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

[zoomy]

We will have to see. Russia is being cautious and Chinese silent.

[Resurrection Man]

he has spent the last ten years or so trying to distance himself from the Bush that is true.

But unless you are totally privy to everything that he said then and/or wrote then, I don't see how anyone can say that Blix was either this or that. But, at the end of the day, I guess we all have our 'villains'. You have Blix and I have Scarlett.

[carol_fodor]

William Hague has just told the BBC:
"Is it possible to respond to chemical weapons without complete unity on the UN Security Council?

"I would argue that yes, it is, otherwise it might be impossible to respond to such outrages, such crimes."

Does 'yes' mean that another illegal war is only a matter of days away?

[zoomy]

Assad has been winning this war over the summer and this looks like an intervention by the west on the side of the rebels. The pretext is the use of chemical weapons. They may use the Libyan intervention template - imposition of no fly zone or targeted attacks on military installations but leave the rebels to do all the fighting on the ground. The justification will probably develop into protecting attacks on civilians as they did in Libya - so the west can appear to have the moral upper hand.

Exactly what the west wants to get out of this in the end and how they will deal with Russia, I do not know.

[Richard Barrett]

On the other hand...

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.

[Resurrection Man]

On the other hand...

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.

One should point out that this article applies to the incident in May and NOT the latest one.

[Richard Barrett]

One should point out that this article applies to the incident in May and NOT the latest one.

True. But it hardly supports the case for military intervention now, that is to say killing people because they're (supposedly) killing other people with the wrong kind of weapons, which is particularly rich coming from the only country ever to have deployed nuclear weapons in a war.

[zoomy]

Yes a UN official in Geneva - Del Ponte (?) - mentioned in the spring that rebels had used sarin in the war. It seems that the US wants the rebels to attend negotiations with the Assad regime in Geneva, following an earlier Russian proposal. The rebels though, do not want to do this particularly at this time when they are losing the war because they will have fewer seats at the table. The west, led by the European powers (similar to Libya) has resolved to help the rebels and bolster their negotiating position by intervening and this gas attack (if it was an attack at all and whoever did it will soon become immaterial) is the pretext for intervention.

[Nick Armstrong]

William Hague has just told the BBC:
"Is it possible to respond to chemical weapons without complete unity on the UN Security Council?

"I would argue that yes, it is, otherwise it might be impossible to respond to such outrages, such crimes."

Does 'yes' mean that another illegal war is only a matter of days away?

It does all smack of manoeuvring to by-pass 'process' if deemed appropriate or expedient.

[Dave2002]

True. But it hardly supports the case for military intervention now, that is to say killing people because they're (supposedly) killing other people with the wrong kind of weapons, which is particularly rich coming from the only country ever to have deployed nuclear weapons in a war.

It is rather a mess. In many ways I support the USA, but I was reminded recently that the US used some pretty nasty chemical weapons in Vietnam - and napalm of course. I believe there were many victims - rather more than the victims in Syria - though that is not by any means to condone such actions now.

Hopefully the US is moving away from the use of such weapons at all, and they have changed their attitudes since earlier conflicts, but the sad thing is that intervening quite often leads to significant problems, just as letting aggression go unpunished does. Sometimes I think one has to hope for what a friend of mine calls the least worst option.

[Richard Barrett]

Hopefully the US is moving away from the use of such weapons at all, and they have changed their attitudes since earlier conflicts

Hopefully, but almost certainly not...

"Ten years after the start of the U.S. invasion in Iraq, doctors in some of the Middle Eastern nation's cities are witnessing an abnormally high number of cases of cancer and birth defects. Scientists suspect the rise is tied to the use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus in military assaults.

On the war's ten-year anniversary, Democracy Now! spoke with Dahr Jamail, an Al Jazeera reporter who recently returned from Iraq. Jamail recounts meeting Dr. Samira Alani, a doctor in the city of Fallujah focusing on the issue of birth defects.

She said it's common now in Fallujah for newborns to come out with massive multiple systemic defects, immune problems, massive central nervous system problems, massive heart problems, skeletal disorders, babies being born with two heads, babies being born with half of their internal organs outside of their bodies, cyclops babies literally with one eye -- really, really, really horrific nightmarish types of birth defects.

Jamail says that the current rate of birth defects for the city of Fallujah has surpassed those of Hiroshima and Nagasaki after the nuclear attacks at the end of World War II."

[Dave2002]

Hopefully, but almost certainly not...

"Ten years after the start of the U.S. invasion in Iraq, doctors in some of the Middle Eastern nation's cities are witnessing an abnormally high number of cases of cancer and birth defects. Scientists suspect the rise is tied to the use of depleted uranium and white phosphorus in military assaults.

The whole issue of "legality" becomes very questionable where military conflicts are concerned. For instance, it becomes "legal" to target, kill and/or maim members of the "enemy" defence forces, but it is illegal to target, kill and/or maim civilians. However there are always likely to be "accidental" casualties.

Regarding white phosphorus, it appears that it is generally used, or at least intended to be used, for smoke generation purposes, to allow the combatants to move wihout being seen and targeted by the other sides. It does have other effects though, and really should not be targeted at humans. It has incendiary capability, and is also toxic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus

In the case of depleted uranium, this is primarily used in projectile weapons, where it has advantages because of its high density. It is not apparently the intention of DU weapons to cause long term effects - other than those directly targeted, who will presumably be killed almost instantly. DU is also pyrophoric, and radioactive - though arguably at a low level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

Again the legality of DU weapons would appear to be questionable, but they are really not intended to be used against civilians, or indeed directly at any human, but rather against heavily armoured equipment. The radioactive and toxic effects due to DU are frequently discounted, because the intended and devastating short term impact effects from "correct" usage are what matters in military conflicts. Longer term effects due to such potentially dangerous material being left around as debris, where it can affect any human population - perhaps mostly civilians - are not being considered, and there seems unwillingness by most western governments to investigate, or at least to to inform civilian populations of the risks of such material being left around. Presumably to do so would invoke compensation for clear up operations if such material were to be removed and rendered safer.

I was surprised to note that it can be used in aircraft for balancing purposes. Some Boeing 747-100 planes used this, but most modern planes do not use such materials. Presumably it is not considered too hazardous under normal conditions, but if there is a crash then the issues of radiation and toxicity emerge yet again. Such material, or similarly potential toxic or radioactive materials are not permitted in modern civilian aircraft.

[Resurrection Man]

....

Exactly what the west wants to get out of this in the end and how they will deal with Russia, I do not know.

One could be pragmatic and say that they want to try and stop more bloodshed. It is a hard call. It was so much 'simpler' when the Kosovo/Balkans happened. The UN got involved and quite rightly so and I don't think that anyone was mentioning hidden agendas. The trouble is that as soon as the Middle East is the 'battleground' then hidden agendas such as allegedly wanting to destabilise Iran/war on terror/etc/etc start getting discussed.

So are people saying that the UN should simply stand aside and let events take their course in Syria? More bloodshed, more chemical weapon strikes ?

Is the view that if the UN was unanimous (ie Russia and China both supported intervention such as the imposition of a no-fly zone) then that would be OK? But if the UK, US and others go it alone in declaring a no-fly zone then suddenly it is not.

[Richard Barrett]

It was so much 'simpler' when the Kosovo/Balkans happened. The UN got involved

No it didn't. Just to remind you: there was no UN mandate for the bombing of Serbia, which was carried out by NATO and whose effects were mainly to destroy Serbia's infrastructure and detach from it the province of Kosovo (on the grounds that "genocide" was taking place there, which it wasn't), transforming the latter into a US satellite, all in clear violation of international law as well as the UN Charter, whish states "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State". The whole operation was a blatant power grab just as the intended attack on Syria will be.

[Resurrection Man]

No it didn't. Just to remind you: there was no UN mandate for the bombing of Serbia, which was carried out by NATO and whose effects were mainly to destroy Serbia's infrastructure and detach from it the province of Kosovo (on the grounds that "genocide" was taking place there, which it wasn't), transforming the latter into a US satellite, all in clear violation of international law as well as the UN Charter, whish states "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State". The whole operation was a blatant power grab just as the intended attack on Syria will be.

Very selective spin. One of the main reasons for the NATO involvement was to provide a means for 250,000 displaced Albanians to return home. Of these 250,000, 30,000 were out in the woods with winter fast approaching. At the same time there was a concentrated drive by Christopher Hill (US Ambassador) to achieve a solution by diplomatic means.

So we should stand by and do nothing in Syria then? Is that your view?