OT: Syria: Chemical Weapons Launched by Rebels?

[paramount]

Great Video…sums up Syria very well IMO.

[spdrun]

Wouldn’t surprise me — who has an interest in us intervening?

[SD Realtor]

It does make sense… I was wondering this from the beginning but with all the chaos out there… who knows. I do agree it is hard to believe Assad would have ordered this as it doesn’t make much sense.

[FlyerInHi]

Yeah, Assad’s military has had 8 months of incremental success.

Why did he order a chemical attack? He didn’t need to.

[all]

[quote=SD Realtor]I do agree it is hard to believe Assad would have ordered this as it doesn’t make much sense.[/quote]

According to a mercenary general interviewed by NPR last week the opposition forces took down a couple of Assad’s planes using Saudi-provided SA missiles, hence the response.

The general did not complain about a Wahhabi country handing SA’s around, presumably because the systems are calibrated to take out Assad’s military aircraft only – they can’t be used against civilian airplanes.

[Anonymous]

NPR interviewing mercenary commanders now – nice. I’m not saying Assad’s regime didn’t do it – but the stupidity of such an act would obviously be monumental. OTOH, many of the rebel factions are dyed in wool fanatics who think nothing of sacrificing civilians and other unfriendly factions in an instant especially if they are desperate. The conclusion – if we can’t stay out of a fight as unpromising and unsavory as this, for whatever supposed reason (save civilians from chemical attack – uhuh) after the fine examples of Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Tunisia and Afghanistan, we are truly maniacs and we should commit ourselves to national psychological counseling. Yea, I know, it’s our dear elected leaders’ doing – well, for the umpteenth time, both Dems and Republicans will have shown that We the People are so low and despicable that our wishes and desires mean nothing to those in power.

[all]

Mercenary general – as in retired US military general currently employed by one of the institutes for peace, humanity and global understanding.

[Jazzman]

If the gas was used by the Assad regime, he (Assad) may not have ordered the attack or even known about it. If the ‘rebels’ used it, then they are already in possession of a weapon of mass destruction, so we need to worry if claims are they could be used against the US? I hear no evidence the US is proclaiming the opposition as freedom fighters. I hear a lot of reservations about who they really are, and what might follow. This seems to have explained the delayed intervention. US polls suggest the public is against the attack, but is that war weariness, or this particular scenario that they don’t like? Has the US angle been largely about protecting its own interests? Yes. Is there ever a case to argue for policy shaped by humanitarian causes. Probably, even if only measured by self interest. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t so political risk becomes ambiguous. How so?

The attacks will only inflame insurgents, and draw more people to their cause. But putting that and interests aside, can the US stand by and watch if the region erupts into violence? 1) Yes, but there will be a price to pay when they are asked why didn’t they, when they could have. 2) No, but there are always unintended consequences of taking sides.

One question that bothers me is how can the destruction of chemical weapons be contained, not just from collateral damage, but the expulsion of the gas from missile strikes?

[spdrun]

^^^

As to releasing gas from missile strikes, I’ve heard that they use incendiary bombs that burn extremely hot (thermit?) and that it dissociates the gas into something less harmful. Nice theory, whether it will work in practice and get all the gas is an open question, since I’ve heard that nerve gas is fatal even in very small doses.

[CA renter]

Thanks for sharing that video, paramount. Makes sense to me, too. There is very little reason to believe what we’re being told by our govt.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter]Thanks for sharing that video, paramount. Makes sense to me, too. There is very little reason to believe what we’re being told by our govt.[/quote]

I don’t know which version is accurate, but is there a reason to believe the Russian government over the US government?

[NotCranky]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]Thanks for sharing that video, paramount. Makes sense to me, too. There is very little reason to believe what we’re being told by our govt.[/quote]

I don’t know which version is accurate, but is there a reason to believe the Russian government over the US government?[/quote]

If you don’t believe the U.S government , since it’s kind of a yes or no deal, that guides one to believe the Russian view. Even if the U.S. is closer to the truth they could be exaggerating quite a bit.

At this point I don’t think most Americans want military action regardless of the facts. The warmongering is demoralizing to this country. It makes it look like we can not succeed on our own merits anymore and that begs lots of other questions…like why?

[SK in CV]

[quote=Blogstar]
If you don’t believe the U.S government , since it’s kind of a yes or no deal, that guides one to believe the Russian view. Even if the U.S. is closer to the truth they could be exaggerating quite a bit.

At this point I don’t think most Americans want military action regardless of the facts. The warmongering is demoralizing to this country. It makes it look like we can not succeed on our own merits anymore and that begs lots of other questions…like why?[/quote]

I agree with this, except the bolded part. I have no idea what you mean. Can you elaborate?

[NotCranky]

Just an example of my tendency to extemporize I guess. I mean ,depending on war to thrive as a nation is a cause for concern about our country’s condition and outlook.

Of course the violence is demoralizing too.

What is potentially demoralizing about the warmongering to you? How do you think that it is demoralizing to the country?

[FlyerInHi]

I don’t think that people are demoralized by the violence. There is after all a strong shoot them up culture here.

People are demoralized by the losses. The public would feel differently if we had convincingly won in Iraq and Afghanistan

Americans just see the losses in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are afraid of a repeat. The public probably also ties the wars to the deepest recession in their lifetimes. Everyone knows someone who’s lost a house.

There is a generational thing at work here, like what happened after Vietnam. The demoralization back then was stronger because of the draft and because our GIs were seen as baby killers. With Iraq, there is a religious anti-muslim tinge. Back in the 1970s Christian evangelicals were not as politically strong.

People won’t openly admit it but they know that our soldiers fought in vain in Iraq. We turned Iraq into a friend of our archenemy, Iran.

People see that democracy in Egypt means a Muslim brotherhood government.

[Author]

Posts