Damascus gas attack - who did it and how will the west spin it ?

[ahinton]

You only need a very small amount of chemical weaponry to unleash a devastating attack.

That's true, of course, but when I wrote "severely depleted" I meant - rather obviously, I'd have thought - sufficiently depleted as pretty much to neuter the capability of any remaining stockpile to the extent of immobilising it for any uses other than very small localised ones; in other words, if the inspectors and those who carry out the removal do their jobs properly, there will be so little if any left that the damage that their subsequent use could inflict would be minimal.

[ahinton]

Why dive off on a tangent? We are specifically talking about Syria's chemical weapons. Just because the US isn't exactly squeaky clean (and probably goes for many other countries if you can be bothered to go back far enough) is not a reason for distracting from the matter in hand.

Syria and Russia have played a brilliant hand....the cynic in me says that it is going to drag on and on and on. there will be excuse after excuse not to comply ..meanwhile the war continues.....looks as if Syria regime might be getting a bit of an upper hand which of course delights Russia.

OK, so what do you suggest as a solution, bearing in mind the fact that, even now that the likelihood that the totality or at least the majority of chemical weapons in Syria is and has been under the régime's control has pretty much been established, this is not a simple "Assad régime bad, all others good"? If we're talking about chemical weaponry as being "bad", regardless of whose hands it's in, wouldn't it be necessary for that threat - in the form of those weapons - to be removed? If so, how would going in with all guns blazing achieve that? The problems in Syria might well drag on and on and on as you suggest, even if the chemical weaponry problem itself is successfully put beyond use, but that's largely because of the sheer complexity of the problem, exacerbated in no small part by the multiplicity of factions, some solely internal and others sponsored in whole or in part from outside Syria itself. I do accept that even successfully dispensing with the chemical weapons issue (if that be possible) will only be the beginning of solving Syria's problems as a whole, but that doesn't make attainment of that initial goal any less important.

[zoomy]

I am sure that Syria will fully comply with this agreement that has been brokered by Russia (and Iran). They would be foolish not to since it basically gives them a green light to win the civil war against the rebels. Russia retains Syria as a key ally in the region and Obama does not have to face a defeat in congress on his military strike motion. Assad has also apparently had assurances from the US that they will not try to pin any future chemical weapons attacks on Assad, as long as he complies with the agreement.

[ahinton]

I am sure that Syria will fully comply with this agreement that has been brokered by Russia (and Iran). They would be foolish not to since it basically gives them a green light to win the civil war against the rebels. Russia retains Syria as a key ally in the region and Obama does not have to face a defeat in congress on his military strike motion. Assad has also apparently had assurances from the US that they will not try to pin any future chemical weapons attacks on Assad, as long as he complies with the agreement.

In a way, I hope that you are right but, as I wrote above, the placing of chemical weapons beyond use, even if largely successful, will do no more than scratch the surface of the Syrian problem as a whole, though that in no wise undermines the need for this as a first step to achieve.

[Mr Pee]

Assad has also apparently had assurances from the US that they will not try to pin any future chemical weapons attacks on Assad, as long as he complies with the agreement.

Well, that's quite a statement, and it is the word "apparently" that makes me doubt its veracity. And do, pray, explain to me exactly how Assad would be complying with the agreement if he then goes on to carry out another attack......

[amateur51]

Fine words indeed. But also an excuse for Assad to hide and disguise some of his arsenal, which I am sure he has started doing already, and to delay, re-group, and find other ways of wriggling out of fulfilling such a commitment. And after the pathetic dithering of the last few weeks, I very much doubt that he will take any threat of military action seriously.

How are you sure of this?

[Resurrection Man]

It's not a tangent at all
Just that its important to know that some of the folks who might be trying to be "world police" aren't "squeaky clean"
this matters because there are some very unpleasant people in the world who will (and in some ways you can't blame them !) use this as justification for all sorts of horrible things. The fact that Israel possesses nuclear weapons and is allowed to get away with it (for example) becomes a justification for people to commit acts of terrorism etc etc

It most definitely is a tangent but I have to accept that it is usually your line of 'reasoning'.....such as it is. Throw in a random red herring, usually 'police brutality', Mendendez, Thatcher, anything at all, as if it makes any relevance to the topic in question.

Bizarre.

[Resurrection Man]

How are you sure of this?

As sure as anyone else can be as far as the majority of posts in this thread are concerned.

[ahinton]

As sure as anyone else can be as far as the majority of posts in this thread are concerned.

On the strength of what evidence, RM?

[Mr Pee]

How are you sure of this?

What else do you think he would have been doing with it? Piling it up outside the UN? <D'Oh!>

[Mr Pee]

It most definitely is a tangent but I have to accept that it is usually your line of 'reasoning'.....such as it is. Throw in a random red herring, usually 'police brutality', Mendendez, Thatcher, anything at all, as if it makes any relevance to the topic in question.

Bizarre.

<Thumbs up>

[ahinton]

It most definitely is a tangent but I have to accept that it is usually your line of 'reasoning'.....such as it is.

Meaning one that you don't like.

Throw in a random red herring, usually 'police brutality', Mendendez, Thatcher, anything at all, as if it makes any relevance to the topic in question.

Mr GG stated, quite simply, that it was as well for people to know and accept tht, just as the national police are not entirely "squeaky clean", nor are the "world police" - i.e. those who act as though international police officers. He threw in no herrings of any colour - only you have done that in your response. He did not mention Thatcher or this "Mendendez", whoever that might be; indeed, the only illustration that he provided was that of Israel getting away with possesstion nuclear weaponry which, far from being a distraction of any kind, is wholly relevant in the present context

Bizarre.

Yes, that's pretty much how I'd describe your response.

[ahinton]

<Thumbs up>

Please don't do that again, Mr Pee; we don't want you dropping your clarinet, do we?...

[MrGongGong]

It most definitely is a tangent but I have to accept that it is usually your line of 'reasoning'.....such as it is. Throw in a random red herring, usually 'police brutality', Mendendez, Thatcher, anything at all, as if it makes any relevance to the topic in question.

Bizarre.

Of course you are right

along the lines of

two anecdotes = evidence
red herring = an argument you don't agree with

bizarre indeed ...... now scoot over to pee he's dropped the green clarinet

[ahinton]

Of course you are right

along the lines of

two anecdotes = evidence
red herring = an argument you don't agree with

bizarre indeed ...... now scoot over to pee he's dropped the green clarinet

At the risk of creating a temporary diversion, as I recall seeing something about a green clarinet ages ago and didn't trouble to ascertain its origins then, could you explain the colour now that you've raised it again? Thanks in advance.