Syria Gas Attack- What Now?

Technically both these cases were pre WWII (by a few days) also but...

"Am 20. September habe ich in Jaslo 10 deutsche Soldaten untersucht, und
bei 9 von ihnen mit Sicherheit die Folgen von Gelbkreuz-Vergiftung
festgestellt, während beim zehnten die Rescheinungen nicht mehr so
ausgesprochen waren, daß man hätte die Diagnose mit Sicherheit stellen
können. Beim den 9 Erkrankenten mit sicheren Symptomen waren
Veränderungen der Haut von so typischem Aussehen und solche
Lokalisation, daß es sich unzweifelhaft um eine Vergiftung mit einem
Gift aus der Gelbkreuz-Grupe handeln muß, die vor etwas mehr als einer
Woche stattgefunden muß. (...) Das vorherrschen der Hautsymptome führt
zu der Annahme, daß das Gift der sogenannte Lost-Kampfstoff
(Dichlordiaethylsulfid - Yperit) sein muß."

It was signed: Berlin, den 21 (!). September 1939".

"On September 20th 1939 I examined 10 german soldiers in Jaslo and with 9 of them I diagnosed implications of toxication with mustard gas for sure. With the 10th soldier however the symptoms were not that downright to tell safely. With the 9 patients to show certain symptoms, changes of the skin with that typical appearance and site were that obvious that the toxication undoubtedly had to be the kind of such with a poison from the mustard gas group. The exposure to the gas should have occured a little more than a week ago. (...) The endemism of the main symptoms leads to the assumption that the poison had to be the so-called Lost warfare agent (Dichlordiaethylsulfid - Yperit)."

http://www.cbwinfo.com/Chemical/Blister/HD.shtml

In 1939, Polish troops used chemical training mines containing diluted mustard agent to mine a bridge near Jaslo, injuring 14 German soldiers. It is unclear whether this was a mistake or an attempt at retaliation for the reported use of chemical bombs by the Germans in Warsaw (on September 3, 1939, a number of sulfur mustard-containing bombs were dropped on a Warsaw suburb - the Germans aknowledged this in 1942, indicating it was accidental). The Germans may also have used mustard gas-containing munitions on a few occasions in the Crimea and elsewhere in Poland, but these appear to have either been genuine mistakes or instances of low-level commanders acting without authority.
 
That is the fear and that's why I want to go after the stock piles now. Get rid of the stock piles and I won't care who wins or loses. My concern is the rebels eventually win and those stock piles get exported to every bad guy in the world.

Your second point is right on. I don't think Obama ever wanted to be involved in Syria but was painted into a corner. With him asking congress to give the OK he gets his out and we won't end up doing anything at least at this point.

His own big mouth painted him in there. He did the same thing he always does, mouths off before he knows the facts of the situation.
 
My input, if the US stays out the govt gets criticised, if it goes in same again, if the US shows restraint same deal. IMHO this administration is doing things correctly by staying out. It's like the 30 Years War in Europe some time ago now, nobody won. Let the Arabs sort it out themselves.
Also, the Gavlak report sounds credible, she's been in The ME for 20 years. So the US would be wise to reconsider.
 
Why do you keep telling me about this civil war? Do you not think I understand that point? In my first post that you quoted I said nothing about getting involved in the civil war I said you use it as an EXCUSE to take out there chemical weapons stock piles. In the second post I said nothing about getting involved in the civil war and said basically when the House votes to stop any involvement in Syria it alleviates any future "why doesn't the President do something here" talk and it becomes "why doesn't congress do something" which makes it a brilliant move for Obama. Regardless if we get involved or not this issue isn't going away anytime soon.

If you had read my post earlier in this thread I argued against getting involved in these middle east civil wars because you can't win but that still doesn't mean that civil war is the only issue on the table. There are other considerations and we should look at them as well and see if there is something that we can do to make a positive outcome. Destroying Syria's chemical weapon stockpiles is one of those issues we can deal with and then walk away. It doesn't take boots on the ground, it's relatively inexpensive and causalities will be very limited. It's a good ROI to prevent a case were the rebels win down the road and take control of those stock piles.
Fair enough. I continued to mention it because I had the impression that the fact this doesn't involve us or anyone else was indeed lost on you. Perhaps I was wrong in that respect.

The complexities of an attack were already addressed by others. Among a host of issues, not the least of which are the limitations of airpower, there is no effective mechanism to verify destruction with the guys amlove1 mentioned on the ground. Regardless, that's not a reason the President is citing as a possible reason to attack.

As for positive outcome? There are no sides to cheer for. Both sides are bad guys...which leads back to my impressions above. Your argument seems to be based on the conclusion that we must do something, so, let's go down the stockpile route. That doesn't wash. There is absolutely no compelling reason for us to be involved. We truly don't need to do anything there right now.
 
After hearing what The President had to say this morning and what several members of Congress had to say what are everyone's thoughts now?
 
After hearing what The President had to say this morning and what several members of Congress had to say what are everyone's thoughts now?
Unwavered. A compelling argument as to why this requires any U.S. involvement has yet to be made.
 
Hagel + Kerry = Scary.

The only thing dumber than killing Syrians (Islamic extremists) killing Syrians is going in and killing more Syrians.

No, wait......Breaking news: "The United States has outlined their exact plan and time table for assaulting Syria. Here are all the units involved, their exact locations and the operations order for the order of battle."

:rolleyes:
 
I find it (truly less than) funny that the congress is contemplating a "limited strike" or "strike across the bow" that will send him a signal that we are serious.

Someone remind me how many times we tried that with Saddam during the Clinton admin?

Next I want to know how we control the Chem Weapons without putting boots on the ground, in the event that Assad is deposed.
 
I find it (truly less than) funny that the congress is contemplating a "limited strike" or "strike across the bow" that will send him a signal that we are serious.

Someone remind me how many times we tried that with Saddam during the Clinton admin?

Next I want to know how we control the Chem Weapons without putting boots on the ground, in the event that Assad is deposed.


as to the first question... way too many.

blow up the entire country?
 
...blow up the entire country?

I would stay out of it unless we are dedicated RIGHT NOW to doing whatever needs to be done to finish it off - we have proven over the last 11 years in Astan that we are neutered where it comes to killing the enemy.

Furthermore, Gen Dempsey is a real cock sucker. The last time he saw a target of opportunity it was a gloryhole at the Blue Oyster.
 
I would stay out of it unless we are dedicated RIGHT NOW to doing whatever needs to be done to finish it off - we have proven over the last 11 years in Astan that we are neutered where it comes to killing the enemy.

Furthermore, Gen Dempsey is a real cock sucker. The last time he saw a target of opportunity it was a gloryhole at the Blue Oyster.


I didn't say it would happen, but that it would be the best solution - chem weapons are too easily hidden to find without the search by hand ...
 
Back
Top