Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dorsidwarf]

Bombing a tank full of Sarin is a great way to aerosol disperse it. Also it's not easy to find these at all. It could just be in some random repurposed fuel tank, or a government refrigeration plant or hell, a basement under a fake residential building.

[Frumple]

Not easy is fine, too. Seriously, if complications are involved, take the effort and time needed to mitigate them instead of just doing whatever.

... in any case, I finally got around to checking the CWC on violations and response. Can say, one of the things it doesn't list as an action we agreed to follow according to the agreement? Unilateral punitive action without consultation of other signatories. Welp. All this shit and apparently treaty violation on top of it. Goddamnit.

[Dunamisdeos]

We did speak with other nations first. This is confirmed. They absolutely had time to dissent, and instead they supported the strike.

I also don't think its really a stretch to assume that further attacks would follow. I don't think we need a signed note from Assad before we move that from "hypothetical" to "predicted from past actions". What you're suggesting is that yeah he totally just initiated a chemical attack, but he might not in the future if we leave him alone. That's backwards.

What do you specifically mean by "hit the means of production"? If we bomb it, it gets released. If we go in with troops to dispose of it safely, we just invaded Syria.

***addendum: The "Trump conspiracy" thing was unrelated to what you were saying Frumple, sorry about that.

[PTTG??]

We've had 16 years of experience that say attacking dictators for oppressing their people doesn't work.

[Frumple]

Just... here. Read it yourself. Nighttime briefing hours before the attack is not particularly mentioned, just to give one example of that "speaking". Go figure. You might also be interested to know that sometimes political considerations take more than a few goddamn hours.

[misko27]

Everything is chemistry when you get down to it and if you have the right elements to mix together and the knowledge to do so, you can make just about anything. Assad could literally just have a Walter White out in an RV somewhere mixing up sarin on demand.

I mean it's possible, but Sarin is a little more sophisticated than something like Chlorine. CIA assessments of Iraqi Sarin (which coincidentally were the only WMDs that were found in Iraq) found that some only had a shelf-life of a few weeks.

You can't take away the ability of the person to commit a crime. If the desire is there they'll find a way.

True in general, but absolutely untrue in specifics. As an example, I'm sure there are a lot of people who'd really like to detonate a Nuclear bomb in the US, but I don't see this forthcoming. In fact, the biggest bombing in the US since 9/11 racked up a grand total of three deaths. So either the desire isn't there (and it sure seems to be), the people doing it are incompetent, or we're stopping them; but clearly, it's not happening. So clearly some crimes can be stopped.

I think its important to remember specifics. Like you can't just say that what works in X doesn't work in Y, or that if it didn't work for X and Y it can't work for Z. So when I see baseless assumptions I'm annoyed.

Bombing a tank full of Sarin is a great way to aerosol disperse it.

Source? I've never heard of such a thing, and it sounds a lot like something that sounds true, but isn't necessarily.

We've had 16 years of experience that say attacking dictators for oppressing their people doesn't work.

First, this is a civil war, not protests or anything. And vis-a-vis attacking dictators for Civil War activities, as a Serb I would like to say hi.

[Dunamisdeos]

I read it, and the CWC doesn't say much about what actions can and can't be taken in this case. It only deals with the PRODUCTION AND STORAGE of chemical weapons, and what action should be taken if proof of chemical weapon production is found. It's not applicable to the use thereof. If I'm looking at it right, the Geneva Protocol applies directly here. It seems to give almost unrestricted discretion (within the terms of the convention) in enforcing the non-use of these weapons.

 "The High Contracting Parties will exert every effort to induce other States to accede to the present Protocol" looks like the extent of specific guidance within it's own documentation. We are also REQUIRED by this document to take action to stop its use. Syria is part of this document.

::EDIT::
Show me if I'm wrong, but I looked through the document and also looked up some supporting articles that claim the CWC was added in addendum to the Protocols specifically to cover those aspects.

[Helgoland]

To everyone saying that the response time was too short:

This problem has been around for four fucking years. Four years in which diplomacy hasn't done shit, sanctions haven't done shit, sending light arms to small fractions of the rebels hasn't done shit. Four years in which we, the West, the Glorious Defenders Of Liberty And Human Rights, have been all too content to look on, signalling that we're quite frankly unwilling to even lift our pinky finger to stop folks from dying. And they died by the thousands, from gas, from starvation, from barrel bombs, mortars, inciendary munitions, hell, occasionally they even died from good ol'-fashioned bullets. We may have not done nothing in the strict sense, but we've made it plenty clear that we didn't want to do anything substantial.
You say this strike came too fast? You had four years: Present me a viable alternative that doesn't involve the erosion of fundamental international norms, first of all the one that will be celebrating its centennial. Either do that, or be honest about not giving a shit.

And before you try and turn the tables on me here: I was for a no-fly zone already back in 2012, when the moderate rebels were strong, the Russians were not involved, and the country hadn't already been turned into a country-sized reenactment of the Battle of Stalingrad. I spent my days glued to the TV when Ghouta was attacked and it looked like somebody would finally do something. They told me back then that we might make the situation worse - tell me, is what we have now better than what they feared back then?

E: And by the way, as far as I am aware every government allied to the US has welcomed these strikes. So much for 'irresponsibly going it alone'.

[PTTG??]

So many Trump apologists who somehow expect this to go better than Afghanistan and Iraq. Where are the people who said that Democrats were just as bad as Republicans because they were both warhawks? Is there a single person here who approved of the missile attacks who would be willing to be boots on the ground? And remember, this is a generational investment. If someone's eight years old now, they could end up deploying into this Syrian war.

Are we going to increase military spending? Who are we going to tax? Or are we going to reduce spending on "non-essentials," like armor?

[Helgoland]

Funny you should ask: I'm about to finish my master's, and one thing I had in mind was to spend the next two years joining the reserves. It won't work out, because they won't take crazy folks, but that ought to be enough to shut up your moralistic yapping - especially considering that nobody here has advocated for boots on the ground.

For everything else:

You say this strike came too fast? You had four years: Present me a viable alternative that doesn't involve the erosion of fundamental international norms, first of all the one that will be celebrating its centennial. Either do that, or be honest about not giving a shit.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one am disgusted by hypocrisy. If you're against this strike and don't have any leads for a better solution, just say it plain and clear: 'I don't mind Syrian children being gassed.' 'My tax rates staying low is more important than atrocities being stopped.' 'American lives are too valuable to be risked for the lives of brown people.'

[martinuzz]

Perhaps to set an example to teach Assad that it is quite possible to kill people without gas, the Russian airforce bombed the village today that was attacked with the Sarin gas earlier, now without gas. At least 18 people were killed, amongst whom 5 children, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human rights.

[Frumple]

Helg, I'm about the only one that's been talking in the direction of things being "too fast". You might want to read what the blue hell I've been fucking saying before you go on some kind of tirade about how we're hypocrites for not wanting to get more people killed and cause an erosion in international politics that is likely to kill even more, if you're going to go off on me about it. And no, support coming in after the fact doesn't shift the point being made one bloody iota. This shit isn't happening in a vacuum, and the context of previous administrations counts for roughly sod all in relation to the one trump's spent the last month or three purging the competence out of.

If trump had displayed even a fucking modicum of effort to find a better way, had gathered up all that goddamn support before the attack (and for the love of fornication, not the day before), had maybe done shit like told our goddamn congress before he told russia, you probably wouldn't be seeing me railing on the guy like I am. Not having spent the last three or four years (right up to days before the attack) screaming to the high heavens against every possibility and angle of a syrian intervention might have helped, too. Because as is the guy's history makes it abundantly clear he doesn't give a single shit about syria or the syrian people, which if you're that inclined towards intervention you should probably be aware of just how much of a problem that can be. Whatever reason the bastard's doing this, it damn sure ain't for anything related to what you want to happen.

... as for better or worse, hell if I goddamn know. It's certainly pretty damn unlikely it would have been better, considering the extent our intervention would have capped out at in relation to the problem, and it's not at all questionable that our history on the subject over the last decade or three is goddamn abysmal. And in context of the rise of ISIS, I'm not too sure I'd be willing to count out worse by a long shot. Another Iraq hamstrung by western military intervention to get gnawed on probably wouldn't have done the situation much in the way of favors. Assad's fucking terrible, but the position that it could be worse damn sure ain't an empty one, and fucking regardless doing shit like this isn't going to help a single bloody thing on that front.

In relation to this pile of shit, though, about the only way I can see it ending better than it was before trump did this is if it really is an act of collusion between him and russia to make him look better -- and "better" is likely going to mean "maybe no gas attacks until around the 2018 or 2020 election", with no reduction in deaths, no actual curtailing of assad, and even less attempts to actually get any sort of help into the area. That said, so far as better leads go, I can give you a good hint: Don't fucking do what trump just did. And bloody hell, for the Nth time that doesn't mean don't make air strikes, or don't intervene, or don't anything along those lines.

So far as the geneva thing goes, dun, would you happen to be able to point to some incidences of it being used to justify military force, especially of this nature? Trying for a bit to figure out exactly what that "every effort" entails, but my luck has been basically nil, and as near as I can tell it hasn't been used to support a sudden punitive attack at any point, particularly with any degree of support by multiple signatories. E: Though, that said, now that I notice the edit you might want to take an unfortunate look at what the protocol (doesn't) say about internal conflicts

[PTTG??]

Funny you should ask: I'm about to finish my master's, and one thing I had in mind was to spend the next two years joining the reserves. It won't work out, because they won't take crazy folks, but that ought to be enough to shut up your moralistic yapping - especially considering that nobody here has advocated for boots on the ground.

For everything else:

You say this strike came too fast? You had four years: Present me a viable alternative that doesn't involve the erosion of fundamental international norms, first of all the one that will be celebrating its centennial. Either do that, or be honest about not giving a shit.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one am disgusted by hypocrisy. If you're against this strike and don't have any leads for a better solution, just say it plain and clear: 'I don't mind Syrian children being gassed.' 'My tax rates staying low is more important than atrocities being stopped.' 'American lives are too valuable to be risked for the lives of brown people.'

If this was a real conversation I would have no recourse but to punch you in your libelous mouth. It is not a lack of courage or mercy that I base my arguments upon, but rather common sense and the evidence of the past two decades of foreign policy. It is not that I don't care, it's that I recognize it is impossible for us to conceivably solve every humanitarian crisis on the planet, and that getting involved in sectarian warfare will not end it, it will only create annother, larger humanitarian crisis. Do not insult me again.

[mastahcheese]

*mastahcheese would like to remind people to maintain a chill composure. Yes, these are serious issues being discussed, and firm opinions are had on the subjects. And yes, people will have opinions that don't just disagree with yours, but vehemently oppose yours, but we are still capable of debating this rationally and civilly. I am not speaking to anyone in particular, but as a general reminder to all*

[Starver]

I might as well say that I like the strike. It's a punctuation point that Obama never quite managed against prior chemical/barrel attacks against (doubtless some 'bad guy' insurgents but mostly) people whose main 'crime' was to live in the wrong area.  But it isn't a bonus to Trump.

Either Trump has, in his blundering manner (see also the Yemen raid, without the following bonus), just happened to do something that has not yet escalated things and may have sent a message, or the credit truly goes to the military advisers (Mattis, probably chiefly or coordinatingly) who probably got this operation to work properly.  But the future (and future revelations about the present) may well tell a different tale, I acknowledge.

The presidential plan to get military people to come up with the real plans is at least in line with his pledged manifesto (one of the few things you can charitably grant as a fulfillment of campaign promises). It could perhaps also make Trump look a little bit more of someone to deal seriously with, on the international stage, vs the bluff buffoon character. But, again, it'll take more history having happened before we see where it actually ultimately leads.