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

[frunk]

Honest question: is it a good idea to bomb a big stockpile of poisonous gas ammo? What happens with the poisonous gas, does it somehow burn in a harmless way?

If the gas is flammable then it'll explode/burn.  I think most weaponized gas is not flammable, so it'll be released in the immediate environment.  Gas in the open environment tends to disperse fairly quickly, so it should drop below lethal concentrations within a short period (hours, maybe days).

[Viking]

Honest question: is it a good idea to bomb a big stockpile of poisonous gas ammo? What happens with the poisonous gas, does it somehow burn in a harmless way?

Depends on which kind of gas. But, virtually all of them are organic compounds and consequently they burn. When it burns is will combust to co2, water and various sulpher and nitrogen oxides, many of which are highly toxic (but not as dangerous as the chemical weapons)

Even if the stuff just leaks, it is likely to not do much damage. The heavier gasses might pool in sinks in the ground, but a sunny day will probably be enough to break down the chemicals.

[derspiess]

Other than perhaps salvaging Obama's credibility (which is a not unimportant goal, but a situation which was largely self-inflicted), is there realistically any good that could come from intervening in Syria (especially in a limited way, as has been proposed)?

It would satisfy the bloodlust of Samantha Power and Susan Rice.  For the time being.

[derspiess]

By the sounds of it the rhetoric of attack is cooling significantly.   Cameron is having a tough ride in the British Parliament debate as the oppostion wants to give the UN inspectors time to provide their report.  Seems being burned once before about US intelligence assurances that they had it right makes people a bit reluctant this time around.

Sorry Ed.  No war porn for you it seems.

Hollande seems to be toning down his rhetoric as well.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/us-syria-crisis-hollande-idUSBRE97S0CU20130829

[Admiral Yi]

Time to run it back down the flag pole?

Poor Boner. 

[DGuller]

Time to seek immediate medical help, I'm afraid. 

[Neil]

Honest question: is it a good idea to bomb a big stockpile of poisonous gas ammo? What happens with the poisonous gas, does it somehow burn in a harmless way?

Depends on which kind of gas. But, virtually all of them are organic compounds and consequently they burn. When it burns is will combust to co2, water and various sulpher and nitrogen oxides, many of which are highly toxic (but not as dangerous as the chemical weapons)

Even if the stuff just leaks, it is likely to not do much damage. The heavier gasses might pool in sinks in the ground, but a sunny day will probably be enough to break down the chemicals.

CO2 emissions!  The case for war is the case for environmental terrorism, or something.

[OttoVonBismarck]

By the sounds of it the rhetoric of attack is cooling significantly.   Cameron is having a tough ride in the British Parliament debate as the oppostion wants to give the UN inspectors time to provide their report.  Seems being burned once before about US intelligence assurances that they had it right makes people a bit reluctant this time around.

Sorry Ed.  No war porn for you it seems.

The claim about U.S. intelligence concerns doesn't actually make sense in this context. You're basically an imbecile anytime the United States is involved in one of your posts, and incapable of hearing any contrary points--but I'll engage in this futile exercise. In prior chemical attacks the UK has had intelligence assets that confirmed the chemical attacks, I believe France has as well. But the Obama administration has been reluctant to immediately agree with the assessment of its European allies. So a protocol was put in place in which the three countries (UK, France, and US) would try to collect and process their own direct evidence and then compare results later.

In this particular scenario both the French and British concluded chemical weapons were used and concluded that far faster than the United States. I'm not even aware if Obama has received the final assessment from the U.S. intelligence agencies yet, although they've preliminarily said they found chemical weapons use. The UN inspectors even say that much, so in this scenario it really makes no sense to link Cameron or the British reticence with U.S. intelligence. They have their own intelligence, have had their own intelligence processed longer, and it was reported in Parliament that British intelligence actually identified twelve instances in which it believes Assad has used chemical weapons (the rest were much smaller attacks.) It instead seems like both the MPs raising concerns and the British people are not as concerned about whether or not chemical weapons are used so much as they share the concerns of people like myself, who are instead fearful that any involvement only makes the situation worse and really achieves no worthy goals.

So you presenting it as a case of Cameron being initially desirous of military strikes because of U.S. intelligence and now being reigned in because of doubts of said intelligence just doesn't make sense whatsoever.

I highly doubt you'll say anything reasonable in response to this, but will instead find a way to continually link this in some way to America=evil.

[crazy canuck]

By the sounds of it the rhetoric of attack is cooling significantly.   Cameron is having a tough ride in the British Parliament debate as the oppostion wants to give the UN inspectors time to provide their report.  Seems being burned once before about US intelligence assurances that they had it right makes people a bit reluctant this time around.

Sorry Ed.  No war porn for you it seems.

The claim about U.S. intelligence concerns doesn't actually make sense in this context. You're basically an imbecile anytime the United States is involved in one of your posts, and incapable of hearing any contrary points--but I'll engage in this futile exercise. In prior chemical attacks the UK has had intelligence assets that confirmed the chemical attacks, I believe France has as well. But the Obama administration has been reluctant to immediately agree with the assessment of its European allies. So a protocol was put in place in which the three countries (UK, France, and US) would try to collect and process their own direct evidence and then compare results later.

In this particular scenario both the French and British concluded chemical weapons were used and concluded that far faster than the United States. I'm not even aware if Obama has received the final assessment from the U.S. intelligence agencies yet, although they've preliminarily said they found chemical weapons use. The UN inspectors even say that much, so in this scenario it really makes no sense to link Cameron or the British reticence with U.S. intelligence. They have their own intelligence, have had their own intelligence processed longer, and it was reported in Parliament that British intelligence actually identified twelve instances in which it believes Assad has used chemical weapons (the rest were much smaller attacks.) It instead seems like both the MPs raising concerns and the British people are not as concerned about whether or not chemical weapons are used so much as they share the concerns of people like myself, who are instead fearful that any involvement only makes the situation worse and really achieves no worthy goals.

So you presenting it as a case of Cameron being initially desirous of military strikes because of U.S. intelligence and now being reigned in because of doubts of said intelligence just doesn't make sense whatsoever.

I highly doubt you'll say anything reasonable in response to this, but will instead find a way to continually link this in some way to America=evil.

Holy over reaction batman.  Were you involved in the last US intellgence screw up? Seems that a rather innocous observation that is being said all over the airwaves today hits pretty close to the bone with you for some reason.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Mm hmm. Illogical conclusion not based on anything we've actually read in the news--gotcha.

[crazy canuck]

Mm hmm. Illogical conclusion not based on anything we've actually read in the news--gotcha.

So you dont see any parallel at all to people taking military action on the strength of the intelligence services in the West saying they think that a particular narrative of events is accurate?  Now that is some pretty bad long term memory problem.

[Sheilbh]

By the sounds of it the rhetoric of attack is cooling significantly.   Cameron is having a tough ride in the British Parliament debate as the oppostion wants to give the UN inspectors time to provide their report.  Seems being burned once before about US intelligence assurances that they had it right makes people a bit reluctant this time around.

It's not been great to watch. From what I can tell Miliband and Cameron had broadly agreed a position and were working together on Wednesday. Then it looked like Miliband didn't have the support of the shadow cabinet so wants two resolutions in the Commons - before and after the UN vote.

Which should've been fine for Cameron, but it turned out he'd misjudged the mood of Tory MPs and probably couldn't get Parliament to support his foreign policy (which is something I don't think's ever happened before). So he gave in to Miliband who proceeded to tell the Commons that he doesn't think Cameron's made the case for action. One Downing Street official described Miliband as a 'fucking cunt and a copper-bottomed shit' over this, and said he's more or less dead to the French and the Democrats. Then the Downing Street communication chief and the Defence Secretary accused Miliband of  'giving succour to Assad'. Embarrassing from everyone

And we face the prospect of the French and the US taking action without us

Interestingly from what I can tell there was a generational difference in the debate though. The House of Lords was haunted by Bosnia, the Commons by Iraq.

Also, for what it's worth, you've got the Iraq intelligence situation wrong. We gave the Americans dodgy intelligence just as much and, in a (foolish) break from history, the government tried to publish the intelligence (which they didn't sex up) rather than just giving assurances. And it was wrong.

Other than perhaps salvaging Obama's credibility (which is a not unimportant goal, but a situation which was largely self-inflicted), is there realistically any good that could come from intervening in Syria (especially in a limited way, as has been proposed)?

Credibility is the worst, most anemic argument for doing anything. The US and Obama don't lack credibility, nor would they if they didn't act (except domestically) and it wouldn't matter anyway.

The argument for intervening is that there's punishment for use of chemical weapons. Don't do it again or we'll fuck you up again and maybe more.

[Sheilbh]

It's always worth remembering that Hollande and Cameron have always been far more enthusiastic on any intervention than Obama.

Also, as an aside, the irony of Cameron's difficulty is that legally he doesn't need anyone's permission to go to war - even full on war - because it's a royal prerogative. Obama legally probably really should consul Congress - not that any other modern President has had to.

[derspiess]

I think Obama should consult congress, but he doesn't have to.

[crazy canuck]

Which should've been fine for Cameron, but it turned out he'd misjudged the mood of Tory MPs and probably couldn't get Parliament to support his foreign policy (which is something I don't think's ever happened before). So he gave in to Miliband who proceeded to tell the Commons that he doesn't think Cameron's made the case for action. One Downing Street official described Miliband as a 'fucking cunt and a copper-bottomed shit' over this, and said he's more or less dead to the French and the Democrats. Then the Downing Street communication chief and the Defence Secretary accused Miliband of  'giving succour to Assad'. Embarrassing from everyone

Considering Cameron must have recalled Parliament thinking this would be a fairly straight forward matter it seems both sides did more damage to themselves than any possible other alternative.