Gas Attack in Syria

[Borgholio]

White phosphorus is pretty nasty shit, but it's not really a gas attack so it doesn't count. It's no different really than the way we used to use napalm.

[Zaune]

Cultural difference, I guess; the British armed forces don't go in much for napalm and I think we've stopped using white phosphorous as well. Cultural memories of incendiaries being used on civilian targets during the Blitz, maybe.

[The Romulan Republic]

Russia has sent warships to the area. Oh fucking joy.

MOSCOW- Russia is sending two warships to the east Mediterranean, Interfax news agency said on Thursday, but Moscow denied this meant it was beefing up its naval force there as Western powers prepare for military action against Syria.
Syria won’t be repeat of Iraq: Obama
Interfax quoted a source in the armed forces’ general staff as saying Russia, Syria’s most powerful ally, was deploying a missile cruiser from the Black Sea Fleet and a large anti-submarine ship from the Northern Fleet in the “coming days.”
Assad vows to defend against aggression

Full article here:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/ ... rises.html

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23865053

There are two subjects Russians talk about a lot: history and geography. In recent days, there's been much public discussion of both.

Russian officials and the media have been constantly recalling "Yugoslavia - 1999", "Iraq - 2003" and "Libya - 2011" as examples of Western military intervention which resulted in regime change.

The suspicion in Moscow is that the West is plotting to add "Syria - 2013" to the list.

One of the headlines this week in the Russian government daily Rossiskaya Gazeta was: "Will Obama risk repeating the Libyan-Iraqi scenario in Syria?"

Moscow appears now to be expecting a US strike on Syria. According to the head of the foreign affairs committee of the Russian Parliament, Alexei Pushkov: "It's only a question of time."

But the Russians have not stopped arguing their case that military intervention would be wrong.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

If optimists in the Pentagon believe that Russia will limit itself to warnings and expressions of anger, like it did over Iraq and Yugoslavia, they may well be mistaken”

Komsomolskaya Pravda
Russian newspaper
'Monkey with a grenade'
First, Moscow maintains there is no proof that President Bashar al-Assad was behind the suspected chemical weapons attack in eastern Damascus.

If anything, argue the Russians, evidence points to the rebels carrying it out in order to scupper peace talks and to put pressure on the Syrian government.

Russia insists that UN weapons inspectors in Syria should be given time to complete their job, write up their report and present it to the UN Security Council.

Next, Russia continues to warn that military intervention will have "catastrophic consequences" for the wider region, including a rise in radical Islam. This week Russia's deputy prime minister tweeted that "the West is playing with the Islamic world like a monkey with a grenade".

Finally, Russia believes that any military action without a mandate from the UN Security Council would be a "grave violation of international law".

Continue reading the main story
Models for possible intervention

Iraq 1991: US-led global military coalition, anchored in international law; explicit mandate from UN Security Council to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait
Balkans 1990s: US arms supplied to anti-Serb resistance in Croatia and Bosnia in defiance of UN-mandated embargo; later US-led air campaign against Serb paramilitaries. In 1999, US jets provided bulk of 38,000 Nato sorties against Serbia to prevent massacres in Kosovo - legally controversial with UN Security Council resolutions linked to "enforcement measures"
Somalia 1992-93: UN Security Council authorised creation of international force with aim of facilitating humanitarian supplies as Somali state failed. Gradual US military involvement without clear objective culminated in Black Hawk Down disaster in 1993. US troops pulled out
Libya 2011: France and UK sought UN Security Council authorisation for humanitarian operation in Benghazi in 2011. Russia and China abstained but did not veto resolution. Air offensive continued until fall of Gaddafi
Syria crisis: Western military options
Models for possible intervention
Press apprehension as Syria tension builds
Syria crisis: Where key countries stand
So if there is a military strike, how is Moscow likely to react?

On Wednesday, one of Russia's most popular tabloids, Komsomolskaya Pravda, warned that Western intervention could spark an East/West standoff akin to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

"If optimists in the Pentagon believe that Russia will limit itself to warnings and expressions of anger, like it did over Iraq and Yugoslavia, they may well be mistaken," the paper declared on its website.

"Times have changed. There's too much at stake and Moscow won't retreat... Who'll crack first: Putin or Obama?"

Such sabre-rattling may be exaggerated. Although Moscow has been a firm ally of President Assad, Russia is unlikely to be drawn into direct military confrontation with the West.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has already made it clear that his country has "no plans to go to war with anyone".

But there are other ways in which Russia could display its disapproval of Western intervention and its anger with the United States.

Some commentators predict that Moscow may increase weapons supplies to Damascus, forge closer ties with Iran and reduce co-operation with Washington in different areas.

Relations between Russia and the West have been growing increasingly rocky.

There's little doubt that Western military intervention in Syria will make an already difficult relationship even more strained.

[Zaune]

They're not dumb enough to fire on a NATO warship over this, are they? It's not like we can't let them keep the naval base and the defence contracts.

[Dr Roberts]

WW3 here we come.

[Thanas]

Nobody is going to start WWIII about Syria.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not deliberately perhaps. But I can't help worrying that having Russian and NATO ships in the same area in such a tense situation could lead to someone panicking, overreacting, and opening fire when they shouldn't.

[Dr Roberts]

Nobody is going to start WWIII about Syria.

That was intentionally sarcastic hyperbole. However, it is not inconceivable that it couldn't provoke some kind of skirmish if someone panicks.

[Thanas]

Not deliberately perhaps. But I can't help worrying that having Russian and NATO ships in the same area in such a tense situation could lead to someone panicking, overreacting, and opening fire when they shouldn't.

Hasn't happened over conflicts in the past even when there was more tension. The thing is that the Russians are (legitimately) upset about the USA dismantling all the regimes in the regions the Russians have put a lot of resources and diplomatic capital into. This is essentially Russia trying to at least make sure that they have a seat at the table when the future markup of the region will be deliberated upon.

[cosmicalstorm]

Not deliberately perhaps. But I can't help worrying that having Russian and NATO ships in the same area in such a tense situation could lead to someone panicking, overreacting, and opening fire when they shouldn't.

That can never be ruled out, but it seems a low probability event. The rulers of China, America and Russia have very comfortable lives. My worry is that the entire region will eventually be embroiled in some weird ME version of WW1.

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.

[/quote]

It's mainly a civil war but there are entire foreign militias (Hezbollah) operating in the war. There is also a massive involvement of money, propaganda and logistics coming from basically everyone nearby. I'm not sure it qualifies as a civil war anymore.

[Siege]

I'm hard pressed to think of any civil war that's an exclusively domestic affair. Everybody involved in one will probably at least attempt to bring in outside help to get ahead, be it by trading (future) favors, recruiting abroad or simply buying stuff overseas. I don't think the involvement of foreign militias should mean a conflict no longer counts as a civil war (as long as those militias fight for one of the sides involved anyway, although I suppose the line gets blurry after some point).

[Borgholio]

Even our own civil war wasn't purely domestic. The South was getting a good deal of support from Britain, but that got cut off once the North started winning battles.

[Admiral Valdemar]

AAAANNNND it's killed in the House of Commons.

[Dartzap]

Only just though.

There were some pretty horrific images of some kids who got napalmed on the news at 10, ugly, ugly stuff.

[Jerry the Vampire]

The labour amendment was also rejected.

[Steel]

The labour amendment was also rejected.

The amendment was rejected before the main vote.

This is bizarre, as the way the vote went it means that mp s oppose on principle waiting for evidence before acting and still opposed action anyway. If you were going to vote to not attack anyway why would you vote against getting evidence?

[Jerry the Vampire]

I suggest the conservatives voted against it with some Liberal Democrats because it wasn't their motion.

[Jerry the Vampire]

They also probably thought the main motion would still pass. I don't understand why the votes weren't conducted the other way around. Vote on the motion and then if it's rejected vote on the amended motion. Of course, government doesn't make sense.

[Dartzap]

From the Gruan live blog

Cameron was asked about the use of Royal Prerogative, and if he can assure the HoC he will not use it

I can give that assurance. Let me say, the House has not voted for either motion tonight. I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons, but I also believe in respecting the will of this House of Commons. It is very clear tonight that, while the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly.

I guess HMS Cyprus can stand down then, if only it had engines to move away

[Jerry the Vampire]

Yeah I saw that. The thing is this will surely affect the American and French responses.

[Broomstick]

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.

The Nazis didn't use poison gas on the battlefield – they certainly did use it, but in the context of executing civilian prisoners in fake shower rooms and the like.

White phosphorus is pretty nasty shit, but it's not really a gas attack so it doesn't count. It's no different really than the way we used to use napalm.

They're called “chemical weapons”, not “gas weapons”. Quite a few people view both napalm and white phosphorus as objectionable weapons and lump them under “chemical weapons”.

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.

It's mainly a civil war but there are entire foreign militias (Hezbollah) operating in the war. There is also a massive involvement of money, propaganda and logistics coming from basically everyone nearby. I'm not sure it qualifies as a civil war anymore.

Outside influences aren't that unusual in a civil war, I'd even say it was business as usual, that doesn't mean the big powers should add to the mess by getting directly involved in the shooting.

Yeah I saw that. The thing is this will surely affect the American and French responses.

There's a part of me hoping that Russia and the US are playing good cop/bad cop with Syria, but on a rational level that seems a bit far-fetched.

[Jerry the Vampire]

I'm hoping it's just that Obama is using Syria to push legislation that might meet opposition from Republicans if it were covered In the news.

[Simon_Jester]

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.

The Nazis didn't use poison gas on the battlefield – they certainly did use it, but in the context of executing civilian prisoners in fake shower rooms and the like.

]sigh]

Yes, I know. I was referring to its use as a weapon of war. And if anyone's wondering why I sometimes talk for too long... this sort of thing is why. To exclude this kind of thing.

[Purple]

The amendment was rejected before the main vote.

This is bizarre, as the way the vote went it means that mp s oppose on principle waiting for evidence before acting and still opposed action anyway. If you were going to vote to not attack anyway why would you vote against getting evidence?

Because evidence is by definition only useful to people who have not made up their minds yet. If you have made up your mind the only thing evidence brings with it is the danger of being incompatible with your choice. As in it can prove you wrong in the eyes of the people who put you there. Sure it can also vindicate you and prove you right. But in the current political climate they probably simply decided it's not worth gambling with that. Better to nip it in the bud.