Massive use of chemical weapons in Syria, 1,429 killed including 426 children

[derspiess]

Both sides have not, as far as I know, used chemical weapons on civilians.

Just as both sides are not affiliated with al-Quaeda and other Islamists who will kill religious minorities should they win.

The US national interest may not, directly, be served by involvement other than in this way: acting with punitive measures may ultimately discourage the use of chemical weapons more generally. Failing to discourage their use may lead to them being more generally available, which could have bad consequences for the US in the future either directly or indirectly.

I don't think US intervention will have any impact at all on proliferation & whether chemical weapons are used on us.

[Tamas]

Yeah so what are they going to bomb? And for what purpose? Which faction are they helping with it? etc.
this is stupid.

[Caliga]

I don't understand why the Syrian government would choose NOW to carry out a chemical attack.  Haven't they been winning lately?

[crazy canuck]

I don't understand why the Syrian government would choose NOW to carry out a chemical attack.  Haven't they been winning lately?

Probably because they thought they could get away with it now - and it seems likely they will.

[Caliga]

It just seems like a foolish risk to take unless you're desperate and have little left to lose.

[crazy canuck]

It just seems like a foolish risk to take unless you're desperate and have little left to lose.

Meh, thats a first world problem.  I doubt that is the thought process of a tyrant who can kill with impunity.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The Assad regime has to go. Better a fundy Islamist terrorist regime than let a recognized government get away with using chemical weapons.

nothing learned since 1979 in other words.

Assad is in no way shape or form a creature of US foriegn policy.  Syria has been the enemy of the US and the rest of the West for many decades.  In short, you are channelling Marti with that analogy.

afghanistan... not Iran.

[Tamas]

It just seems like a foolish risk to take unless you're desperate and have little left to lose.

Meh, thats a first world problem.  I doubt that is the thought process of a tyrant who can kill with impunity.

No, that's rational tyrant-think, and if Assad was a "gas them for the heck of it" kind of guy, he would have done it earlier when he was more desperate. This is a rebel setup.

[crazy canuck]

It just seems like a foolish risk to take unless you're desperate and have little left to lose.

Meh, thats a first world problem.  I doubt that is the thought process of a tyrant who can kill with impunity.

No, that's rational tyrant-think, and if Assad was a "gas them for the heck of it" kind of guy, he would have done it earlier when he was more desperate. This is a rebel setup.

Ok.  But seems to me rationa tyrant think  - if there is such a thing would run along the lines of making the deaths of his enemies as painful and gruesome as possible so that their power can be consolidated through terror.  You know the opposite of first world think.

[Tamas]

That still doesn`t invalidate the fact that he was in a much more desperate situation earlier, and he did in fact pulled off shit like naval bombardment of his own cities. So why do this now and not then? If it was part of something like an offensive or the kickoff of a grand cleansing or something, but no. He just shelled a bunch of randoms with gas just in time for UN inspection, readily serving NATO with a casus belli it was desperately needing.
This move will probably cost Assad the war, and is immensely irrational and stupid. And if a guy can manage a reign of terror for decades, then actually seem to be turning around a civil war against most of his country, well that guy is neither irrational, nor stupid.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Both sides are the bad guys.  And I really don't see how our national interests are served by getting involved.

there was a gas-attack in May carried out by the rebels apparently
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

[Tamas]

Both sides are the bad guys.  And I really don't see how our national interests are served by getting involved.

there was a gas-attack in May carried out by the rebels apparently
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

See? This is the same kind of people who plant Hamas rocket launch sites next to schools and apartment buildings and then blame it on the jews. We should just let the two sides bleed each other to death.

[crazy canuck]

That still doesn`t invalidate the fact that he was in a much more desperate situation earlier, and he did in fact pulled off shit like naval bombardment of his own cities. So why do this now and not then?

Already answered that.  Because back then he probably couldnt get away with it.  Now he probably can.

[Tamas]

That still doesn`t invalidate the fact that he was in a much more desperate situation earlier, and he did in fact pulled off shit like naval bombardment of his own cities. So why do this now and not then?

Already answered that.  Because back then he probably couldnt get away with it.  Now he probably can.

[crazy canuck]

That still doesn`t invalidate the fact that he was in a much more desperate situation earlier, and he did in fact pulled off shit like naval bombardment of his own cities. So why do this now and not then?

Already answered that.  Because back then he probably couldnt get away with it.  Now he probably can.

You think the US is going to invade?  Not a chance.