Another Middle East Crisis, Syrian Special "WMD"

[myreality]

Syria crisis, i think we are all getting a bit desensitized to all these conflicts but this time around there seems to be a real concern with the Syrian government using Chemical weapons against the rebels. Obviously they deny it but according to U.S. Intelligence (LOL) the Syrians are moving their known stockpiles to their military sites. They have some really nasty stuff if the U.S. intelligence is to be believed ( mustard agent, Sarin nerve gas, and some variant of the nerve agent VX, among others). I still have a hard time trusting their word since the "Iraq is full of Nuclear and Chemical war heads ready to be used".

I pretty much stopped paying attention to this until i saw the potential use of WMD's in the headlines. Anyone able to shed anymore light on this? I'm sure there is more to it than the media hype machine is reporting.

Nato is set to approve the deployment of Patriot missile interceptors to defend Turkey's border with Syria.

A meeting of the 28-member alliance's foreign ministers in Brussels follows a request from Turkey to boost its defences along the border.

Nato officials have made clear such a move would be purely defensive.

Earlier, US President Barack Obama warned Syrian President Bashar al-Assad he would face "consequences" if he uses chemical weapons against his people.

"The world is watching. The use of chemical weapons is and would be totally unacceptable," said Mr Obama in a speech at the National Defense University in Washington.

"If you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons there will be consequences and you will be held accountable."

A Syrian official has insisted it would "never, under any circumstances" use such weapons, "if such weapons exist".

Rebel gains
A Nato team has already visited a number of sites in Turkey in preparation for the deployment of Patriot batteries, which could be used to shoot down any Syrian missiles or warplanes that stray over the border, says BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale.

The missile deployment is likely to be approved, adds our correspondent, despite opposition from Russia, whose foreign minister is also attending Tuesday's meeting in Brussels.

But analysts say any deployment - possibly supplied by the US, Germany or the Netherlands - could take weeks.

Syrian opposition fighters have reportedly made dramatic gains recently, and several government mortar shells - aimed at rebel targets close to the border - have landed across its 900-km (560-mile) border with Turkey.

Ankara's request for Nato to deploy the anti-missile batteries came after intelligence assessments that Damascus was contemplating using ballistic missiles, potentially armed with chemical warheads, reports say.

Syria is believed to hold chemical weapons - including mustard gas and sarin, a highly toxic nerve agent - at dozens of sites around the country.

The CIA has said those weapons "can be delivered by aircraft, ballistic missile, and artillery rockets".

One unnamed US official told the New York Times on Monday of "potential chemical weapon preparation". The White House says the level of concern was such that Washington is preparing contingency plans.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned against the missile deployment, fearing it would "exacerbate" rather than "defuse" tensions along the border.

Moscow has remained a key ally of Syria during the 22-month conflict, in which activists say more than 40,000 people have died. Ankara now backs the rebels trying to oust Mr Assad.

After talks with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Istanbul on Monday, Mr Putin said the two countries had reached no breakthrough on how to "regulate the situation" in Syria.

But he emphasised that Moscow's backing for Damascus was not the same thing as supporting Mr Assad's regime.

"We are not protecting the Syrian government, we are not its advocate," he said.

On Monday the United Nations said it was pulling "all non-essential international staff" out of Syria, with as many as 25 out of 100 international staff expected to leave this week.

Although the head of the Arab League Nabil al-Arabi told AFP on Monday that the Syrian government could fall "any time", it still holds the capital, parts of the second city Aleppo, and other centres.

Syrian foreign ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi is said to have fled the country, amid reports he has been dismissed, ostensibly for making statements out of line with government policy.

some other related news sites.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...0e2d976fa0c364

US weighing military options if Syria uses WMD

http://rt.com/politics/lavrov-syria-wmd-russia-us-085/

Lavrov blasts western media over Russian WMD to Syria claims

[Mazmaz]

[myreality]

Ugh, the comments on that page is making my head hurt. On another note i am having a hard time believing these claims considering i cannot find any news source outside the country that is supporting the presidents claims with their countries responses. WMD's is one of those things i believe would garner major attention from many countries. The RT is reporting Russia's response to allegations of collaboration with arming Syria but hardly anything about potential use. It is a bit disconcerting that the U.S. may very well use the same lies they used back in 2003 to initiate another war. Of course it is speculation at this point on my part, but i am a bit of a cynic when i start seeing a recurring pattern. On the other hand i am very curious on what the American people would do if this does happen and no weapons were found.

[ringthree]

I highly doubt that Obama would preempt at chemical weapons attack, but NATO and the US would intervene in the event of an actual chem attack.

I do have a question though: Are you doubting the context of our intervention, if there is one? Or are you doubting the existence of chemical weapons in Syria?

[Byrthnoth]

Probs just more fear mongering by an incumbent going for reelection. O wait....

[Andalusian girls]

same lies ? if Assad uses chemical weapons against his own people we're going to fuck him up, if he doesn't Obama will continue his policy of non-intervention

he's not saying hey let's regime change this nigga cause he has nukes and started 9/11. he's warning Damascus to be chill and remain chill even as the war turns against them.

[Outlaw]

I really hope this doesn't turn into another Iraq. I am against us intervening under any circumstances even if they use chemical weapons. I don't get that anyhow. They have killed tens of thousands of their own people already with bombs and bullets, but if they start doing it with chemical weapons that changes things?

[ringthree]

I really hope this doesn't turn into another Iraq. I am against us intervening under any circumstances even if they use chemical weapons. I don't get that anyhow. They have killed tens of thousands of their own people already with bombs and bullets, but if they start doing it with chemical weapons that changes things?

It may seem a little weird, but there are distinct redlines that are generally accepted by the international community that would justify external use of force in the conflict. Russia would have a very hard time defending their position in supporting Damascus if Assad were to use chemical weapons, because even they support the norm against WMD usage.

[Acevalefor]

I really hope this doesn't turn into another Iraq. I am against us intervening under any circumstances even if they use chemical weapons. I don't get that anyhow. They have killed tens of thousands of their own people already with bombs and bullets, but if they start doing it with chemical weapons that changes things?

Of course it changes things. Chemical weapons is a hot button for the world and it is immoral to use them. Bullets and bombs are ok because they kill less people with each use than chemical weapons do. Don't you know that less is more?

[Andalusian girls]

bombs and guns kill you just as dead but chemical warfare leads to this



totally indiscriminate, civilians are devastated when used in populated areas, their use can rapidly spiral out of control in a way conventional weaponry doesn't

the world hasn't outlawed their use just because of the lolz

[Outlaw]

It may seem a little weird, but there are distinct redlines that are generally accepted by the international community that would justify external use of force in the conflict. Russia would have a very hard time defending their position in supporting Damascus if Assad were to use chemical weapons, because even they support the norm against WMD usage.

Oh I understand. It's just we really need to stop being the world's police force. Especially in the middle east. I don't like the idea that certain countries (NATO members) think that we have to get involved with other conflicts.

[Acevalefor]

Oh I understand. It's just we really need to stop being the world's police force. Especially in the middle east. I don't like the idea that certain countries (NATO members) think that we have to get involved with other conflicts.

I've contemplated a few times what would happen if the US did not get involved in international conflicts and let them play out.

I read an opinion piece from one of the editors on Aljazeera several months ago that talked about how the fear of American and/or NATO intervention is what kept the middle east from melting down into a perpetual war zone. I chuckled a little at the sentiment because I feel, from an American point of view, that our involvement in conflicts, especially civil uprisings during the "Arab Spring", has perpetuated the unrest. I believe America has been a constant catalyst for the last 60 years of warfare in the middle east. Prior to that, I don't know who to blame.

[ringthree]

bombs and guns kill you just as dead but chemical warfare leads to this



totally indiscriminate, civilians are devastated when used in populated areas, their use can rapidly spiral out of control in a way conventional weaponry doesn't

the world hasn't outlawed their use just because of the lolz

Ummm, the CWC?

[ronin sparthos]

Maybe this time we'll actually find the Saren and VX nerve gas.

Seriously though, Assad really might deploy the chemical weapons as a last ditch "fuck you" to the whole world as he's got very little to lose if the war is going so poorly that they have to start mixin' the nasties. We gotta prevent those weapons from being funneled into the black market terrorists might deploy them in our cities etc etc etc. Whatever justification puts some America: Fuck Yeah in play.

Hopefully I don't think Obama isn't stupid enough to protract this into another nation building adventure though we might have put people on the ground to secure the chemical weapons which means maintaining some sort of presence and will probably lure in every jihadist that's poured into Syria itching to kill.

[Outlaw]

While scenes like in that video are horrible I still think we shouldn't be involved. I know that sounds cruel. The thing is.. err.. how to explain.. we are never going to be able to make middle eastern countries "play nice" right now according to western values. It's a losing battle. If we do it's just going to turn into a mess that will have wider consequences.

[Azull]

We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Since we lose either way we should help just for the protection of the innocent.

[ronin sparthos]

Ultimately Washington is more worried about the fate of those chemical weapons than the people on the ground. We already came to the conclusion the people were expendable the second we decided to sit out of this little civil war.

If/When the regime collapses the chem weapons could vanish and you've got an international incident where shit gets smuggled all over the place. No bueno for America: Fuck Yeah.

[ringthree]

While scenes like in that video are horrible I still think we shouldn't be involved. I know that sounds cruel. The thing is.. err.. how to explain.. we are never going to be able to make middle eastern countries "play nice" right now according to western values. It's a losing battle. If we do it's just going to turn into a mess that will have wider consequences.

If you think the only reason we intervene is for peace, then you are sadly misunderstanding the reason we intervene.

I don't know when we are going to intervene, or if we will, but I pretty much agree with Ronin's assessment.

[Andalusian girls]

Ultimately Washington is more worried about the fate of those chemical weapons than the people on the ground. We already came to the conclusion the people were expendable the second we decided to sit out of this little civil war.

If/When the regime collapses the chem weapons could vanish and you've got an international incident where shit gets smuggled all over the place. No bueno for America: Fuck Yeah.

no bueno for anyone

unless you are of the belief the one thing Islamists lack is a way to kill larger amounts of people

[Andalusian girls]

We are damned if we do and damned if we don't. Since we lose either way we should help just for the protection of the innocent.

and p much this. we unilaterally intervene (we've already tried every possible way we can to get a U.N. intervention but gogo security council veto) we are war-mongering, nation building, policemen of the world. we don't intervene and we don't care about the people on the ground, don't care about anything but oil and terrorists.

we get shit for Somalia and Libya and we get shit for Syria and Rwanda. personally i don't give much of a good God damn what praise or blame we get and think we should have intervened in Syria a long time ago leading a joint NATO / Arab League mission but it is unfortunately true we are basically always in a no-win position when it comes to foreign intervention