Irrefutable evidence that Assad forces used chemical weapons

[ido_]

What I cant figure out is why Assad would use chemical weapons at this point. Just not sure how pissing off the world and risking devastating allied air strikes helps him in any way. It is the rebels that stand to gain here, so it strikes me as completely plausible that they might have been behind the attack.

According to the Israeli intelligence, Assad have been using chemical weapons in the past (they first confirmed it 6 months ago). The only difference is that up till now he was maintaining low civilian casualties. The experts say this was probably an operational error made by his chemical weapons unit which caused the 1600 death toll in civilian population.

 

[Captain Adverse]

1. We need to send a message that the use of chemical weapons in any conflict is totally unacceptable. Whichever side used them, whether it be al-Nusra or Assad, should face military consequences.

2. I would agree with you that it's not our job to interfere in the affairs of a "sovereign nation," were it not for the fact that what happens in other nations does impact what happens here. We learned in the years preceding WWII that allowing other nations to do practically whatever they want will come back to haunt us. We don't think Syria matters right now, but just think of the dire consequences of al-Qaeda or Hezbollah getting their hands on chemical weapons. Nations don't exist in vacuums.

3. Our presence in Syria would be to counterbalance the interference of our rivals in the civil war - Russia, China, and Iran - all of whom have helped the Assad regime to some extent despite it not being "their business." If they have interfered, it's no longer us just being the "world's policeman."

Every one of your "arguments" would serve to justify any other nation in the world acting similarly if they had the power and desire to interfere HERE in the USA. In fact it is the EXACT type of logic used by every single terrorist group that has been doing so, since they do not have the military power to act as overtly as we do.

Sorry, I am sick and tired of these variations of "might makes right" arguments interventionists consistently use. We have WMD's and we have proven we are not afraid to use them. We have conventional weapons and we have proven we are not afraid to use them. Up until 1993 we had a massive stockpile of chemical weapons and despite our promise to get rid of them all by 2012 we still have about 10% of that original stockpile yet to be disposed of. Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

God only knows how many biological weapons we have squirriled away at CDC and USAMRIID "research" sites.

This civil war has been going on for 2 years with over 100,000 casualties, but only NOW we choose to interfere because of 1400 chemical casualties? Casualties that may have been caused by the rebels and not the government, yet we choose to attack the government anyway??

We have no moral high ground in this issue, nor any real "national interests" at threat. You appeal to emotion just won't fly.

 

[[]D e e v e s]

but only NOW we choose to interfere because of 1400 chemical casualties?

If Syria is a signatory to the The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) it has broken the law. That, not the numbers, is the contributing point for punishing Assad.

(CWC)-is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. Its full name is the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. The agreement is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is an independent organization based in the Hague, in the Netherlands.

The main obligation under the convention is the prohibition of use and production of chemical weapons, as well as the destruction of all chemical weapons. The destruction activities are verified by the OPCW. As of January 2013, around 78% of the (declared) stockpile of chemical weapons has thus been destroyed.[5][6] The convention also has provisions for systematic evaluation of chemical and military plants, as well as for investigations of allegations of use and production of chemical weapons based on intelligence of other state parties.

As of June 2013, 189 states are party to the CWC, and another two countries (Israel and Myanmar) have signed but not yet ratified the convention.[1]

 

[MadLib]

Every one of your "arguments" would serve to justify any other nation in the world acting similarly if they had the power and desire to interfere HERE in the USA. In fact it is the EXACT type of logic used by every single terrorist group that has been doing so, since they do not have the military power to act as overtly as we do.

That we're using chemical weapons against our own civilians? That we're a puppet dictatorship of a rogue state? Not really :lol:

Sorry, I am sick and tired of these variations of "might makes right" arguments interventionists consistently use.

Then it's good that I'm not making those arguments.

We have WMD's and we have proven we are not afraid to use them. We have conventional weapons and we have proven we are not afraid to use them. Up until 1993 we had a massive stockpile of chemical weapons and despite our promise to get rid of them all by 2012 we still have about 10% of that original stockpile yet to be disposed of. Chemical Weapons Convention - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

God only knows how many biological weapons we have squirriled away at CDC and USAMRIID "research" sites.

Alright, so we have some? Do you think we're likely to use it in the near future on civilians? Everybody knows that Assad has chems, we're intervening because we think that he used them.

This civil war has been going on for 2 years with over 100,000 casualties, but only NOW we choose to interfere because of 1400 chemical casualties?

I agree. We should have intervened earlier, when the rebels had less of a Salafi influence and when Assad was raining conventional weapons upon ci

Casualties that may have been caused by the rebels and not the government, yet we choose to attack the government anyway??

If the rebels did it, they should be punished too. I don't think the rebels did it.

We have no moral high ground in this issue, nor any real "national interests" at threat. You appeal to emotion just won't fly.

I can elaborate on both a moral high ground and on several interests that we have in this conflict, and they'd certainly be less emotive than "it's NONE of our BUSINESS!!11!!1!!"