Gas Attack in Syria

[Thanas]

Thanks Broomstick, for that measured, fair and balanced response.


I would add that Saudi Arabia has a vested interest in supporting the rebels because they are bankrolling several of the more religious factions. Kinda like in Libya where they massively increased their influence that way. Their way to gain more power and to contain Iraq seems to be a) fund rebels b) If they win, great. If not, then proceed to c) Cry to the US to bomb the evil dictator and help out the oh-so-very-advanced muslim rebels.

[cosmicalstorm]

There are reports that Assads men have evacuated many sites. Considering the lengthy warning time given I fully expect every last crate of chems to be hidden in schools, hospitals, mosques and quranic schools by now.

[NettiWelho]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08 ... -response/

The State Department made clear that it plans to bypass the United Nations Security Council as the administration prepares for a possible strike on Syria, after having failed to win support from Russia during discussions on Wednesday.

In blunt terms, department spokeswoman Marie Harf said last-ditch efforts to win support for an anti-Assad resolution at the U.N. were unsuccessful, and the U.S. would proceed anyway.

[Dartzap]

Strange scenes in Parliament today as MP's considered using facts and reason to determine future policy, more to come on the 10 o'clock news.....

Syria crisis: MPs must vote twice before direct UK action
The House of Commons will have to hold two votes before it can back "direct" military action in Syria, the government has announced.
MPs, returning early to Westminster on Thursday, will debate a motion on a "strong humanitarian response" to an alleged chemical weapons attack.

A second vote on military action will only happen after the UN has considered reports by its inspectors, it adds.
Labour said David Cameron had "changed his mind" under pressure.

The Syrian government has denied it is responsible for a suspected chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August in which hundreds of people are reported to have died, blaming opposition forces.
UN inspectors have returned to the site of the suspected attack and secretary general Ban Ki-moon has said they need four days to finish their investigation there.
This means a second parliamentary vote could not happen until at least early next week.

'Proportionate'

Earlier, leader Ed Miliband had threatened to oppose the government's motion until weapons inspectors had reported to the UN Security Council on their evidence.
Earlier on Wednesday, the prime minister gathered the UK's military and security chiefs, along with key cabinet ministers, in Downing Street for emergency talks.

The National Security Council "agreed unanimously" on a recommendation, the details of which are not known, but which will be considered by the cabinet on Thursday.
MPs and peers will then debate and vote on the government's motion.

The government's motion states that "this House deplores the use of chemical weapons" by President Assad's government alleged to have taken place last week, and says a response "may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on savings lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria's chemical weapons".

The motion also accuses the United Nations of a "failure" to deal with the Syrian crisis, but says the government believes "that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action".

Before the motion was published, Labour put out its own amendment, saying it would "only support military action involving UK forces" if various conditions were met - including allowing UN weapons inspectors time to report to the UN Security Council, and on the condition they produce "compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible".

The government effectively agreed to this when it published its motion.

It says "the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider" the inspectors' findings.

"Before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place," it adds.
Earlier, the UK put a suggested resolution to the five permanent members of the UN Security Council "authorising all necessary measures to protect civilians" in Syria.

It called for military action against what Britain has termed Syria's "unacceptable" use of chemical weapons.
Syria has accused the West of "inventing" excuses to launch a strike.

Milibean actually doing something useful whilst in opposition? What is this madness? Guess alot of 'em still feel stung from the lead up to Iraq.

[cosmicalstorm]

I wonder if Israel would prefer Assad or if they would be fine with Saudi backed groups that cut off Hizbollah and Iran.

[cosmicalstorm]

Lovely summary of the ME situation right now.

"The following note was published in the August 22 edition of the Financial Times.

A short guide to the Middle East
From Mr KN Al-Sabah

Sir, Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!

Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.

But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!

Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!

Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US!

Gulf states are pro-US. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey
is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!

Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day.
KN Al-Sabah, London, EC4, UK"

[Broomstick]

As of tonight, John Boehner, Republican Speaker of the US House, is demanding that Obama "make a case" for any hostilities toward Syria. The US military says they are ready to act but have receive no orders.

I'm wondering (and hoping) if Obama will build up a lot of bluster and threat and then "let" himself be talked back down.

[Dr Roberts]

Why would he do that?

[Broomstick]

To avoid a military conflict while saving face. To give the impression he would have gone in guns blazing but other nations talked him out of it. Congress saying "no" would also give him an out, if he were inclined to take it.

My take is that the US has nothing to prove on a military level - we could steamroll through Syria using just conventional weapons if we wanted to (now holding that territory is another matter... as Iraq has proved very well). Everyone knows that. If someone were to come up with an alternative action to bombs to punish whoever is responsible for the gas attack I could certainly live with the notion

The other problem is that I think the US is leaping a little to forcefully to stating Assad's regime is responsible. It's no secret the US and Syria are at odds. My inclination would be to let the inspectors do their job and come up with solid evidence. Alas, I am not in control of any of this.

[Scorpion]

Lovely summary of the ME situation right now.

"The following note was published in the August 22 edition of the Financial Times.

A short guide to the Middle East
From Mr KN Al-Sabah

Sir, Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!

Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.

But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!

Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!

Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the US!

Gulf states are pro-US. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey
is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!

Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day.
KN Al-Sabah, London, EC4, UK"

I actually made a chart of that... It was confusing.

I'm with Broomstick on this one: we've got to let the inspectors do their job. But once all the facts are established beyond all doubt, I am of the opinion that the guilty party must be met with swift and furious retribution.

Indiscriminate use of chemical weapons on civilian population is too heinous of a crime to let go unpunished. And if we do, we set a dangerous precedent. Like Halabja.

[Zaune]

The inspectors had better work quickly, then. The longer we wait the more time the Assad loyalists have to move the gasworks somewhere we can't neutralise them without troops on the ground, or worse, deploy them to the artillery with orders to fail deadly with them if the US intervenes.

[Ace Pace]

I wonder if Israel would prefer Assad or if they would be fine with Saudi backed groups that cut off Hizbollah and Iran.

The former. Syria without Assaf has no chance of being a stable partner in the region. Far better to have a single passive hostile partner than half a dozen groups all actively fighting.

[Broomstick]

The inspectors had better work quickly, then. The longer we wait the more time the Assad loyalists have to move the gasworks somewhere we can't neutralise them without troops on the ground, or worse, deploy them to the artillery with orders to fail deadly with them if the US intervenes.

I would like to know exactly what what used. Also, the level of purity could be significant. Something produced by the government of Syria would presumably be more pure than what might be produced or obtained by a rebel group, just as an example of what such information might indicate.

[Simon_Jester]

Broomstick, the most likely place for Syrian rebels to obtain gas would be from the government's own stockpiles. Why would the gas in a canister from a storage facility be less pure in rebel hands than in government hands?

[Hillary]

If someone were to come up with an alternative action to bombs to punish whoever is responsible for the gas attack I could certainly live with the notion

This is the problem, right here. I frankly don't care whether anyone is punished here; 'justice' (whatever that is) is secondary to stopping the conflict and trying to stop the killing and suffering. This may mean negotiating and making deals with some fairly unpleasant people/regimes, but rather that than taking sides and swapping one bunch of bastards for another, whilst alienating everyone else.

Northern Ireland has shown the benefits of this approach. There is no perfect solution, so why not aim for the one that causes the least harm and creates the most benefit. People are dead, many people, but we can't do anything for them now. Let's look after the living.

[Broomstick]

Broomstick, the most likely place for Syrian rebels to obtain gas would be from the government's own stockpiles. Why would the gas in a canister from a storage facility be less pure in rebel hands than in government hands?

Well, that's a possibility. If the Syrian government is going to claim the gas was stolen they need to show proof of that (if the rebels were responsible they sure wouldn't mind the Syrian government taking the fall for it).

If I had to come up with a scenario for stolen gas being less pure I'd guess that if they stole munitions that need to be mixed just prior to or during launch inexperienced hands might muck up that stage, resulting in warheads that yield less toxin than they should but I'll admit I don't know much about the details of such weapons. If the gas was sourced from a different country than Syria then there might be chemical differences from the Syrian government's, even if it's relatively pure.

If someone were to come up with an alternative action to bombs to punish whoever is responsible for the gas attack I could certainly live with the notion

This is the problem, right here. I frankly don't care whether anyone is punished here; 'justice' (whatever that is) is secondary to stopping the conflict and trying to stop the killing and suffering.

I may take some heat for this but no, I don't think stopping the the conflict is any other nation's business. It's a civil war, not an invasion from outside or terrorists. I'm not happy about a nation tearing itself apart in a civil war but having others get involved is only going to prolong the conflict.

I am concerned with the use of heinous weapons the majority of the world deems unacceptable to use even in warfare. Using such should have dire consequences to the parties responsible so as to discourage further use by anyone else. Unless we make a situation where using chemical weapons absolutely gains you nothing, and indeed makes you lose everything, others will continue to use them.

[Siege]

The British government believes it would be authorised to strike Syria even if the Security Council refuses to sanction action against al-Assad:

Britain's government on Thursday published internal legal advice it had been given which it said showed it was legally entitled to take military action against Syria even if the United Nations Security Council blocked such action.

It also published intelligence material on last week's chemical weapons attack in Syria, saying there was no doubt that such an attack had taken place, that it was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had been behind it, and that there was "some" intelligence to suggest that was the case.

"If action in the Security Council is blocked, the UK would still be permitted under international law to take exceptional measures in order to alleviate the scale of the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe in Syria," a copy of the British government's legal position read.

In such circumstances, it added that "military intervention to strike specific targets with the aim of deterring and disrupting further such attacks would be necessary and proportionate and therefore legally justifiable."

A letter from the chairman of Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee said there were "no plausible alternative scenarios" except that forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad had perpetrated the chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus.

The document in question is available here (PDF warning). It's a .gov.uk link, so that's about as legit as it's gonna get.

[Dr Roberts]

Well the commons is on BBC.

[Dr Roberts]

Ed Miliband has said that Evidence should precede intervention.

[Dr Roberts]

Am I the only one that doesn't like how they try to quip jokes wen they are discussing military action?

[Dr Roberts]

Looks like labour is going to vote against the motion unless their amendments are included.

[Dr Roberts]

Lots of common members bringing up Israels use of chemical weapons.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Probably shouldn't mention the alleged CW use in Iraq by the UK in the '20s too.

[Simon_Jester]

The '20s are so long ago that standards actually were different- it was a routine expectation by all military planners that gas was going to remain a permanent element of future warfare, so no one was all that surprised or shocked when it was used to maim and oppress colonial populations. Didn't surprise anyone when the Italians did it in the '30s, either, as far as I know.

Nowadays, with the precedent of the Second World War and gas not being used by even the goddamn Nazis, standards have changed far enough that I think countries have a right to take it seriously and negatively, regardless of their own past.

Israel doing it in the present is a more serious objection- what are the details on that?

[Dr Roberts]

They used white phosphorus in their attacks on Gaza.