Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Oberon]

Meanwhile that Bastion of British reporting genius, the Daily Express has a sub-headline stating that Missile strikes could start as early as tomorrow with this picture next to it:



I haven't the heart to tell them that that is a Harpoon ASM, not a Tomahawk TLAM....

The Times has a much nicer picture of the USS Ramage with the sun behind her, and then David Cameron in an insert picture below doing his best 'running Jason Bourne' impression. Very dramatic.

[Packlife]

First I'd like to clear 1 thing up, the FSA is not Al-Qaeda, the FSA is 1 of the only factions that want a country like ours, they're the ones who have been asking for our help. An yeah your right they do have some air defenses, but they're from the 70's if a F-22 Raptor cant knock out a 1980's era piece of equipment we've got a problem. An I think the general idea is not to attack the chemical weapon storage sights, because like you said it's too hard to pin them down on a map especially since we've waited as long as we've had an the reports are that a good portion of them have been dispersed at brigade level. Not to mention you'd have to drop something like napalm or WP or thermite something that would burn fast an hot enough to eradicate the chemical agents with out actually turning a storage sight into 1 big bomb that backfires an kills thousands. So the next question is well what do we bomb then?? You go after their ability to use those weapons, wipe Assad's airfields off the map, an pound any artillery positions that aren't dug into a civilian area, which they probably aren't since the rebels don't have air power. Some have said on tv the goal isn't to tip the balance on the battlefield but that's just dumb doing something to limit what Assad can do tips the scales, even though the goal is to stop or limit his ability to launch chemical attacks will at the same time limit his ability to run normal airstrikes an to shell the rebels as well as civilians it's a 2 for 1 type deal. I've seen the video's on the new's an the videos on youtube that the news doesn't show, an to those who think those are made up videos I'm sorry your wrong my mom is a nurse of 20 plus years an when I showed her the videos she called it right out that the foaming of the mouth the crazy jerking of the bodies etc are all signs of attacks on the the body's nerve system, plus can you imagine trying to get that many kids to lay still an play dead for that long I don't think so. An what makes me think that this is Assad doing the gassing an not the rebels is, who is showing the aftermath?? You don't see Assad's people releasing video an pictures of dead SAA troops that have been hit w/ gas, even some of his own people are starting to think he is responsible. Assad's propaganda machine goes 24/7 they actually send texts to rebel commanders daily. The 1 text was "Look out Aleppo he we come". Something has to be done it is immoral to stand by an let these people be butchered. We did it in Kosovo in the 90's, we just did it in Libya I don't know why it cant be done again. Like I said in a earlier post I'm not calling for boots on the ground because that would just get nasty an out of hand. In all likely hood Syria is on a long long road, regardless of who wins, whether it be the extremists or the more western friendly groups. But I think if we don't try to help the consequences will eventually come back to haunt us an then a lot of the same people who were against helping out now will be the same ones saying "why didn't we do something back then". I'd rather reduce the chance of terrorists being able to profit from Syria an cause the deaths of Americans down the road. Oh an Russia has said it's not willing to go to war of Syria so I doubt there would be too much blow back from them, the most they're willing to do is vote NO at the UN.

[Packlife]

LOL at Oberon, actually I think Thursday is the day it's suppose to happen

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Packlife

Impeach Obama??? WOW you dont impeach a president just because you dont like him, there a hard far right republicans who are shooting that idea down. Remember a guy named Bill Clinton??? They tried impeaching him for having sex an it blew up in their faces, Obama has not committed any high crime or serious misdemeanors, if Obama had broken the law I assure you the republican held congress would have him strung up on impeachment charges so fast it'd break your neck. An to say he has all kinds of power because congress agree's with him???? Where do you live I'd like to visit sometime the current congress HATES Obama, they held meetings when he was elected the first time on how to screw him which lead to 5 years of obstructionism from congress that's why the congress's approval rating is like 6%. Now Bush War Crimes??? put your self in that mans shoes sitting in a Florida classroom on 9/11/01. Maybe he over reacted some but he said it in his book best, the same people in October of 01' who hailed him as a hero an genius for these different things like the Patriot act, turned on him not even 2 years later. No one had a problem w/ it when the wounds were fresh an everyday we turned on the tv we saw the smoldering ruins of the twin towers an pentagon an the torn up field in Pa, but after Bin Laden gave us the slip in Tora Bora an the debris cleared people changed their minds. I agree on something's like limiting terms some of these guys still thing their in the Joe McCarthy era. But don't forget what America has always stood for, sticking up for those who cant stand up for themselves.

Yes impeach him and it has nothing to do with my dislike for him.The man has ordered us citizens executed via drone strikes without trial.This violates their due process rights under the constitution as its tantamount to a summary execution, so yes he should have been impeached for that among several other things but that mainly.Violating a citizen's right to due process and having them summarily executed, which is what he has done repeatedly, is a "high crime".Let us not forget indefinite dention of US citizens per the NDAA.Also violating the constitution, another high crime. Congress does not impeach him because they are afraid of the backlash, they are waiting for him to really do something that just cant be defended, hoping he will hang himself essentially.

Congress has not been out to screw obama, drop the victim mentality. Obstructionism? They fight him on his idiotic agenda that does not work, so they get labeled obstructionists.The president is not supposed to get everything he wants.Obama is a buffoon, it's been amateur hour since day one, it's a prime example of what happens when an unqualified person gets elected.

I have sympathy for Bush, he is overall a decent man but was in over his head, he let the neocons like Cheney and Rumsfeld influence him after 9/11. If Bush ordered drone strikes on Us citizens that had not had their day in court, he summarily executed them and would be as guilty as obama but as far as i know, he never went that far.Only non us citizens were targeted with drones.Again another reason to impeach obama, he constantly disregards the constitution and other laws.



No, they impeached Clinton for lying, not having sex. The President should be held to a standard, letting them get away with lies etc is one reason we have so many problems.

Well it turns out McCarthy was right, so McCarthyism is a good thing.The Left loves to invoke his name and whine about it but McCarthy was right about communists and othe radical left wing types infiltrating the government and society.unfortunately, 50 years later, they run our universities and currently, our government.They also infest entertainment industry like roaches they are.

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Packlife

Decided to do this in 2 post's. Some say we shouldn't do anything because what's happening in Syria doesn't affect us or our interest's, but it does on both account's. Assad is going to fall it's just a matter of time an the number of dead before he falls. Here are my reasons on how not doing something eventually hurts America. 1 there are reports of some checkpoint's flying the Al-Qaeda flag, so they are there, obviously supporting the factions that support turning Syria into a hard core Islamic state like Afghanistan was. If that side wins w/ the help of Al-Qaeda their payment will be in chemical weapons an a large group to recruit from which can lead to a chemical weapon being set off somewhere in the US or at least an attempt to do it. 2nd Israel is an interest of ours since their friends of ours, they share a border Israel already did 1 airstrike stopping Syrian weapons being payed to Hezbollah for helping Assad. An the biggest reason I think we should do something is, when I see row upon row of dead little kids an their mothers from gas it makes my blood boil. You don't go after women an children, that's even a big rule among the Arab people an Assad crossed that line like he was signing a check, this guy went from arresting protesters, to beating them, to shooting them, to finally bombing, shelling, an now gassing them. To say well to shoot that missile will just add to our debt is such a cop out, your saying that innocent kids an women aren't worth helping because their not Americans is a shame an is not what this country was built on. We fought against a tyrant for our freedom as well, lucky for us they didn't have jets an chemical weapons. An that's why people ask us for our help because we know what it means to want to live free. To stand by an let Assad to keep on using chemical weapons on his own people especially the innocent one's is just wrong. What should we do?? Airstrikes an missile strikes, now I'd love to see us straight up pound Assad into dust with our air power I have no sympathy for tyrants dictators or butchers, an I don't feel bad knowing that his future is probably going to be short an painful.

We can't play beat cop for the whole world.Life is tough, it bothers me to see the suffering of the syrians but you are allowing emotions to influence judgement, a big no no.No one thinks clearly when using emotion.

The United States has spilled enough blood in the middle east and spent enough money. We are not supposed to be the world's police department, syria is in a civil war, we have no business there.Now, if Assad got froggy and attacked us somehow? Ok but until then, we must stay out.We can send them weapons and even a few CIA types to train them but direct military involvement, NO way.

I think of Charlie Wilson's War. We couldn't intervene in Afghanistan directly against the soviets, so we send the afghans plenty of weapons, they won.Assad is horrible and his time will come but it is not our role and not worth risking our troops, aviators, etc and spending our money when we re about to hit the debt ceiling yet again.We must stop spending money on other people, plenty of people in the US need help.

[Dowly]

Assad's brother ordered the attack?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...al-attack.html

Anonymous source, so...

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

We are not supposed to be the world's police department,

And no one is asking you to be the world PD. It's your leaders who keep the image up with all the
knight in a shining armor fighting any and all injustice in the world talk.

But yeah, better stay out of Syria if you ask me.

[Vince82]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I do not see them wanting regime chnage by military engagement like in Iraq, I indeed think this time they "just" act stupid and walk into a stupid situation open-eyed, for the reasons I mentioned one or two pages earlier. It just makes no sense that Assad wanted this chemical strike that is claimed to have been done by him, it just makes no sense - while it makes a lot of sense that the rebels did it.

And another possibility has not been mentioned: a rivalry between officers, or a failure or mishap in the command chain of the Syrian army, resulting in an unwanted order reaching the lower level, and carrying out the attack although Assad did not want it.

I hate to sound as if I defend Assad, I have no intention to do so. But fact remains: this attack makes no sense. And I think it is stupid, braindead and irresponsible that the US and Britain, apparently not knpwing for sure who it was, allow nevertheless to get so easily drawn into assistance of factions that are hostile to them and us all in return. The US engaging in air strikes of which Al Quaeda and jihadists and those terrorist the claimed American war against terror is directed against, do benefit! Think of it - is that queer, or is that queer? What's next? A jihad support treaty between the US and AQ?

I got to agree with this.

What evidence proves that Assad is behind the attack? Some reports state that there were rebels in that area that did have chemical weapons.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Packlife

Obama has not committed any high crime or serious misdemeanors,

You haven't been paying attention.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Packlife

Decided to do this in 2 post's. Some say we shouldn't do anything because what's happening in Syria doesn't affect us or our interest's, but it does on both account's. Assad is going to fall it's just a matter of time an the number of dead before he falls.

So thought I, a year ago. I underestmated the difference the help by Hezbollah, Irean and the Russian deliveries make. There is no reason you can found your noptimism on. Much speaks for Assad staying in power in s smaller core region, and Syria being split, with a situation like in Lebanon in the 80s following next.

Here are my reasons on how not doing something eventually hurts America. 1 there are reports of some checkpoint's flying the Al-Qaeda flag, so they are there, obviously supporting the factions that support turning Syria into a hard core Islamic state like Afghanistan was. If that side wins w/ the help of Al-Qaeda their payment will be in chemical weapons an a large group to recruit from which can lead to a chemical weapon being set off somewhere in the US or at least an attempt to do it.

Then you should not bomb Assad, but the rebel side. What you say on AQ also is true for Hezbollah and Iran.

2nd Israel is an interest of ours since their friends of ours, they share a border Israel already did 1 airstrike stopping Syrian weapons being payed to Hezbollah for helping Assad.

Why support any of the two sides then, because both sides are hostile to Israel!? Assad is just more predictable and the better bet for getting kind of a stable regime again that can be calculated and is not eager as Hezbollah is to get engaged with Israel.

An the biggest reason I think we should do something is, when I see row upon row of dead little kids an their mothers from gas it makes my blood boil.

In that empotionally aroused state, you do not deice, but you get decided. And ask yourself one, no: two questions: why is the fate of the Syrians so dear to you but those people getting massacred in Kongo, Nigeria, Somalia and so many other places not? Are you really willing to enter a state of multiple wars simultaneously all around the globe for the coming decades to adress all crisis of the kind that "make your blood boil"? And can you debt-drowning, bancrupt country (assuming your are American) afford that, and has it really those unlimited military resources needed for that? Consider Iraq and Afghanistan, and what it has done to the structure of the globla US military. The drain is to be felt everywhere.

You don't go after women an children, that's even a big rule among the Arab people an Assad crossed that line like he was signing a check, this guy went from arresting protesters, to beating them, to shooting them, to finally bombing, shelling, an now gassing them.

You kmight be surpsied about the stance oif Muslim arabs regarding slavery and the treatement of women and children if they are of the wrong faith. And women in Islam have drawn the a$$ card anyway. Fact is that strength and iron fist are highly respected principles in Arab history, and their societies are very forgiving towards dictators as long as they act as if they are honouring the cause of Islam. Saddam played on that flute with big mastery.

To say well to shoot that missile will just add to our debt is such a cop out, your saying that innocent kids an women aren't worth helping because their not Americans is a shame an is not what this country was built on.

War costs money. Your money, in this case. Money you do not have, in reality. Your explicit national debts have exceeded your GDP, your implicit national debts multiply your explicit debts ya a factor likely being between 5 and 10: you are bancrupt, you live on tick, your fiscal situation is absolutely hopeless, you will never get out of your debts, but drown in it. Your next fiscal cliff is looming for mid-october, and your onlyl option to buy some more time is to raise your debt level. Your powergrid is a medieval mess, your infrastructure, especially bridges and streets, is collapsing and falling apart. What has remained of your heavy industry, to huge parts is globally not competitive and needs to be heavily protected by the state from international competition. Your education system is aching under the burden of being underfunded. You already live on tic, and steal time from the future of your own children. I do not list this to ridicule your country or to bash the US, but to show you that even the US has limits, limits that it already has overstepped. You are no nation of supermen, and you are not in possession of the infinite-money-cheat. Still eager to pay for just another war?

The principles your country was founded on are not the principles Syria was founded on by the post-war Anglosaxons almost a century ago. It was an imperial aftermath, like the whole ME nations' borderline-drawing is: a mess. Those borders were drawn in explicit ignorration of language and ethnic structures, they forced together what did not match, and separated what belonged together. Since the days of a hopelessly idealistic (and naive!) Lawrence of Arabia, the Anglosaxons demonstrate a comple inability to understand the rules the Arab civilization is functioning by. Arabia really is the Anglosaxon'S personal nemesis, it seems. And like that it is until today: the "two-days war" now coming just proves that America's politicians have learned nothing, absolutely nothing (while surveys say 60% of US citizens want no US strike. Whether that is due to insight or due to general tiredness of war, is something different) . Obama has not learned as well, he should have kept his mouth shut one year ago.

Idealism leads you nowhere if you ignore reality over it. And reality trumps. It simply IS, and idealism and optimism and pessimism never have bent it.

We fought against a tyrant for our freedom as well, lucky for us they didn't have jets an chemical weapons. An that's why people ask us for our help because we know what it means to want to live free. To stand by an let Assad to keep on using chemical weapons on his own people especially the innocent one's is just wrong.

Prove it. There is no evidence that it was Assad, and as I have argued earlier, much speaks against it and nothing speaks for it. See here:

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...&postcount=177


The rebels had much greater interest in committing it.

What should we do?? Airstrikes an missile strikes, now I'd love to see us straight up pound Assad into dust with our air power I have no sympathy for tyrants dictators or butchers, an I don't feel bad knowing that his future is probably going to be short an painful.

You will not get what you want there. The strikes will be short and limited, and they will not hit Assad, but his military only. By achieving that, you help right that Al Quaeda and all the enemies of Israel that you mentioned earlier.

The bad guys have more than nine lives (Germans know that better than any other, considering how many attempts there have been against Hitler: dozens).

You emotional arousal leads you nowhere. Calm down.

[Skybird]

Ach nee!

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...used_nerve_gas

But the intercept raises questions about culpability for the chemical massacre, even as it answers others: Was the attack on Aug. 21 the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds? Or was the strike explicitly directed by senior members of the Assad regime? "It's unclear where control lies," one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable. "Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"

Nor are U.S. analysts sure of the Syrian military's rationale for launching the strike -- if it had a rationale at all. Perhaps it was a lone general putting a long-standing battle plan in motion; perhaps it was a miscalculation by the Assad government. Whatever the reason, the attack has triggered worldwide outrage, and put the Obama administration on the brink of launching a strike of its own in Syria. "We don't know exactly why it happened," the intelligence official added. "We just know it was pretty ****ing stupid."

Compare:

Originally Posted by Skybird

And another possibility has not been mentioned: a rivalry between officers, or a failure or mishap in the command chain of the Syrian army, resulting in an unwanted order reaching the lower level, and carrying out the attack although Assad did not want it.

If the US intercept of Syrian comms is true, then the responsibility lies with the side of Assad, although the massacre was not wanted (this time at least) and may be the result of a communication meltdown within the chain of command.

But this does not change my stand on it: we have no interest in seeing Assad winning, and we have no interest in seeing the rebels winning. We should not get engaged. For us, it is a lose-lose situation. Let's stay out of this mess.

[Skybird]

German media now quote reports saying that it was Assad's brother who ordered the attack in an intellectual "shortcut", and against strategic order of Assad. His brother commands the Revolutionary Guards and 4th division of the Syrian army. It got implied both brothers are currently a bit upset over each other.

Anyhow, if the West still thinks it must do this strike, then at least the formality of answering the question of which side was responsible for the chemical attack may find an answer. The contradiction that led me to saying that the rebels have greater interest in committing this attack, may find solution. For whatever that is worth.

But still I think, we should not get engaged.

[Skybird]

Israel mobilizes it's reservists.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

No, they impeached Clinton for lying, not having sex. The President should be held to a standard, letting them get away with lies etc is one reason we have so many problems.

I've been hearing that one since the day it happened. They didn't impeach Clinton for lying or for sex. They impeached Clinton for the crime of being a Democrat. It was a Right-Wing witchhunt from the start, and they used whatever they could get on him, much the same as the Oliver North trial was a Left-Wing witchhunt attempting to hang something on Reagan. It was political game-playing and nothing more.

Well it turns out McCarthy was right, so McCarthyism is a good thing.The Left loves to invoke his name and whine about it but McCarthy was right about communists and othe radical left wing types infiltrating the government and society.unfortunately, 50 years later, they run our universities and currently, our government.They also infest entertainment industry like roaches they are.

You seem to have no clue what you are talking about here. Perhaps Tailgunner Joe was right, perhaps not. The horror of the McCarthy era wasn't that there may or may not have been Communist infiltration in our government. Everybody was spying on everybody. The horror was that McCarthy conducted his own terrorist campaign with "lists" that didn't exist, and accused anybody and everybody with even the slightest hint of socialist tendencies of being a Commie Spy. The blacklists were a blight on a free society and ruined a lot of good people's lives. Joe McCarthy was one of the most vile, evil people ever to get himself insinuated into the United States government.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Packlife

First I'd like to clear 1 thing up, the FSA is not Al-Qaeda, the FSA is 1 of the only factions that want a country like ours,

Oh no, not that again please. That assumption was made about the youth protests in Iran in the mid-90s (I was there), it was repeated about the electorate two elections ago in Iran again, it was made about the tunisian opposition, the Libyan opposition, the Egyptians, and now you do it for the Syrian opposition. The truth still is that a majority of the Syrian people want a Sharia-grounded constitution, and are perfectly okay with Sharia-style punishment as the way to go with everyday crime. Possible that they want some more freedom to move, and access to global media. And that pretty much sums it up what they want. It's a big jump to say they want a country like yours. Sharia and Islam and Western ideals of humanitarian and social and free and liberal democracies, are incompatible. They do not want these in this fashion you are used to from your own home living standards - you want them to want it, I suspect. You want to bring it to them. Well, neither will it work, nor will it go that way anyway. It has been tried many times now, until recently, and the result always was unpleasant. Let's learn a bit from our record of failed expectations.

they're the ones who have been asking for our help.

So have the other radicals that have come to power in the Arab Spring. I remind of how Turkey's sultan Erdoghan I. has put it in the mid-90s: democracy is like a train. You board it to get to your destination, but once you reached your destination, you get off that train and leave it behind again.

An yeah your right they do have some air defenses, but they're from the 70's if a F-22 Raptor cant knock out a 1980's era piece of equipment we've got a problem.

Syria is said to have one of the most robust air defences in the region, it does not compare to Libya. F-22'S ar4e fighters and interceptors, no bombers. Underestimating your enemy is the first step towards your defeat.

An I think the general idea is not to attack the chemical weapon storage sights, because like you said it's too hard to pin them down on a map especially since we've waited as long as we've had an the reports are that a good portion of them have been dispersed at brigade level. Not to mention you'd have to drop something like napalm or WP or thermite something that would burn fast an hot enough to eradicate the chemical agents with out actually turning a storage sight into 1 big bomb that backfires an kills thousands. So the next question is well what do we bomb then?? You go after their ability to use those weapons, wipe Assad's airfields off the map, an pound any artillery positions that aren't dug into a civilian area, which they probably aren't since the rebels don't have air power.

During the Kosovo war, the Serbian army fooled NATO'S smart ammountiion into dropping armopur-killing porecision guided amonution onto fake targets. The BBS reprted by referring to the ministry of defence within 24 hours after the ccease fire that over 90% of NATO'S attacks on tanks and armoured vehicles fell for fake targets. The Serbian army retreated from Kosovo almost intact, disciplined and in order. Their losses in tanks and armour was said to have been suprrisngly light, considering the effort that was staged to kill them. A strike on Syria now is rumoured to be led by Tomahawks and maybe some bombers, it is limited in scope, allocated resources, and timeplan. Go figure. What will be targetted? Where they have Israeli intel, chemical sites and advanced air defences, airfields, the air force. If it becomes clear that it was Assad's brother responsible, then the focus will shift on the Revolutinary Guards and the fozurth army. If it remains claimed that it was Assad, the general army: soft targets, local command centres, supply nodes.

Some have said on tv the goal isn't to tip the balance on the battlefield but that's just dumb doing something to limit what Assad can do tips the scales, even though the goal is to stop or limit his ability to launch chemical attacks will at the same time limit his ability to run normal airstrikes an to shell the rebels as well as civilians it's a 2 for 1 type deal. I've seen the video's on the new's an the videos on youtube that the news doesn't show, an to those who think those are made up videos I'm sorry your wrong my mom is a nurse of 20 plus years an when I showed her the videos she called it right out that the foaming of the mouth the crazy jerking of the bodies etc are all signs of attacks on the the body's nerve system, plus can you imagine trying to get that many kids to lay still an play dead for that long I don't think so. An what makes me think that this is Assad doing the gassing an not the rebels is, who is showing the aftermath?? You don't see Assad's people releasing video an pictures of dead SAA troops that have been hit w/ gas, even some of his own people are starting to think he is responsible. Assad's propaganda machine goes 24/7 they actually send texts to rebel commanders daily.

It takes two to tango a propaganda war. The rebels are swinging that wand professionally, too.

The 1 text was "Look out Aleppo he we come". Something has to be done it is immoral to stand by an let these people be butchered. We did it in Kosovo in the 90's, we just did it in Libya I don't know why it cant be done again. Like I said in a earlier post I'm not calling for boots on the ground because that would just get nasty an out of hand. In all likely hood Syria is on a long long road, regardless of who wins, whether it be the extremists or the more western friendly groups. But I think if we don't try to help the consequences will eventually come back to haunt us an then a lot of the same people who were against helping out now will be the same ones saying "why didn't we do something back then". I'd rather reduce the chance of terrorists being able to profit from Syria an cause the deaths of Americans down the road. Oh an Russia has said it's not willing to go to war of Syria so I doubt there would be too much blow back from them, the most they're willing to do is vote NO at the UN.

I strongly think you have quite some illusions about the nature of the Syrian opposition alliance. I recommend closer study of what currently happens in Libya. Tunisia. The situation in Egypt. None of these places is on the way towards a Western-styled democracy.

None of the combatting sides in Syria deserves our sympathy.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Packlife

First I'd like to clear 1 thing up, the FSA is not Al-Qaeda, the FSA is 1 of the only factions that want a country like ours, they're the ones who have been asking for our help. An yeah your right they do have some air defenses, but they're from the 70's if a F-22 Raptor cant knock out a 1980's era piece of equipment we've got a problem. An I think the general idea is not to attack the chemical weapon storage sights, because like you said it's too hard to pin them down on a map especially since we've waited as long as we've had an the reports are that a good portion of them have been dispersed at brigade level. Not to mention you'd have to drop something like napalm or WP or thermite something that would burn fast an hot enough to eradicate the chemical agents with out actually turning a storage sight into 1 big bomb that backfires an kills thousands. So the next question is well what do we bomb then?? You go after their ability to use those weapons, wipe Assad's airfields off the map, an pound any artillery positions that aren't dug into a civilian area, which they probably aren't since the rebels don't have air power. Some have said on tv the goal isn't to tip the balance on the battlefield but that's just dumb doing something to limit what Assad can do tips the scales, even though the goal is to stop or limit his ability to launch chemical attacks will at the same time limit his ability to run normal airstrikes an to shell the rebels as well as civilians it's a 2 for 1 type deal. I've seen the video's on the new's an the videos on youtube that the news doesn't show, an to those who think those are made up videos I'm sorry your wrong my mom is a nurse of 20 plus years an when I showed her the videos she called it right out that the foaming of the mouth the crazy jerking of the bodies etc are all signs of attacks on the the body's nerve system, plus can you imagine trying to get that many kids to lay still an play dead for that long I don't think so. An what makes me think that this is Assad doing the gassing an not the rebels is, who is showing the aftermath?? You don't see Assad's people releasing video an pictures of dead SAA troops that have been hit w/ gas, even some of his own people are starting to think he is responsible. Assad's propaganda machine goes 24/7 they actually send texts to rebel commanders daily. The 1 text was "Look out Aleppo he we come". Something has to be done it is immoral to stand by an let these people be butchered. We did it in Kosovo in the 90's, we just did it in Libya I don't know why it cant be done again. Like I said in a earlier post I'm not calling for boots on the ground because that would just get nasty an out of hand. In all likely hood Syria is on a long long road, regardless of who wins, whether it be the extremists or the more western friendly groups. But I think if we don't try to help the consequences will eventually come back to haunt us an then a lot of the same people who were against helping out now will be the same ones saying "why didn't we do something back then". I'd rather reduce the chance of terrorists being able to profit from Syria an cause the deaths of Americans down the road. Oh an Russia has said it's not willing to go to war of Syria so I doubt there would be too much blow back from them, the most they're willing to do is vote NO at the UN.

The most successful force on the rebel side in Syria at the moment is the Al-Nusra Front, they have confirmed their allegiance to al-Zawahiri. In a situation like this, the strongest will emerge to lead, and Al'Qaeda has a lot of resources that they can put behind a group that wants to run a country.

In regards to Syrian air defence systems, they have the Pantsir-S1 (Sa-22), the 9K33 Osa (Sa-8), Kubs (Sa-6) and the old faithful Buk M1. Those are the mobile SAMs, there is also the S-300 and the possibility of some Tunguskas in the mix too.
Most of this stuff is 1980s kit, yes, but still potent. After all, a farmer with a AAA shot down a F-117 Nighthawk during Kosovo, so you really cannot guarantee the invincibility of American forces, and do you really think the American people, who are already only 45% in support of military action, will remain in support of military action if American lives are lost?

No disagreement from me in the truth behind those reports, although the real question of who used them is not fully clear, whilst it is slightly more likely that Assad used them, it's also quite possible that he didn't even order the use of them but it was someone else, possibly his brother. In a situation which is as chaotic as this it's very hard to get accurate information and facts.

In regards to intervening because of chemical weapons, one must look back at the Iran/Iraq war, where Iraq used chemical weapons with American blessing, and some 50,000 people died. The US didn't intervene or launch strikes on Iraq because they wanted Iran to lose. Even when Saddam gassed the Kurds, the US and the western world just shrugged its shoulders and said "C'est la guerre". The only reason we are so keen to act right now is that Assad is a Russian ally and we don't like him.

Also, one should never underestimate the Russians, you use the Kosovo example a lot, but we came very close to fighting the Russians in Kosovo at Pristina airport, so I really would not rule anything out.