General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEvents Are Moving Quickly With Syria--Here's What You Need to Know
CHEAT SHEET:Bombing Syria will only strengthen the hardliners and harm Americas national security. The top U.S. military commander says that attacking Syria would be risky and expensive
A Syrian war could be one the least popular wars in American history
In fact, most of the world is against attacking Syria
War against Syria could spike oil prices and plunge us back into another recession
Russia has repeatedly stated that it would consider an attack on Syria as an attack on its national security. China has also strongly cautioned the U.S. against attacking Syria. China and Russia hold a lot of U.S. debt, and could make life difficult for us economically if we unnecessarily anger them
Experts have so far expressed doubts that chemical weapons were actually used
The American government in a replay of the Iraq war is trying to stop UN weapons inspectors from seeing if chemical weapons were used
If chemical weapons were used, its unclear who used them
The U.S. has repeatedly falsely accused others of using chemical weapons
The Syrian rebels have apparently previously used chemical weapons
The U.S. has been backing Al Qaeda and other known terrorists in Syria
A former Democratic Congressman said that a U.S. strike on Syria would make America Al Qaedas Air Force
The U.S., Britain and Israel have used chemical weapons within the last 10 years
Humanitarian wars usually dont turn out very well
Attacking Syria without Congressional approval would be unconstitutional
The U.S. and Britain considered attacking Syrians and then blaming it on the Syrian government as an excuse for regime change 50 years ago (the U.S. just admitted that they did this to Iran)
The U.S. has been planning regime change in Syria for 20 years straight
The U.S. has been arming the Syrian opposition since 2006
America is not involved in Syria because that country poses a threat to Americas security but for entirely different reasons
Many see the timing of the Syria crisis as an attempt by the U.S. government to distract from its domestic scandals. If you need a reminder about whats going on inside our country, heres a cheat sheet on spying
----------
Category: Think Tank, War/Defense
Events Are Moving Quickly In Syria Heres What You Need to Know
Washington's Blog...
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/08/events-are-moving-quickly-in-syria-heres-what-you-need-to-know/
What are these people on DU doing when they suggest Obama light up some Syrians?
What the hell has gotten into them? They need to STFU.
DLnyc
(2,479 posts)Experts have so far expressed doubts that chemical weapons were actually used
Experts so far have more or less unanimously agreed chemical weapons were used. Even the Syrians and the Russians agree chemical weapons were used -- they just are claiming it was the rebels that used them.
just sayin'
KoKo
(84,711 posts)LINKS to SOURCE of ARTICLES AT:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/is-u-s-launching-a-war-in-syria-to-distract-from-spying-and-other-scandals.html
CBS News reports that the U.S. is finalizing plans for war against Syria and positioning ships to launch cruise missiles against the Syrian government based on the claim that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people.
The last time the U.S. blamed the Syrian government for a chemical weapons attack, that claim was was debunked.
But is the claim that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against its people true this time?
Its not surprising that Syrias close ally Russia is expressing doubt. Agence France-Presse (AFP) notes:
Russia, which has previously said it has proof of chemical weapons use by the rebels, expressed deep scepticism about the oppositions claims.
The foreign ministry said the timing of the allegations as UN inspectors began their work makes us think that we are once again dealing with a premeditated provocation.
But Russia isnt the only doubter.
AFP reports:
At the moment, I am not totally convinced because the people that are helping them are without any protective clothing and without any respirators, said Paula Vanninen, director of Verifin, the Finnish Institute for Verification of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
In a real case, they would also be contaminated and would also be having symptoms.
John Hart, head of the Chemical and Biological Security Project at Stockholm International Peace Research Institute said he had not seen the telltale evidence in the eyes of the victims that would be compelling evidence of chemical weapons use.
Of the videos that Ive seen for the last few hours, none of them show pinpoint pupils this would indicate exposure to organophosphorus nerve agents, he said.
Gwyn Winfield, editor of CBRNe World magazine, which specialises in chemical weapons issues, said the evidence did not suggest that the chemicals used were of the weapons-grade that the Syrian army possesses in its stockpiles.
Were not seeing reports that doctors and nurses are becoming fatalities, so that would suggest that the toxicity of it isnt what we would consider military sarin. It may well be that it is a lower-grade, Winfield told AFP.
Haaretz reports:
Western experts on chemical warfare who have examined at least part of the footage are skeptical that weapons-grade chemical substances were used, although they all emphasize that serious conclusions cannot be reached without thorough on-site examination.
Dan Kaszeta, a former officer of the U.S. Armys Chemical Corps and a leading private consultant, pointed out a number of details absent from the footage so far: None of the people treating the casualties or photographing them are wearing any sort of chemical-warfare protective gear, he says, and despite that, none of them seem to be harmed. This would seem to rule out most types of military-grade chemical weapons, including the vast majority of nerve gases, since these substances would not evaporate immediately, especially if they were used in sufficient quantities to kill hundreds of people, but rather leave a level of contamination on clothes and bodies which would harm anyone coming in unprotected contact with them in the hours after an attack. In addition, he says that there are none of the other signs you would expect to see in the aftermath of a chemical attack, such as intermediate levels of casualties, severe visual problems, vomiting and loss of bowel control.
Steve Johnson, a leading researcher on the effects of hazardous material exposure at Englands Cranfield University who has worked with Britains Ministry of Defense on chemical warfare issues, agrees that from the details we have seen so far, a large number of casualties over a wide area would mean quite a pervasive dispersal. With that level of chemical agent, you would expect to see a lot of contamination on the casualties coming in, and it would affect those treating them who are not properly protected. We are not seeing that here.
Additional questions also remain unanswered, especially regarding the timing of the attack, being that it occurred on the exact same day that a team of UN inspectors was in Damascus to investigate earlier claims of chemical weapons use. It is also unclear what tactical goal the Syrian army would have been trying to achieve, when over the last few weeks it has managed to push back the rebels who were encroaching on central areas of the capital. But if this was not a chemical weapons attack, what then caused the deaths of so many people without any external signs of trauma?
***
The Syrian rebels (and perhaps other players in the region) have a clear interest in presenting this as the largest chemical attack by the army loyal to Syrian President Bashar Assad to date, even if the cause was otherwise, especially while the UN inspectors are in the country. It is also in their interest to do so whilst U.S. President Barack Obama remains reluctant to commit any military support to the rebels, when only the crossing of a red line could convince him to change his policy.
The rebels and the doctors on the scene may indeed believe that chemical weapons were used, since they fear such an attack, but they may not have the necessary knowledge and means to make such a diagnosis. The European Union demanded Wednesday that the UN inspectors be granted access to the new sites of alleged chemical attacks, but since this is not within the teams mandate, it is unlikely that the Syrian government will do so.
Stephen Johnson, an expert in weapons and chemical explosives at Cranfield Forensic Institute, said that the video footage looked suspect:
There are, within some of the videos, examples which seem a little hyper-real, and almost as if theyve been set up. Which is not to say that they are fake but it does cause some concern. Some of the people with foaming, the foam seems to be too white, too pure, and not consistent with the sort of internal injury you might expect to see, which youd expect to be bloodier or yellower.
Chemical and biological weapons researcher Jean Pascal Zanders said that the footage appears to show victims of asphyxiation, which is not consistent with the use of mustard gas or the nerve agents VX or sarin:
Im deliberately not using the term chemical weapons here, he said, adding that the use of industrial toxicants was a more likely explanation.
Michael Rivero asks:
1. Why would Syrias Assad invite United Nations chemical weapons inspectors to Syria, then launch a chemical weapons attack against women and children on the very day they arrive, just miles from where they are staying?
2. If Assad were going to use chemical weapons, wouldnt he use them against the hired mercenary army trying to oust him? What does he gain attacking women and children? Nothing! The gain is all on the side of the US Government desperate to get the war agenda going again.
As I type these words, US trained and equipped forces are already across the border into Syria, and US naval forces are sailing into position to launch a massive cruise missile attack into Syria that will surely kill more Syrians than were claimed to have died in the chemical attack.
Last time there was a chemical weapon attack in Syria, Bush administration office Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson said that he thought Israel might have given chemical weapons to the Syrian rebels to frame the government.
British MP George Galloway just floated the same theory in regards to the new chemical weapon attack.
Of course, we dont know who carried out the attack, or what weapon was used.
But given the well-documented fact that the U.S. has been planning regime change in Syria for 20 years straight and planned to use false ploys for 50 years it is worth being skeptical until all of the evidence is in.
Indeed, many are asking whether this is Iraq War 2.0. For example, the Independent writes:
Pictures showing that the Syrian army used chemical weapons against rebel-held Eastern Ghouta just east of Damascus are likely to be viewed sceptically because the claims so much resemble those made about Saddam Husseins possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) before the US and British invasion of Iraq in 2003.
***
Like the Iraqi opposition to Saddam, who provided most of the evidence of WMDs, the Syrian opposition has every incentive to show the Syrian government deploying chemical weapons in order to trigger foreign intervention.
***
But the obvious fact that for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons would be much against their own interests does not prove it did not happen. Governments and armies do stupid things. But it is difficult to imagine any compelling reason why they should do so since they have plenty of other means of killing people in Eastern Ghouta, such as heavy artillery or small arms, which they regularly use.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/is-u-s-launching-a-war-in-syria-to-distract-from-spying-and-other-scandals.html
DLnyc
(2,479 posts)Also, the fact that the Syrian government is widely reported to be blaming the rebels for a chemical attack ( https://www.google.com/search?q=syria+blames+rebels&oq=syria+blames+rebels&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l3.4834j0&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 ) kind of undermines the idea that no chemical attack occurred, doesn't it?
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Obama/Kerry are claiming that SigNet intelligence says they have communication that Assad or someone in his Chain of Command ordered the Chem Weapon attack.
But, so far, they have not released the evidence of that.
So...until we know more, it's interesting to read the other reports questioning the weapons as Sarin Gas.
DLnyc
(2,479 posts)And there certainly is doubt whether the weapons were Sarin gas.
But at this point I don't see any serious reason to question whether on not there was a chemical weapons attack. It seems to me that even the Syrians and the Russians agree that there was a chemical weapons attack -- they just don't agree that the Assad regime was responsible for it.
Doubt about some things doesn't force doubt about all things.
As far as I can see, it's clear there was a chemical attack but it's not clear who was responsible..
KoKo
(84,711 posts)of the SIG NET Intercepts, before it's Bombs Away. Otherwise it could end up being like Iraq Invasion. Not Good.
bullwinkle428
(20,627 posts)last night?
Hydra
(14,459 posts)We don't seem too concerned that we'd be helping Al-Qaeda. In fact, you could say we were drawing them back into the fold as "freedom fighters"
Kinda wrecks all the propaganda that they are dismantling the free world, doesn't it?
leftstreet
(36,081 posts)Er...
DURec
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)really, one is much better off reading wiki's entry on the Syrian Civil War and reading Juan Cole's entries about Syria
This is a polemic. That's fine, but it's short as hell on actual information and it's misleading.
and I couldn't be more firmly opposed to U.S. military intervention.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)It's Steve Clemons Fellow of the New America Foundation and Editor at the "Atlantic" vs. Tariq Ali of "New Left." (Ali did some great reporting on Iraq Invasion)
I do read Juan Cole, but it's his opinion. I like to get many other opinions when it's as serious as this is, though. I'm pretty stressed out about all this, as you know.
Anyway the Democracy Now discussion is one I think you'd find very interesting, too.
If I have time...I'll try to post a link of some of it here on DU tonight.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)It is an overwhelmingly good list. K&R.