The war in Syria

[beancounter]

It seems Kerry may have accidentally "solved" the dispute with Russia & Syria.
Syria agrees to place chemical weapons under international control (The Independent, 10. Sept. 2013)

They still have to meet criteria and standards for this arrangement. And they will be subject to penalties if they don't fully cooperate and meet those standards, so it still remains to be seen if this will be the final solution.

Just a guess, but I'm betting Syria will put several roadblocks in the way during the process, and then half way through will try to change aspects of the arrangement., or claim they never agreed to certain parts of the agreement.

 

[yakherder]

And after he says he gave them up, then what? Inspectors go in to look for weapons of mass destruction in an attempt to make sure he really did? What a joke these situations always end up being. There are just too many conflicting interests for there to be a rational solution which the majority can agree with. We'll be fighting over there soon enough regardless of how the next few weeks play out.

 

[Second Summer]

Can the US afford another ME war? I suspect the US congressmen will be wary of getting involved in anything drawn-out. Also, the opposition can't be relied on to put together a proper government as they're not nearly cohesive enough, consisting partly of islamist fanatics, partly "liberals", partly regular bandits. For these two reasons "regime change" seems unlikely to me. So we're left with a "shoot and run" option.

What will be the Russian reaction to a US attack on their client state? I suspect they will somehow make sure it won't be easy for the US.

 

[ledboots]

From yesterday's AP poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=20202383
"U.S. opposition to striking Syria cuts across party lines, as does doubt that an American attack would deter other world leaders from using chemical weapons.The poll indicated that 53 percent of Democrats, 59 percent of independents and 73 percent of Republicans believe Congress should vote against the plan to strike Syria. Only one out of four Democrats think that an attack would deter other world leaders from acquiring and using chemical weapons; even fewer Republicans and independents agreed."

~snip~

"Overall, 61 percent of people surveyed said they wanted Congress to vote against authorizing U.S. military strikes in Syria, the poll found. By comparison, 26 percent said they supported it, and the rest were undecided."

 

[peacefulveglady]

I am against this why can't we help the country for a change? Anyway I don't appericate them interrupting the programming, now I am delayed of voting for America's Got talent show. I watch it the next day but I vote for the people the night. I am so peeved.

 

[Mischief]

Yes, it's important to keep our priorities straight!

 

[thefadedone]

I am against this why can't we help the country for a change? Anyway I don't appericate them interrupting the programming, now I am delayed of voting for America's Got talent show. I watch it the next day but I vote for the people the night. I am so peeved.

I really hope you are being sarcastic.

 

[peacefulveglady]

I really hope you are being sarcastic.

I am on the fence.

 

[Blobbenstein]

I think if more people watched America's Got Talent there may be fewer wars started by the US.

 

[Second Summer]

Human Rights Watch has compiled a report about the chemical attacks, which points the finger at the regime:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/10/syria-government-likely-culprit-chemical-attack

 

[rainforests1]

I'm all for politics being on primetime television, but in this case I didn't bother watching. Just more arrogance on Obama's part.

If the United States knew what the Syrian government uses, couldn't they fake the attacks very easily? I believe HRW is a New York City based group. Articles I've read from them, they go very easy on the side the US is on. Could be just another example of their bias.

 

[Blobbenstein]

Here is the wiki page on criticism of HRW:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Human_Rights_Watch

Criticism from founder and former chairman, Robert Bernstein
Robert L. Bernstein, a founder and former chairman of HRW, argued in October 2009 that "Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective" on events in the Middle East.[1] Bernstein argued that "[t]he region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region."[1]

 

[rainforests1]

It's one person's opinion, and Israel has nothing to do with this conversation.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/09/obama-goes-full-bush-on-syria/
This article states "Press reports have it that US ally Great Britain was in fact selling the 'precursor' chemicals for Sarin gas to at least one side in the Syrian conflict until the EU forced them to stop a few months ago."
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/11/syria-immodest-proposals-naked-emperors/
The Human Rights Watch article claims Saddam was the last one to use chemical weapons until recently, but this article states otherwise. Counterpunch.org is a much, much more reliable source for news than Human Rights Watch is.

 

[Blobbenstein]

It's one person's opinion, and Israel has nothing to do with this conversation.

yeah, it's only a neighbouring country.

Not that I know much about any of this.

 

[das_nut]

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/09/obama-goes-full-bush-on-syria/
This article states "Press reports have it that US ally Great Britain was in fact selling the 'precursor' chemicals for Sarin gas to at least one side in the Syrian conflict until the EU forced them to stop a few months ago."

What's the precursor chemicals?

I would be shocked if it was a chemical that would only be used to make chemical weapons.

But I could understand how the UK could be selling chemicals that, among their other uses, could be used to manufacture chemical weapons.

(And why does that article say GB? Isn't it the UK?)

So since Counterpunch can't do any investigative reporting (or doesn't want to tell us what chemicals were being sold) I did some googling and found this:

Five export licences were approved for the sale of more than 4,000kg of sodium fluoride between 2004 and 2010. They were on top of exports approved last year of sodium fluoride and potassium fluoride under licences but subsequently revoked on the grounds they could be used as precursor chemicals in the manufacture of weapons. - The Guardian

Then I went out to Wikipedia and looked up sodium fluoride:

Fluoride salts are used to enhance the strength of teeth by the formation of fluorapatite, a naturally occurring component of tooth enamel.[8][9] Although sodium fluoride is also used to fluoridate water and, indeed, is the standard by which other water-fluoridation compounds are gauged, hexafluorosilicic acid (H2SiF6) and its salt sodium hexafluorosilicate (Na2SiF6) are more commonly used additives in the U.S.[10] Toothpaste often contains sodium fluoride to prevent cavities.[11] Alternatively, sodium fluoride is used as a cleaning agent (e.g., as a "laundry sour").[7] A variety of specialty chemical applications exist in synthesis and extractive metallurgy. It reacts with electrophilic chlorides including acyl chlorides, sulfur chlorides, and phosphorus chloride.[12] Like other fluorides, sodium fluoride finds use in desilylation in organic synthesis. The fluoride is the reagent for the synthesis of fluorocarbons.[citation needed]

In medical imaging, fluorine-18-labelled sodium fluoride is used in positron emission tomography (PET). Relative to conventional bone scintigraphy carried out with gamma cameras or SPECT systems, PET offers more sensitivity and spatial resolution. A disadvantage of PET is that fluorine-18 labelled sodium fluoride is less widely available than conventional technetium-99m-labelled radiopharmaceuticals.[citation needed] - Wikipedia

So the UK was selling them a chemical that had a wide variety of uses, it seems. And it just happens that this chemical can also be used to synthesize Sarin? After this came to light, the UK banned those exports?

I'm finding it hard to be outraged.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/11/syria-immodest-proposals-naked-emperors/
The Human Rights Watch article claims Saddam was the last one to use chemical weapons until recently, but this article states otherwise. Counterpunch.org is a much, much more reliable source for news than Human Rights Watch is.

I'm not finding where that article claims that, unless it's counting the DU and white phosphorus use by the US and Israel. Both of which have non-chemical weapons use as well. The US has also spread a lot of lead around, which is a chemical that is dangerous (it cause birth defects) but few would argue that the US is using chemical weapons by firing bullets.

 

[rainforests1]

How would depleted uranium not be considered a chemical weapon? During a time of war(one in which they're desperate) what could the rebels possibly be using the sodium fluoride for?

Obama said Assad must go, so we'll assume the rebels win the war. The chemical weapons are available for anyone to use. Does the United States do nothing about it, or do we send troops in to secure the chemical weapons(which means the "no boots on the ground" claim is just another lie)?

 

[das_nut]

How would depleted uranium not be considered a chemical weapon?

Because, like lead, it's used as kinetic weapon due to it's high density.

During a time of war(one in which they're desperate) what could the rebels possibly be using the sodium fluoride for?

The Wikipedia article gives some examples - fluoridation of water, ingredient in soap, and it seems to be used in metallurgy and chemical synthesis.d

If a company was selling iron to Syria, and it was later discovered to have been used to make tanks, would you ask what possible non-military use iron would have?

Obama said Assad must go, so we'll assume the rebels win the war. The chemical weapons are available for anyone to use. Does the United States do nothing about it, or do we send troops in to secure the chemical weapons(which means the "no boots on the ground" claim is just another lie)?

I'd presume we'd blow them up, as well as the manufacturing centers.

 

[rainforests1]

They had troops on the ground in Libya. Why would Syria be any different? You're not likely to hit everything from the air.

The Wikipedia article gives some examples - fluoridation of water, ingredient in soap, and it seems to be used in metallurgy and chemical synthesis.d

If a company was selling iron to Syria, and it was later discovered to have been used to make tanks, would you ask what possible non-military use iron would have?

You honestly think the UK was getting involved so the rebels could make soap? I hope not. To answer your question, my guess would be yes.

 

[ledboots]

I think blowing up chemical warfare manufacturing plants sounds pretty ******* risky.

 

[das_nut]

You honestly think the UK was getting involved so the rebels could make soap? I hope not.

I think the UK is a collection of individuals, some who work for the government (in different groups) and some who work for private industry (in different groups as well).

By "individuals", I mean several tens of millions.

Needless to say, not all of them are in perfect communication with each other.

Some of these individuals, probably working for several different private industry groups were making a chemical that could be used to do many things. Other individuals, also indifferent groups, had been selling chemicals similar to this to the Syrians for years. There was some oversight by several other groups, probably mostly government, with myriad areas of focus.

Recently, a group pointed out that this chemical, in addition to its more mundane uses, is also needed to make Sarin gas. Which means some of the government groups heard about this, as well as some private groups (mostly those in the industry called "news") and the government groups ended up telling the private groups that they couldn't sell the item to Syria anymore.

Now doesn't that sound reasonable?