Syria

[Valandil]

Oh my goodness... here we go again!

[Mari]

Yes, and I'm still not convinced it was Assad, though I do believe it's likely.

[Insidious Rex]

The gas came from territory controlled by the Syrian regime not the rebels. And according to Kerry, the US had been monitoring the "active movement" of chemical weapons for three days prior, whatever that means. So it seems unlikely that it was the rebels trying to draw us in or something but anything is possible. The issue is if we (the US) do strike them and they do it again will we be forced to escalate or just sit on our hands in embarrassment?

[The Gaffer]

My concerns are:

1) where does the intelligence come from about this?

I remember Colin Powell presenting "evidence" to the UN about WMDs that turned out to be a pile of stinky old pork pies. Tony Blair and the dodgy dossier etc. Quite rightly, people are highly sceptical about all of this.

2) even if it was the government, what is the right response?

We have to think about the consequences, and whether justice is being served. Are we happy that innocent people are going to be killed by our punitive action? What about if it was your innocent relatives that were going to die?

Again, I think ordinary people get this, it's the morons that run the show that don't seem to.

3) Are we just lobbing a few missiles in to make ourselves feel better?

[Earniel]

True, I hope the world will be a a little less trusting now if it comes to intelligence of illegal weapon use. We've been there before. That chemical weapons have been used is clear, who did it not so much.

I don't know whether military engaging in Syria is going to be the right action. I don't like Assad and his rethoric, but the rebels haven't scored any sympathy points with me either. Frankly, I can see both groups resorting to chemical warfare.

But removing Assad is not going to stabilise the country at all, that much appears certain. If the world moves in, it better be prepared to camp out in Syria for years to come.

[mithrand1r]

Meddling in the affairs of other nations/people is a serious matter.

It is expensive for the intervening nation.

Regardless of the reason for intervening, people in the country/area of intervention generally do not like the intervention forces and see them as invaders.

Intervening can make things worse.

I do not think I would like another nation lobbing missiles at my home town because they did not like the way the government here was running things.

I realize I am probably oversimplifying things, but I do not think meddling in other countries with missiles is the correct response. Especially if the other country did not attack us.

[Insidious Rex]

But what if they attacked their own citizens with deadly (and illegal) saran gas, resulting in a slow horrible death for over 1000 people including almost 500 babies and children? What if there has been a formal agreement among nations that any use of such chemical agents will not be tolerated and will be met with a response? What if dictators in North Korea and all over the world are watching closely to see if there is any kind of world reaction to this atrocity and a limp response or no response at all will encourage them to do the same perhaps on a much larger scale against their own citizens, their neighbors or you and me? Do we still think doing nothing is the best response?

[mithrand1r]

Insidious Rex,

I am sympathetic to the deaths of children and other defenseless individuals.

I question whether intervening into another nation is the best response.

Who gets to determine whether which deaths and/or human rights violations warrant outside intervention into the affairs of individual nations? What about Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan or the Kashmir to name a few conflicts?

What gives an individual (or group of) nation(s) the right to interfere in the affairs of another nation that has not attacked other nations?

Would the US intervene in China due to human rights abuses? Does the fact that China has the ability to defend itself against outside attacks affect how the US (or other nations) deal with China?

Would the US (or any other nation) tolerate foreign intervention by other nations?

If the rebel group takes over Syria, will they be any better for the population? Will this just change who gets killed and has their human rights violated?

re: the formal agreement:

• Would that be binding only on the governments that choose to sign the agreement?
• What about individuals (not affiliated with any government) that acquire chemical agents?
• What will be done to a nation that has not signed the agreement?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But what if they attacked their own citizens with deadly (and illegal) saran gas, resulting in a slow horrible death for over 1000 people including almost 500 babies and children? What if there has been a formal agreement among nations that any use of such chemical agents will not be tolerated and will be met with a response? What if dictators in North Korea and all over the world are watching closely to see if there is any kind of world reaction to this atrocity and a limp response or no response at all will encourage them to do the same perhaps on a much larger scale against their own citizens, their neighbors or you and me? Do we still think doing nothing is the best response?

[The Gaffer]

I have a lot of sympathy with the global policeman argument. The idea that oppressed people everywhere at least know that the world will act if they get sprayed with poison gas. I really liked Obama's speech.

However:
1) Why is bombing them now the only possible action?
2) Where is the justice in killing loads more innocent people?
3) Why do the wheels of justice suddenly have to act without due process of any kind?

None of these has been properly addressed by anyone, except Joe Public of course.

I do think that Obama personally has totally mishandled this, as has David Cameron. He painted himself into a corner and now appeaers to be desperately trying to start a war to save his own credibility.

Steady the buffs there chief.

[Insidious Rex]

not sure if you were actually wanting to me to answer all your questions or were just laying them out to show the complexity of the issue (which I agree with. this is in no way a clean cut simple situation) but Ill take on a few I guess:

Originally Posted by mithrand1r

Who gets to determine whether which deaths and/or human rights violations warrant outside intervention into the affairs of individual nations? What about Somalia, Rwanda, Sudan or the Kashmir to name a few conflicts?

The CWC and the Geneva Protocol specifically ban the use of chemical or biological agents in warfare. But you are correct that allowing atrocities like what happened in Rwanda just based on the technicality that there were no chemical weapons involved is terribly arbitrary and probably immoral. For the record I was for intervention in that situation as well. Any time a large number of non combatants are targeted for slaughter I feel motivated to do something about it rather than just say WELP NONE OF MY BUSINESS. Im an idealist I know...

What gives an individual (or group of) nation(s) the right to interfere in the affairs of another nation that has not attacked other nations?

previously stated geneva convention legal precedent in this case which covers simply the deployment of chemical weapons inside or outside the operators borders. But I guess the question could be reversed. What gives another nation the right to do whatEVER they want to their own citizens no matter how cruel or lethal or depraved? No matter how many fatalities it results in? Simply because its their business?

Would the US intervene in China due to human rights abuses? Does the fact that China has the ability to defend itself against outside attacks affect how the US (or other nations) deal with China?

probably not and of course in that order. but I doubt china would carelessly saran bomb huge swaths of their citizenry resulting in the deaths of 1,500 people. They would instead shoot them behind closed doors or just make them disappear which the world would cluck about for a while (ala Tienanmen Square) but do nothing about in the end because it didnt involve chemical weapons (which has also been true for Syria by the way...)

Would the US (or any other nation) tolerate foreign intervention by other nations?

ha ha! the teapartiers with their closet fulls of NRA protected AR-15s would be too busy shooting at US Army helicopter gun shops flying over their houses to care what outside "interveners" were doing if it came to that (and believe me theres a LOT of wacky americans looking for an excuse to do just that). But speaking personally if the US goverment started to gas its citizens I would welcome the intervention of foreign powers against a clearly illegal action on innocent people. But come on, you guys would never ever dream of doing such a thing. There would be a lot of rubbing of hands and shuffling of papers at the UN but go up against a giant bully like the US? We citizens would be in trouble...

If the rebel group takes over Syria, will they be any better for the population? Will this just change who gets killed and has their human rights violated?

you see i hear this issue a lot but i dont see this as being related at all. Its not about taking out Assad. Its not about supporting the rebels (and clearly many of them are bad news or they would have been supported years ago like they were in Libya). Its more about punishing him. A spanking for his illegal use of chemical weapons. Showing the world and other dictators thats not allowed. Go ahead and shoot your citizens but if you gas them expect trouble! International law says no and moral precedent is on the line when others have and might use chemical weapons as well. Thats all obama wants to do. punish the users. not play a part in helping the rebels or determining the outcome if he can help it. just stinging Assad enough such that he decides its not worth using these kinds of weapons any more and other dictators feel the same. Now if striking some of Assad's infrastructure results in the rebels winning then yeah, you are right, we might have more trouble with them. But that implies that morally speaking the best course of action is to let him gas his own people rather then RISK having the rebels come to power. Isnt that just as immoral as participating in such behavior in the first place?

Would that be binding only on the governments that choose to sign the agreement?

no. its a globally encompassing legal framework.

What about individuals (not affiliated with any government) that acquire chemical agents?

you mean like terrorists? cults? weve already shown we have no compulsion in hunting them down and killing them as needed. theres very little debate about legal precedent when non government entities are involved. Ask Aum Shinrikyo.

What will be done to a nation that has not signed the agreement?

exactly what happened to syria. theyll be put on a short list of nations that stock pile chemical weapons, watched and when deployed, punished.