The site of the chemical attack is in rebel hands,
I'm just going to point out that this, combined with your insistence that the rebels may have done this, raises eyebrows: Are the rebels bombing themselves now, to make the Syrian Government look bad?
so inspectors don't need permission of Assad for anything.
Did I say ask
Assad for permission? I don't think I did, and clearly since the US is bombing him they aren't particularly interested in his permission either. I'm just noting that, you know, to get a full understanding of what happened (And We Need To Know The Truth), we should really wait for a lull in the fighting instead of taking a preliminary investigation and possibly making a mistake. After all, we wouldn't want to get things wrong again, right?
I am not sure this intervention will stop at just 50 tomahawk missiles. Trump is impulsive enough to escalate this further.
Oh no, maybe 100 Tomahawks. Maybe, 150 Tomahawks! That's more than Libya! Well that's obviously qualitatively different from the involvement of Russia, Turkey, Iran, Hezbollah, and everyone else who has intervened just enough to keep their side going; a luxury not heretofore available to the US. Again, truly an unprecedented escalation, sure to face universal condemnation by the UN.
Chemical weapons in rebel held areas obviously remained after the Syrian regime destroyed their stockpiles.
Now see, I wasn't aware the rebels
had Sarin, but your evidence has convinced me. How obvious! Do you think the rebels are also operating the planes that are reported to have dropped the Sarin? Clever bastards.
Were any previous chemical attacks attributed to Assad after that actually proven?
i'm not sure that you could prove anything in Syria at the moment other than that people are dying and Assad lives on. I read arguments about far more basic and less contentious descriptions of literally everything that happens. Rebels win a victory, but the governemnt retreats in good order. Or government claims a victory, but rebels dispute. Barrel Bombs? Not if we believe Assad. The simple fact of the matter is that all sides will deny everything that doesn't fit with their narrative, and they are all scary people with guns who've already shown their willingness to kill people for thinking differently then they do. Impartiality is not possible until order is restored in Syria, but that is not forthcoming.
Not for an arbitrarily high standard of proof, which is what folks bemoaning the absence of proof to cover their reluctance to actually do anything usually demand.
I too would much prefer a conversation from first principles: "I do not want to go to war in Syria". That's a position I can respect. Simple, sure, but powerful: "Do something"ism is not necessarily a useful impulse. But it does raise a question: Antioch, if it was definitevely proven that Assad had indeed used Sarin Gas in the way that is reported, would you then support the strikes? If not, why raise the argument?
Not for an arbitrarily high standard of proof, which is what folks bemoaning the absence of proof to cover their reluctance to actually do anything usually demand.
I would on the other hand this attitude is what caused the US to invade Iraq for non-existent weapons of mass destruction and escalated the Vietnam war for a Gulf of Tonkin accident that never happened.
Well we already know that the Sarin gas exists (which, I would like to helpfully point out, is in fact classified as a WMD, so go tell Bush we found them), and we already know that people are actually dead. But more broadly this war has gone on for five years now; precisely how long is the United States supposed to sit on its hands? And why not Russia? Or Iran? Or Turkey? Or the Saudis? And the scope of their involvement is far greater than anything the US has done or proposed to do. But no, we must fear the US's involvement, because..? Because it'll shift the war away from Assad? Or because it'll kill a marginally larger number of people than were dying already?
You know what I think? I think if the US actually did what everyone dances around and invaded Syria five years ago, there'd have been fewer deaths than letting it drag into what is soon to be its sixth bloody year with no end in sight. Airstrikes haven't worked, and won't work. Financial support has changed nothing except to shift the front line here and there. A military coalition to remove ISIS has come and gone. It seems everyone has agreed to support their side enough to never lose, and otherwise simply let Syria bleed. Sure, I say. Let places bleed. But
let them bleed, don't
make them bleed. Just enough support to prop someone up has only exacerbated the situation, and Russia is the chief villain of
that story, not the US. It's funny that you are arguing against an invasion, because of all the things the US could do that is probably the only one that would
actually end the war. But a commitment to ending the war is expensive, politically as well as materially, and no side has been willing to pay that price; far cheaper to merely keep your side standing and bleeding for you.
Author
Topic: The Let's go back to Iraq, now without WMDs Thread. About the IS(IS) threat. (Read 208439 times)