, it seems clear that pending US military action has been triggered in the main by the use of these weapons. Though the US deplores the actions of the Assad government in general, the civil war in itself is not the principal cause of action.
A response to the use of chemical weapons use has a clear rationale. A UN resolution and international treaties call for action by all member states, military if necessary, to stop the use. If the civilized world hopes to keep the use of chemical weapons beyond the pale, it must act here, else not be surprised when, say, the like of a N. Korea attacks Seoul with them in the future. Or, imagine the use of such weapons against Israel. Israel has suffered conventional rocket attacks for years and responded with conventional weapons. However, a past Israeli PM has directly threatened that "the use of gas against the Israeli people" would provoke a response that would "return [the attacker] to the status of desert".
The idea equating US response in this case to US intervention in every conflict around the world does not apply; every conflict does not involve large scale use of chemical weapons. Attacking the user of the chemical weapons need not mean the US directly supports the Assad governments opponents, even if the opponents gain indirect advantage.
As for the effectiveness of a potential US attack, the bar need not be that all of the Syria's chemical weapons stores are destroyed. Rather, the main point is to deter Assad, make the regime pay a cost. The Assad government is in a fight for its survival which it may well lose. Attacks on, for example, Assad's vulnerable air power will be felt. Even if Assad manages more chemical attacks post US intervention, the point is made to others (e.g. N. Korea) that the use of these weapons will extract a high cost.
Pythagorean said:So I guess the assumption is that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack?
It is wrong to call it an assumption. It is the CONCLUSION of a large segment of the international community.Pythagorean said:So I guess the assumption is that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack?
Agreed, and to take the logic further: if the rebels used the weapons, the only likely place they could have gotten them is from Assad's forces. So a response attack to destroy the chemical weapons capability would still have to be directed at Assad's forces.lisab said:My personal opinion: any government that has stockpiles of WMD is responsible for their use, whether they ordered it or not. Otherwise you'll have tyrants simply shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Golly, we didn't order the (nuke/gas/poison/infectious) attack, we can't be held responsible."
russ_watters said:Agreed, and to take the logic further: if the rebels used the weapons, the only likely place they could have gotten them is from Assad's forces. So a response attack to destroy the chemical weapons capability would still have to be directed at Assad's forces.
Pythagorean said:Would US action be restricted to just destroying chemical weapons capability?
'Cure worse than the disease': Experts say bombing chemical weapon sites may cause problems
WASHINGTON (AP) — You simply can't safely bomb a chemical weapon storehouse into oblivion, experts say. That's why they say the United States is probably targeting something other than Syria's nerve agents.
Sarin degrades after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life can be shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA, some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks, owing mostly to impure precursors.[13]
Its otherwise short shelf life can be extended by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediates and incorporating stabilizers such as tributylamine. In some formulations, tributylamine is replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (DIC), allowing sarin to be stored in aluminium casings. In binary chemical weapons, the two precursors are stored separately in the same shell and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of solving the stability issue and increasing the safety of sarin munitions.
In binary chemical weapons, the two precursors are stored separately in the same shell and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight.
Ryan_m_b said:To what extent is that even possible? Given that who used the weapons and where they are is still largely unknown. Not to mention that there could be innocent casualties as nsaspook points out. I agree that steps need to be taken to deter further action but I'm skeptical that a military strike will suffice. Further investigation to pin point exactly who used the weapons and authorised their use followed by legal apprehension of those individuals to put through a war crimes trial at the Hague would get my vote at the moment. Plus provision of medical supplies (as mentioned above) and countermeasures like mass dropping NBC suits.
My understanding is that that's the only thing on the table right now.Pythagorean said:Would US action be restricted to just destroying chemical weapons capability?
The idea of a social responsibility in war seems to me to be a byproduct of US actions in previous wars. We've done enough re-building that now people think it is a responsibility. But I don't see why that should be true. After all, we're having enough troubling with the idea that we have a responsibility to stop a murderous dictator in the first place!Pythagorean said:Let's even say it were physically possible. Is it behaviorally possible for the US to go into a country without diving into a never-ending black hole of social responsibility?
Legal apprehension? Please tell me you are joking, Ryan? How exactly would that be possible?Ryan_m_b said:Further investigation to pin point exactly who used the weapons and authorised their use followed by legal apprehension of those individuals to put through a war crimes trial at the Hague would get my vote at the moment.
It is a bit vague, but that's what it appears to me Obama is saying:nsaspook said:I don't think we are planning to destroy his chemical weapons capability with this or any air-power only strike.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...19213c-125d-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.htmlObama said:Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.
What war crime would that be? Where is that written? I've never heard of any such thing.To knowingly hit those targets in Syria is close to a war crime unless we also plan to police the area and clean up the contamination quickly using ground forces.