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

[Legbiter]

Oh - and lets not forget that Putin made Obama look like his bitch and it appears that the US has to clear foreign policy initiatives with Russia now.

Whoa, I'd just say that Obama accidently made Putin look statesmanlike and that Putin is playing Obama like a fiddle. 

[derspiess]

Obama is a bit Urkelish

[Berkut]

Indeed. The status quo is that ... they (and others) now know that doing so in the future is not likely to draw any kind of a response and a basic pillar of western non-proliferation policy is now gone.

Wow...At that very least, I don't think that Syria knows that in the future chemical weapons against civilians is unlikely to draw any kind of response. I certainly don't know that.

What other conclusion can you draw?

We stated in no uncertain terms that the use of chemical weapons would not be tolerate.

Assad used chemical weapons.

We state that we will respond militarily, then back down. And say...what instead? "Yeah, once was ok, but twice, now THAT will certainly make us respond!"

There are no certainties, but that just doesn't make any sense. If using them once is not reason for the West to get involved, how is using them twice a reason?

How can anyone who is currently arguing that the West should not take action against Assad right now possibly argue that they should do so if he gasses some more people? I can think of no rational argument against taking action now (and there certainly are plenty of such arguments, I am very willing to admit) that would change after a second or third or fourth use, or a first use by someone else. Will the rebels become more palatable if some more of them are gassed? Will the chances of some kind of utopian peaceful outcome from intervention go up?

Of course not. If the reason not to act now are not sufficient to overcome the negatives and the uncertainty of action, then they will be even more so after he gasses some more people. The fundamental and primary reason to act is to demonstrate that the use of WMDs will not be tolerated by the international community. That ship has sailed.

[alfred russel]

What other conclusion can you draw?

We stated in no uncertain terms that the use of chemical weapons would not be tolerate.

Assad used chemical weapons.

We state that we will respond militarily, then back down. And say...what instead? "Yeah, once was ok, but twice, now THAT will certainly make us respond!"

There are no certainties, but that just doesn't make any sense. If using them once is not reason for the West to get involved, how is using them twice a reason?

How can anyone who is currently arguing that the West should not take action against Assad right now possibly argue that they should do so if he gasses some more people? I can think of no rational argument against taking action now (and there certainly are plenty of such arguments, I am very willing to admit) that would change after a second or third or fourth use, or a first use by someone else. Will the rebels become more palatable if some more of them are gassed? Will the chances of some kind of utopian peaceful outcome from intervention go up?

Of course not. If the reason not to act now are not sufficient to overcome the negatives and the uncertainty of action, then they will be even more so after he gasses some more people. The fundamental and primary reason to act is to demonstrate that the use of WMDs will not be tolerated by the international community. That ship has sailed.

I have reached the opposite conclusion. The limited use of chemical weapons that killed a small number of people (relative to the rest of the conflict) brought the US to the brink of responding, and the president is inclined to action already. This is when there are still some questions out regarding the culpability of Assad for the attack.

Additional attacks would further establish the culpability of Assad, and increase the death toll in a way that would galvanize parts of world opinion. It would also increasingly look like Obama was ineffective if he didn't act, with nightly TV reports showing chemical attacks that Obama said crossed his red line.

[alfred russel]

We stated in no uncertain terms that the use of chemical weapons would not be tolerate.

Why does the president get held to such a standard of consistency when it comes to bombing people?

As a general rule, there are a lot of benefits to only saying things that you mean, and following through on commitments. But the reality is, a lot of what politicians say isn't meant and isn't followed through on.

The fundamental and primary reason to act is to demonstrate that the use of WMDs will not be tolerated by the international community. That ship has sailed.

First, the international community has extensively responded to what is happening in Syria. There are significant sanctions in place, and Assad is internationally isolated. My hunch is he ends up in front of a criminal court for crimes against humanity, if he is not killed first. I don't think many leaders are looking at Assad right now as a person to emulate.

Second, that ship was never in port to begin with. Aside from the previous uses of chemical weapons that haven't had a military response, it isn't as though we had a policy to attack anyone that used them. We aren't going to attack Russia if they use chemical weapons the next time they intervene in one of the former soviet republics. We aren't going to attack North Korea if they launch chemical weapons against its own people (if they haven't already). I'm guessing we wouldn't intervene in Africa if say Zimbabwe launched an attack similar to Assad's.

The reasons an attack on Syria is on the table is because they are militarily weak, diplomatically isolated, and conveniently located in a part of the world we keep our aircraft carriers.

[Admiral Yi]

We state that we will respond militarily, then back down. And say...what instead? "Yeah, once was ok, but twice, now THAT will certainly make us respond!"

I missed this part.

[dps]

How can anyone who is currently arguing that the West should not take action against Assad right now possibly argue that they should do so if he gasses some more people? I can think of no rational argument against taking action now (and there certainly are plenty of such arguments, I am very willing to admit) that would change after a second or third or fourth use, or a first use by someone else.

It would change if he used gas outside of Syria's borders, say on a refugee camp in Turkey.

[Tamas]

Oh - and lets not forget that Putin made Obama look like his bitch and it appears that the US has to clear foreign policy initiatives with Russia now.

Whoa, I'd just say that Obama accidently made Putin look statesmanlike and that Putin is playing Obama like a fiddle. 

That is proof that Hussein has the bigger dick - he doesn't feel the need to compensate

[Admiral Yi]

Where's the dot.pl tag for?  Poland?

[jimmy olsen]

I have reached the opposite conclusion. The limited use of chemical weapons that killed a small number of people (relative to the rest of the conflict) brought the US to the brink of responding, and the president is inclined to action already. This is when there are still some questions out regarding the culpability of Assad for the attack.

Additional attacks would further establish the culpability of Assad, and increase the death toll in a way that would galvanize parts of world opinion. It would also increasingly look like Obama was ineffective if he didn't act, with nightly TV reports showing chemical attacks that Obama said crossed his red line.

1400 is small?

It took 2 years for 100,000 to be killed. 1400 casualties is a full percent of that inflicted in 5 minutes.

[CountDeMoney]

According to today's Foreign Policy daily email bulletin:

As the world awaits the U.N. report today on chemical weapons use in Syria, Iran is "dialing up" its presence there. The United Nations is expected to release its report today on Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons in the attack outside Damascus last month. The U.N. reported yesterday that the report had been turned over to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon; there will be a series of meetings there this morning and the media will be briefed a bit before 1 p.m. EST. No question the report will stir the pot at Secretary of State John Kerry pushes forward on a diplomatic agreement to get Syria's Bashar al-Assad to agree to dismantle his chemical weapons stockpile.

At the same time, Shiite influence inside Syria is arriving by the busload.  The WSJ's Farnaz Fassihi, Jay Solomon and Sam Dagher: "At a base near Tehran, Iranian forces are training Shiite militiamen from across the Arab world to do battle in Syria-showing the widening role of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard Corps in Syria's bloody war. The busloads of Shiite militiamen from Iraq, Syria and other Arab states have been arriving at the Iranian base in recent weeks, under cover of darkness, for instruction in urban warfare and the teachings of Iran's clerics, according to Iranian military figures and residents in the area. The fighters' mission: Fortify the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad against Sunni rebels, the U.S. and Israel. Iran's widening role in Syria has helped Mr. Assad climb back from near-defeat in less than a year. The role of Iran's training camp for Shiite fighters hasn't previously been disclosed."

And: "The fighters 'are told that the war in Syria is akin to [an] epic battle for Shiite Islam, and if they die they will be martyrs of the highest rank,' says an Iranian military officer briefed on the training camp, which is 15 miles outside Tehran and called Amir Al-Momenin, or Commander of the Faithful."

Yay.

[derspiess]

And the same thing is happening in the Sunni world.  Sunni crazies and Shiite crazies killing each other = win for us.

[CountDeMoney]

And the same thing is happening in the Sunni world.  Sunni crazies and Shiite crazies killing each other = win for us.

Except when we provide intel to one side to kill the other with battlefield chemical weapons.  Then it's just wrong.

[derspiess]

We shouldn't have our fingerprints on it.

[mongers]

A Turkish jet has shot down a Syrian helicopter on the border. 
edit:
video shows it, a Mil-17, falling to the ground on Syrian territory, within 1km of the border. Rebels are shown combing the wreckage and them gathering in the parachute of the one crew member who escaped the crash, but it's not clear if he made it to the ground alive or survived any 'handling'.