4 ms·

"There is every reason to believe [sarin gas] was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patro

"There is every reason to believe [sarin gas] was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists." Obama asserted something quite different in last night's address. He stated that the Syrian army distributed gas masks to their soldiers before the attacks, that documents show Syrian generals reviewing the results after the attack, and that they planned to continue and expand the attack after the initial wave of gas was used. I would tend to believe Obama because he is much more credible than Putin, and has much more to lose if he can't produce evidence to support his claims. Despite Putin's call for transparency, the fact remains that he is unwilling to tell the truth about what happened. Syria broke one of the most important international laws that we have, which is the ban of chemical weapons. If they aren't punished, then we are telling the world that it is OK to use chemical weapons. Putin claims that the United States' position with Iran will be weakened if we intervene. The opposite is clearly true; our prior negotiations with Syria over their acquisition of chemical weapons in many ways mirrors our ongoing negotiations with Iran. We told Syria there was a red line and they crossed it. If we don't intervene in Syria, we are effectively telling Iran that our word is meaningless. Putin's claims that an intervention will cause an escalation of the conflict and more terrorism are simply not true. The goal would not be to upset the balance of power or to cripple the Syrian army in any way. Our objective would be to prevent the Syrian army from using chemical weapons again, and show the world that chemical weapons are unacceptable. Intervention would lower the risk of chemical weapons being used in the future, help discourage nuclear proliferation, and prevent the U.S.'s credibility in the region from being destroyed.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
untog 13y ago
I would tend to believe Obama because he is much more credible than Putin, and has much more to lose if he can't produce evidence to support his claims. I'm sure plenty of people will jump on some kind of "LOL you trust Obama?!?" bandwagon, but I agree with you. But. I think we've seen the NSA as an example of a government body out of control. I don't believe anyone in power knew the full extent of what they were doing - after all, why risk telling Obama when you already have all the money and leverage you need anyway? My roundabout conclusion is this - I don't see any reason why the US does not declassify at least some of this evidence. Because I don't trust that vested interests haven't manipulated things in order to get what they want.
mcphilip 13y ago
>I would tend to believe Obama because he is much more credible than Putin, and has much more to lose if he can't produce evidence to support his claims. >Despite Putin's call for transparency, the fact remains that he is unwilling to tell the truth about what happened. You've made quite a jump to go from one sentence arguing that Obama is more credible than Putin to (indirectly) calling Putin a liar. From what I've read, the following claims have been made by the Obama administration [1]: 1) Possess satellite imagery showing rockets firing from a location controlled by the Syrian army. 2) Transcripts of Syrian officials telling forces to ready gas masks. 3) Transcripts of Syrian officials discussing how to handle U.N. investigators inspecting the aftermath. If the evidence is as clear as Obama is trying to make it appear, why not have an independent body from the U.N. review the evidence? Maybe this is already in the works, but I've seen no mention of it. [1]http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2021795842_apusunitedstatessyriafactcheck.html http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2021795842_apusuniteds...
- idProQuo 13y ago
  >If the evidence is as clear as Obama is trying to make it appear, why not have an independent body from the U.N. review the evidence? The thought is that Russia will find a way to veto the proposal no matter what, because they have financial interests in Syria.
Demiurge 13y ago
Aside from the rest of your comment... >Syrian army distributed gas masks to their soldiers before the attacks gas mask are for defense more so than for attack, giving those out is totally reasonable if they feared the insurgence could use gas. using this as an argument is playing to ignorance.
- cdash 13y ago
  Gas masks don't even protect you from sarin, skin contact is deadly.
  - Turtles2230 13y ago
    Depends on the concentration in the air. The concentration required to be lethal via inhalation may be vastly less than to be lethal via absorption through the skin, and therefore a mask may be the difference between life and death.
  - varjag 13y ago
    In Soviet Army the gas masks were always used along with OZK (common troop protection kit), which is basically a full body rubber suit. It's reasonable to expect that Russian-drilled, chemical weapons possessing Syrian military has the same procedure. These suits are even cheaper than the gas masks.
mcantelon 13y ago
Obama is the front man for the military and intelligence establishment. If you're deeming him credible, you're deeming them credible. And this may not be wise looking back to Iraq: the yellowcake uranium fiasco, the bogus informant (Curveball), and the same pretext: concern over illegal weaponry.
nikcub 13y ago
> Syria broke one of the most important international laws that we have Syria are not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention (neither are the USA, Israel or Russia) which is why Kerry has chosen his words carefully and described what the Syrian government did as against international norms, not laws. > The goal would not be to upset the balance of power or to cripple the Syrian army in any way This is the part of US foreign policy that perplexes me. On one hand you argue that what Syria has done is outrageous, breaks international law, is a threat to American children if not met with force - but on the other hand you argue that its not important enough to risk troops on, and you won't hit them too hard.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Syria are not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention (neither are the USA, Israel or Russia) The US, Russia and Israel most certainly are signatories to the CWC. US and Russia both ratified in 1997, Israel has signed but not ratified. The CWC had the force of law once it had 65 signatories. Why would you not bother to check such a simple fact before posting? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Chemical_Weapons_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Chemical...
  - teamgb 13y ago
    Why won't Israel ratify? Does Israel have chemical weapons? Maybe there should be a UN resolution requiring all countries in the Middle East to declare and destroy their chemical weapons under UN supervision.
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      I have no idea and have never even been to Israel. I'm just reporting the fact; if you're curious, you can easily research it yourself. The CWC requires all countries, everywhere, to declare and destroy their chemical weapons.
zmmmmm 13y ago
> Obama asserted something quite different in last night's address. The image of Colin Powell being sent with his slides full of incontrovertible "evidence", like a lamb to the slaughter to the UN to justify the Iraq invasion has left me scarred for life such that I can never trust again such so called "evidence" unless it comes from a multiplicity of neutral sources, most especially somewhere other than the US government. I don't care what the President may have said. He was fed it by the same military-industrial establishment that stands to benefit to the tune of billions (or even hundreds of billions) of dollars every time a major war breaks out. Probably the same high level advisors that came up with the idea Iraq was a "slam dunk", and fed into the willing ears of the bush administration.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

untog 13y ago

I would tend to believe Obama because he is much more credible than Putin, and has much more to lose if he can't produce evidence to support his claims. I'm sure plenty of people will jump on some kind of "LOL you trust Obama?!?" bandwagon, but I agree with you. But. I think we've seen the NSA as an example of a government body out of control. I don't believe anyone in power knew the full extent of what they were doing - after all, why risk telling Obama when you already have all the money and leverage you need anyway? My roundabout conclusion is this - I don't see any reason why the US does not declassify at least some of this evidence. Because I don't trust that vested interests haven't manipulated things in order to get what they want.

mcphilip 13y ago

>I would tend to believe Obama because he is much more credible than Putin, and has much more to lose if he can't produce evidence to support his claims. >Despite Putin's call for transparency, the fact remains that he is unwilling to tell the truth about what happened. You've made quite a jump to go from one sentence arguing that Obama is more credible than Putin to (indirectly) calling Putin a liar. From what I've read, the following claims have been made by the Obama administration [1]: 1) Possess satellite imagery showing rockets firing from a location controlled by the Syrian army. 2) Transcripts of Syrian officials telling forces to ready gas masks. 3) Transcripts of Syrian officials discussing how to handle U.N. investigators inspecting the aftermath. If the evidence is as clear as Obama is trying to make it appear, why not have an independent body from the U.N. review the evidence? Maybe this is already in the works, but I've seen no mention of it. [1]http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2021795842_apusunitedstatessyriafactcheck.html http://seattletimes.com/html/politics/2021795842_apusuniteds...

idProQuo 13y ago
>If the evidence is as clear as Obama is trying to make it appear, why not have an independent body from the U.N. review the evidence? The thought is that Russia will find a way to veto the proposal no matter what, because they have financial interests in Syria.

Demiurge 13y ago

Aside from the rest of your comment... >Syrian army distributed gas masks to their soldiers before the attacks gas mask are for defense more so than for attack, giving those out is totally reasonable if they feared the insurgence could use gas. using this as an argument is playing to ignorance.

cdash 13y ago
Gas masks don't even protect you from sarin, skin contact is deadly.
- Turtles2230 13y ago
  Depends on the concentration in the air. The concentration required to be lethal via inhalation may be vastly less than to be lethal via absorption through the skin, and therefore a mask may be the difference between life and death.
- varjag 13y ago
  In Soviet Army the gas masks were always used along with OZK (common troop protection kit), which is basically a full body rubber suit. It's reasonable to expect that Russian-drilled, chemical weapons possessing Syrian military has the same procedure. These suits are even cheaper than the gas masks.

mcantelon 13y ago

Obama is the front man for the military and intelligence establishment. If you're deeming him credible, you're deeming them credible. And this may not be wise looking back to Iraq: the yellowcake uranium fiasco, the bogus informant (Curveball), and the same pretext: concern over illegal weaponry.

nikcub 13y ago

> Syria broke one of the most important international laws that we have Syria are not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention (neither are the USA, Israel or Russia) which is why Kerry has chosen his words carefully and described what the Syrian government did as against international norms, not laws. > The goal would not be to upset the balance of power or to cripple the Syrian army in any way This is the part of US foreign policy that perplexes me. On one hand you argue that what Syria has done is outrageous, breaks international law, is a threat to American children if not met with force - but on the other hand you argue that its not important enough to risk troops on, and you won't hit them too hard.

anigbrowl 13y ago
Syria are not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention (neither are the USA, Israel or Russia) The US, Russia and Israel most certainly are signatories to the CWC. US and Russia both ratified in 1997, Israel has signed but not ratified. The CWC had the force of law once it had 65 signatories. Why would you not bother to check such a simple fact before posting? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Chemical_Weapons_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Chemical...
- teamgb 13y ago
  Why won't Israel ratify? Does Israel have chemical weapons? Maybe there should be a UN resolution requiring all countries in the Middle East to declare and destroy their chemical weapons under UN supervision.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    I have no idea and have never even been to Israel. I'm just reporting the fact; if you're curious, you can easily research it yourself. The CWC requires all countries, everywhere, to declare and destroy their chemical weapons.

zmmmmm 13y ago

> Obama asserted something quite different in last night's address. The image of Colin Powell being sent with his slides full of incontrovertible "evidence", like a lamb to the slaughter to the UN to justify the Iraq invasion has left me scarred for life such that I can never trust again such so called "evidence" unless it comes from a multiplicity of neutral sources, most especially somewhere other than the US government. I don't care what the President may have said. He was fed it by the same military-industrial establishment that stands to benefit to the tune of billions (or even hundreds of billions) of dollars every time a major war breaks out. Probably the same high level advisors that came up with the idea Iraq was a "slam dunk", and fed into the willing ears of the bush administration.