Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Vince82

Early warning will be usefull to the Assad forces in two ways:

-they will be able to move their mobile forces
-and to get ready to eliminate incoming missiles


It's possible that the Russians will try to defend Syria against cruise missiles in a more active way aswell.

We won't be going afer mobile foces, nor can they stop our missles and the Russians won't get involved.........nor should we.

But damn gas will go up, already is just with the talk....another money maker

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Platapus

That is a most interesting question.

I don't think there are any international laws that prohibit one country from interfering with the attack by another country. The worst that can happen is that the attacking country could declare war on the intercepting country.

Would the US risk going to war with Russia over this if it happened?

If the POTUS gets statutory authorization, from Congress, to launch missiles, Russia is in no way bound by such an authorization. Now if the UNSC authorizes action through the Military Staff, then Russia would be in violation of several treaties.

A most interesting question.

A most interesting question indeed and an excellent answer

[Catfish]

And
- sry if i repeat myself -
despite a lot of speeches, desinformation and propaganda:

Still no evidence about chemical weapons.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Father Goose

Like I told a friend last week, BO will go to Congress for one simple reason. No matter what Congress decides, that is where he will point the blame. He will use it against the GOP in the 2014 elections with the help of his propaganda media. BO never takes responsibility for anything. It's always someone else's fault.

A thought to keep in mind with BO...everything he does is for political reasons to support his socialist agenda. If you remember that, he's very predictable.

War is hell, there's been about 120,000 overall deaths, chemical weapons may acount for about 1000, but many medical issues in others.
Dying from severe burns from a bomb or a chemical....what's it matter. Syria has been torturing 1000's of innocent civilians before they execute them, but we need to attack because chemical weapons MAY have been used. Sort of like how we nuked Japan, hell that was gentle compared to Lemay fire bombing cities.

The laws from chemical weapons came from the mass use and killing, so the law is there, but the moral and motive is questionable. We certainly didn't care about the millions dying in Africa from war.

You're right, Obama is setting up the blame game. His attack speech was laughable, totally political. Reagan, Clinton, Bush all took actions without congress.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Catfish

And
- sry if i repeat myself -
despite a lot of speeches, desinformation and propaganda:

Still no evidence about chemical weapons.

Until such evidence is presented, it is well to keep repeating this.

This is why I am very happy that samples were collected and will be evaluated by an independent organization.

We need to have a scientific answer, not a political or emotional answer.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Dying from severe burns from a bomb or a chemical....what's it matter....

The laws from chemical weapons came from the mass use and killing, so the law is there, but the moral and motive is questionable. We certainly didn't care about the millions dying in Africa from war.

An excellent point. It is OK to set people on fire, but not OK to expose people to chemical agents. When you think about it, it does sound silly in a horrible way.

[Tchocky]

That only comes up if you're looking for things to be contrary about.

I don't think we can honestly claim that the death and destruction caused by a conventional war is the same as a direct attack on civilians using nerve agents.

In the essence, yes, people die all the same. But one is not the same as the other.

[u crank]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

We'll need a Meggiddo mod for this one.

Oh crap, I was hoping to get through this life before that one was used.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

That only comes up if you're looking for things to be contrary about.

I don't think we can honestly claim that the death and destruction caused by a conventional war is the same as a direct attack on civilians using nerve agents.

In the essence, yes, people die all the same. But one is not the same as the other.

Syria tortures and kills innocents, children to adults by the 1000's, if we're talking what's humane, is it OK to kill 7000 several civilians with conventional weapons, only act when maybe 500-1000 total deaths due to chemicals? I rather drop dead from gas that be burned to death from a bomb.

I understand laws that arose due to chemicals being weapons of possible mass destruction, but that's now the case here. All this talk keeps us off the issues.

This is a civil war and like all Muslim civil wars they'll kill and torture. On one side you have several groups, some radical, versus the common dictator. I think the reason dictators come to power is because it beats all the factions. If Assad is overthrown, then the factions fighting together now would go to killing each other later. I think we best stay out of it, heck, one in five American children go hungry each day, let's that fix that first.

As long as Arabs live in the dark ages of their radical religion, theyll continue to live like hell. Let them have their war, if the winner turns out to be an issue, we can deal with that later.

[BossMark]

So, it transpires that in recent months Britain sold the Syrian government large amounts of potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride, chief ingredients in making nerve gas.

No wonder Cameron was so keen to fire cruise missiles at them last week. Probably his best chance to destroy the receipts.

[mapuc]

So we are upset about this war crime! Remember an article I read not so long ago just when this started.

It said something like

"We are truly upset, by seeing all this crime that is being committed by both side in this civil war. Why didn't we react the same way when the Russians slaughter Chechnya.

Is it because it's a superpower and not a little country which doesn't have much of military stuff they can use to response an attack."

Markus

[Tchocky]

Syria tortures and kills innocents, children to adults by the 1000's, if we're talking what's humane, is it OK to kill 7000 several civilians with conventional weapons, only act when maybe 500-1000 total deaths due to chemicals? I rather drop dead from gas that be burned to death from a bomb.

We're not talking about what's humane. Carnage and destruction aren't confronted everywhere all the time. Look at the civil war in DRC, you'll be the only one paying attention. What makes people sit up and notice is when nerve gas is used on civilians like it appears to have been here.

How you would rather die doesn't enter into it. Not even slightly. There is a difference between shelling an area that you think contains enemy forces - and blanketing it with sarin. Get under a solid table or below ground level and you can improve your chances of surviving a shelling. That doesn't do squat for sarin. THis is the reason that the numbers of dead don't enter into it.

I agree the distinction is unsettling, but what concerns countries outside Syria here is the precedent. Or at least it should.

Also, is there no thought for what happens next if this action goes unopposed? How many gassings is too many? That's a loaded and manipulative question but I'm not sure how else to express it.

This is a civil war and like all Muslim civil wars they'll kill and torture.

Yay. This is fun.

On one side you have several groups, some radical, versus the common dictator. I think the reason dictators come to power is because it beats all the factions. If Assad is overthrown, then the factions fighting together now would go to killing each other later. I think we best stay out of it, heck, one in five American children go hungry each day, let's that fix that first.

Shootng a cruise missile doesn't automatically degrade your ability to ease poverty.
None of the actions contemplated by Western powers involve actively effecting the course of the civil war. That's a mess that will take a lot more time and blood to resolve, and Western guns won't help that at all. A strike against the chemical weapons sites/stores/launchers won't be totally decoupled from the civil war - but let's not pretend regime change is on the cards here.

As long as Arabs live in the dark ages of their radical religion, theyll continue to live like hell. Let them have their war, if the winner turns out to be an issue, we can deal with that later.

Arab is not a religion and 16% of Syria is Christian.

Again, this is not about effecting the course of the war.

[mapuc]

Is this a hoax?? I hope it is

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/putin...attacks-syria/

Markus

Edit have just found out that it is a hoax

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Is this a hoax?? I hope it is

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/putin...attacks-syria/

Markus

Edit have just found out that it is a hoax

You need to stop reading these sort of websites.

[eddie]

Something I wonder about, we all are horrified by the chemical attack in Syria, and yet the bombings and killings are happening everyday in Iraq, its into the thousnads the number killed already this year, but no outcrys from Washington, how come?