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

[Maximus]

There shouldn't be any question of whether we would respond with force to an act like this. The "red line" threat should be considered implied at all times.

Based on what?  Saddam gassed Khurds with no immediate consequenses.  Egypt is alleged to have used gas in Yemen and it didn't even make the front page.

Based on
a) our founding principles

and

b) the need to demonstrate to would-be strongmen that the cost of such an action will outweigh the benefits

I don't see why the failure to so demonstrate in the past should weigh heavily on our course of action today.

[CountDeMoney]

For the record, Iraq use of chemical agents against Iranian troops and towns in the last years of their war, was a clear breach of the proceeding Geneva Protocol and no one in the west did anything about it, not even riding a white charger up onto the moral high ground for show.

For the record, we know that, DraftWarMongers.  And for the record, both the UN and UNSC issued several resolutions over the use of chemical weapons in the 1980-1988 War.  So there's your white charger up your ass.

However, there's a bit more complexity involved in the international community's ability to deal with two nations in a large-scale war than there is in dealing with a single state's repression of its rebels.

[Admiral Yi]

That plus a nickel equals five cents.

Pithy.

With a verifiable regime Assad will no longer be able to claim the other guys did it.

[CountDeMoney]

He has agreed in principle to surrender at-will use of his stocks.

That plus a nickel equals five cents.

No way he's going to give up his only counter to the Zionist Entity's nuclear deterrent.

[The Minsky Moment]

With a verifiable regime Assad will no longer be able to claim the other guys did it.

That is true but no verifiable regime exists other than in some imagined future.
Don't get me wrong, as a face saving compromise it works to extricate Obama from the hole he dug himself into.  But as to whether Assad and his cronies are laughing or crying about this proposal the smart money is on the yuks.

[Razgovory]

My guess is they are under a lot of pressure and not doing a lot of laughing, what with the civil war and all.

[DGuller]

See when pants are peed in there should be a pair of pants one can point to and say - there is the pee.  And that is what is missing here.

Maybe he shat them instead?

[mongers]

For the record, Iraq use of chemical agents against Iranian troops and towns in the last years of their war, was a clear breach of the proceeding Geneva Protocol and no one in the west did anything about it, not even riding a white charger up onto the moral high ground for show.

For the record, we know that, DraftWarMongers.  And for the record, both the UN and UNSC issued several resolutions over the use of chemical weapons in the 1980-1988 War.  So there's your white charger up your ass.

However, there's a bit more complexity involved in the international community's ability to deal with two nations in a large-scale war than there is in dealing with a single state's repression of its rebels.

I'm gonna make a wild guess and say in none of those resolutions was Iraq identified as the sole user of chemical weapons, despite there being ample evidence. In stark contrast the description of what has happened in Syria.

And I'd be somewhat surprised if US took active steps to degrade rather than enhance the effects of the chemical weapons strikes, once their use became known.   

RESOLUTION 582 (1986)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2666th meeting on 24 February 1986
......
Noting that both Iran and Iraq are parties to the Protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of bacteriological methods of warfare done at Geneva on 17 June 1925,
......
2. Also deplores the escalation of the conflict, especially territorial incursions, the bombing of purely civilian centres, attacks on neutral shipping or civilian aircraft, the violation of international humanitarian law and other laws of armed conflict and, in particular, the use of chemical weapons contrary to obligations under the 1925 Geneva Protocol;
....

RESOLUTION 598 (1987)
Adopted by the Security Council at its 2750th meeting on 20 July 1987
.......
Deploring also the bombing of purely civilian population centers, attacks on neutral shipping or civilian aircraft, the violation of international humanitarian law and other laws of armed conflict, and, in particular, the use of chemical weapons contrary to obligations under the 1925 Geneva Protocol,
......

RESOLUTION 612 (1988)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2812th meeting on 9 May 1988

The Security Council,

Having considered the report of 25 April 1988 (S/19823) of the Mission dispatched by the Secretary-General to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq,

Dismayed by the Mission's conclusions that chemical weapons continue to be used in the conflict and that their use has been on an even more intensive scale than before,

1. Affirms the urgent necessity of strict observance of the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925;

2. Condemns vigorously the continued use of chemical weapons in the conflict between Iran and Iraq contrary to the obligations under the Geneva Protocol;

3. Expects both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons in accordance with their obligations under the Geneva Protocol;

4. Calls upon all States to continue to apply or to establish strict control of the export to the parties to the conflict of chemical products serving for the production of chemical weapons;

5. Decides to remain seized of the matter and expresses its determination to review the implementation of this resolution.

Here you go, I was wrong here's the UN severe sensure of Iraq over chemical weapons.

RESOLUTION 620 (1988)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 2825th meeting on 26 August 1988
The Security Council,
Recalling its resolution 612 (1988),

Having considered the reports of 20 and 25 July and 19 August 1988 (S/20060 and Add.1, S/20063 and Add.1, S/20134) of the missions dispatched by the Secretary-General to investigate allegations of the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq,

Deeply dismayed by the missions' conclusions that there had been continued use of chemical weapons in the conflict between Iran and Iraq and that such use against Iranians had become more intense and frequent,

Profoundly concerned by the danger of possible use of chemical weapons in the future,

Bearing in mind the current negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on the complete and effective prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of chemical weapons and on their destruction,

Determined to intensify its efforts to end all use of chemical weapons in violation of international obligations now and in the future,

1. Condemns resolutely the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between Iran and Iraq, in violation of obligations under the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, signed at Geneva on 17 June 1925, and in defiance of its resolution 612 (1988);

2. Encourages the Secretary-General to carry out promptly investigations, in response to allegations brought to his attention by any Member State concerning the possible use of chemical and bacteriological (biological) or toxin weapons that may constitute a violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol or other relevant rules of customary international law, in order to ascertain the facts of the matter, and to report the results;

3. Calls upon all States to continue to apply, to establish or to strengthen strict control of the export of chemical products serving for the production of chemical weapons, in particular to parties to a conflict, when it is established or when there is substantial reason to believe that they have used chemical weapons in violation of international obligations;

4. Decides to consider immediately, taking into account the investigations of the Secretary-General, appropriate and effective measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, should there be any future use of chemical weapons in violation of international law, wherever and by whomever committed.

In case you missed it, below is the sum total of UN security council criticism on the most deadly and widespread use of chemical weapons since the UN's founding. 

Deeply dismayed by the missions' conclusions that there had been continued use of chemical weapons in the conflict between Iran and Iraq and that such use against Iranians had become more intense and frequent,

[Admiral Yi]

That is true but no verifiable regime exists other than in some imagined future.
Don't get me wrong, as a face saving compromise it works to extricate Obama from the hole he dug himself into.  But as to whether Assad and his cronies are laughing or crying about this proposal the smart money is on the yuks.

Of course it exists in the future.  So what?  Putin and Assad have committed to a process.  They can renege, they can welch, they can waffle, they can weasel, but presumably those acts will have consequences.  It's not as if Congress had a statutory window within which they had to authorize force or lose the privilege.

[Ed Anger]

Fuck the Persian. Nuke 'em.

[Admiral Yi]

Based on
a) our founding principles

and

b) the need to demonstrate to would-be strongmen that the cost of such an action will outweigh the benefits

I don't see why the failure to so demonstrate in the past should weigh heavily on our course of action today.

There is a vigorous on-going debate right now whether based on a) and b) or anything else we need to strike.  Half the public is against.  Congress is split.  You concede that we have never acted on this principle previously.  I don't see how that adds up to a no-brainer.  Unless you're using no-brainer in a way I'm not familiar with.

[CountDeMoney]

More DraftWarMongers bullshit

So what's your point, DraftWarMongers, other than your usual argument of moral equivalence bullshit? 
Because we didn't do anything against Iraq 25 years ago, there's every reason to accept the use of chemical weapons now, especially after the formalization of US policy against the use of WMDs since 1986?

[mongers]

More DraftWarMongers bullshit

So what's your point, DraftWarMongers, other than your usual argument of moral equivalence bullshit? 
Because we didn't do anything against Iraq 25 years ago, there's every reason to accept the use of chemical weapons now, especially after the formalization of US policy against the use of WMDs since 1986?

There's simply no point trying to have a reasoned discussion with you if you're resorting to silly name calling, so it's terminated. 

[CountDeMoney]

There's simply no point trying to have a reasoned discussion with you if you're resorting to silly name calling, so it's terminated.

When you start reverting to your EUOT DWM persona circa 2003, it's going to catch poo.

I mean, really: the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War?  You're not connecting the dots here. 

[mongers]

There's simply no point trying to have a reasoned discussion with you if you're resorting to silly name calling, so it's terminated.

When you start reverting to your EUOT DWM persona circa 2003, it's going to catch poo.

I mean, really: the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War?  You're not connecting the dots here.

I recall you cheer-leading for the operation and subsequently changing your tune, once the reality of the emerging mess eventually sunk in. 


But your yourself were recalling the 1980s citing:

especially after the formalization of US policy against the use of WMDs since 1986?

Which anyway held no water, given the subsequent US intelligences efforts that helped Saddam in targeting chemical weapons attacks.