Gutless. The stench of appeasement

[Mich the Tester]

Oh I don't know, I would maybe prefer nerve agent rather than the slow, painful lingering death of radiation poisoning as experienced by thousands in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or the horrendous pain of surviving 3rd degree burns only to die in agony a few weeks later

Isn't the point actually ' indiscriminate' weapons that are more likely than others to lead to innocent victims? Chemical weapons cause death or permanent maiming of anyone who happens to be downwind of them, as do biological weapons. Firebombs and bombs are almost as indiscriminate, but slightly less so as they can at least be aimed to fall on military targets. Bullets hit approximately what the gun's pointed at, and a soldier can decide whether to point it at an enemy soldier or a child.

[doodab]

On a purely logistical note, how can a missile attack on a stockpile of chemical weapons ensure that whatever it is won't be dispersed into the local area? It seems rather risky to me.

[sasguru]

Isn't the point actually ' indiscriminate' weapons that are more likely than others to lead to innocent victims? Chemical weapons cause death or permanent maiming of anyone who happens to be downwind of them, as do biological weapons. Firebombs and bombs are almost as indiscriminate, but slightly less so as they can at least be aimed to fall on military targets. Bullets hit approximately what the gun's pointed at, and a soldier can decide whether to point it at an enemy soldier or a child.

No, the point is that we're being manipulated into war to boost someone election's prospects on the questionable assumption that using chemical weapons is some kind of super-nasty horribleness, conveniently ignoring "our side's" use of super-nasty horribleness when it suits us.

[Mich the Tester]

On a purely logistical note, how can a missile attack on a stockpile of chemical weapons ensure that whatever it is won't be dispersed into the local area? It seems rather risky to me.

WDS

[Mich the Tester]

No, the point is that we're being manipulated into war to boost someone election's prospects on the questionable assumption that using chemical weapons is some kind of super-nasty horribleness, conveniently ignoring "our side's" use of super-nasty horribleness when it suits us.

I think the use of chemical weapons is indeed 'super nasty horribleness' though, on account of it being almost entirely indiscriminate in its victims. But then there are plenty of weapons of war that fall under ' super nasty horribleness'; rape is rather common approach and mass starvation was a method for the likes of Mengistu, Stalin, Mao, and of course the line up of Kims that have ruled North Korea. I think if we call chemical weapons unacceptable, then mass starvation, through deliberate policy or just abject neglect of duty, could also be considered in the same category.

In this case I am opposed to military intervention today; I may change my mind in the next week if more evidence comes along. I'm afraid that Cameron and Obama have an absolutely horrible decision to take, where they can't hope to get it 'right', but possibly choose the' least wrong' option.

[BlueSharp]

On a purely logistical note, how can a missile attack on a stockpile of chemical weapons ensure that whatever it is won't be dispersed into the local area? It seems rather risky to me.

Bit if you take out the means to deliver the chemical weapons, air fields, missile batteries the chemical weapons are less useful /efficient.

[amcdonald]

There's usually an angle for the Yanks to get involved, namely oil (Irag/Libya) drugs (Afghan), does Syria have any oil?

qh

Or is anyone planning an oil pipeline through Syria, and Assad asked for too much money ?

[sasguru]

There is another argument against Syrian intervention: why does it fall to a close to bankrupt country which is not even the largest in Europe to have to do this? Isn't it time the Germans started to use some of their economic clout to help police the world?

[Mich the Tester]

Napalm's being used now.

How bloody awful. At least Britain is debating this. Vlad Putin could put a stop to it immediately if it really is Assad's forces. Lovely man.

[Mich the Tester]

There is another argument against Syrian intervention: why does it fall to a close to bankrupt country which is not even the largest in Europe to have to do this? Isn't it time the Germans started to use some of their economic clout to help police the world?

How about Putin making a phone call to Assad?