What other dictators will be given a blank check to use chemical weapons if the US doesn't bomb ASAP

[MNBrewer]

I can't think of any credible examples.

[Hayabusa]

1. Maybe not immediately,

but I can see a lack of action leading to a frightening relaxation of the law against the use of chemical weapons.

[MNBrewer]

3. Who?

[MNBrewer]

4. Use by whom?

[Hayabusa]

5. Whomever wants to.

I personally believe that failing to act could set a very dangerous precedent to other less-than-savory world leaders that says that they need not fear using illegal weapons against their own populaces, because it will likely go unpunished.

[MNBrewer]

15. THat's a pretty non-specific reason to go to war

We hear "Dictators around the world will feel free to use chemical weapons"... WHICH dictators are we talking about? Or is it some vague rhetorical tool that is being used which bears absolutely no relationship to reality?

[Hayabusa]

18. Well, Syria, North Korea, Egypt and other nations

did not sign the treaty agreeing to destroy chemical weapon strongpiles. There's a beginning to the list.

[MNBrewer]

19. Two of those nations you mentioned are actually "dictatorships"

Syria and North Korea. Syria is already the focus of the discussion. That leaves North Korea. Are you saying that if we don't attack Syria, North Korea will feel free to use chemical weapons? Against whom would they use them? South Korea? They already know that if they make any overt attack on South Korea they would be attacked.

Egypt is not a dictatorship at the moment, so discussing it as though it were, as a pretext for warring against Syria is nonsensical.

[Hayabusa]

24. Those were the three nations from the map that I could think of

off of the top of my head. And yes, I'm pretty sure Egypt is on its third government (Mubarak, Morsi and military rule) since that treaty wasn't signed by them. I was listing them because they didn't sign and are prime suspects to use them because of it. The real point is, I don't know what government would use them, just that if any did, the lack of retaliation (military or otherwise) could significantly weaken said treaty.

[Savannahmann]

14. Show me a successful campaign?

Iraq? If ten years of boots on the ground and at best a slight chance at a democratic government is a success at the cost of how many trillions, then that is one possibility. Afghanistan is already facing a resurgence of the Taliban, the ones who enabled and protected AQ in the first place. Libya?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023593996

Libya is the next Somalia, and is that what we really want for Syria? There is a way, but it isn't to start bombing immediately. It is a measured and proportional response of international action. We can't bomb them into submission, or compliance. We can't bomb the CW's. That releases them, ask the 37th Engineers at Fallujah in 1991.

The calm approach is better than the saber rattling nonsense we are doing now. Best case scenario is that Syria devolves into a war torn land with different sections ruled by lunatic warlords. Worse case scenario is that Syria descends into the next Afghanistan, completely ruled by Terrorists and their sympathizers.

Tell me again how immediate bombing is a good thing?

[MADem]

2. Start with North Korea.

http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/non-member-states/

[Harmony Blue]

6. They have Gulags

why would they need to use costly chemical weapons?

Nice try though.

[MADem]

20. Costly? They're cheap. That's your first error.

Who says they'd necessarily use them against their own people, secondly, and thirdly, assuming they did choose to do that, when you're short on food, as NK often is, they're cheaper than bullets to get rid of troublemakers you don't really like, don't want to have to guard, and who have outlived their usefulness, and they're certainly less labor intensive, if you don't happen to care about human suffering. Helloooo? Zyklon B, remember that and how it was used?

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

Some light reading for ya: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/16/world/asia/north-korea-seizures

That same month, Greek authorities seized a North Korean shipment of 14,000 chemical weapons suits, worn for protection during a chemical attack, bound for Syria. The seizure was made public in 2011 when Greece reported it to the Security Council.

But nooo...nothing to see there, move along, now!


So, yeah, nice try, there. No cigar.

[Harmony Blue]

30. To weaponize chemical weapons

is not cheap and neither are the delivery systems. That is why the U.S. is considering using very costly cruise missiles to take out the delivery systems. That is your first error.

Secondly, use of chemical weapon suits does not indicate the use of increased possibility of chemical weapons. Chemical weapon suits are often used for protection purposes for invading armies.

Where is your link that shows Syria or N. Korea intend to invade its neighbors?

I can see the white flag from here with that attempt though.

[MADem]

33. Hello? Again, you're wrong.

Binary systems are cheap and easy to weaponize, and if you've got your targets huddled into a close environment, you can deliver them with a slingshot. The Germans dropped a canister through a hole, if you remember your history.

You waved that "white flag" you are going on about with your first uninformed and fact-free post. Now you're just doubling down, demanding "proof" of something that was never put forth as a foregone conclusion.

Fail. Decisive, you-ain't-got-an-argument, fail.

[maddezmom]

7. Interesting chart here

http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cbwprolif

[MADem]

9. I've worked treaty implementation issues, but never with CW.

It's certainly a daunting task. Accession is, as your chart shows, only the first step.

The destruction protocol--if you want to do it carefully, and also want a decent record of what was eliminated--is labor intensive.

[1awake]

8. I always wonder who voted the US world policeman. Isn't that what the UN is for?

and if the UN doesn't function (at least how we want it to lol) then why are we even a member of it.

[MADem]

11. Any one person at the Security Council table can thwart the will of the majority of nations.

That's how it's set up.

We police a good portion of the world, but not all of it. For example, North Korea's policeman is China.

[1awake]

17. The security council is rigged and yes it was from the start.

There should be NO permanent members on the council and have a 2/3 majority rule. Current system is rigged to perpetuate two countries from a period long over. I have all kinds of thoughts on how it should be set up, but why voice something that will never happen.

[MADem]

34. It is what it is, though, so when people throw down that

"It ain't valid unless the UN approves" the truth is, in this situation, that most of the UN approves, save Russia and China, and even one of them can stop the clock.

The world does not care for al-Assad gassing infants in their beds. They'd like UN peacekeepers to go in and destroy those weapons and stop this shit.

Because the game is rigged, that will not happen.

[KittyWampus]

10. Seems pretty likely Assad will use them again. Why do you need other examples?

[Harmony Blue]

12. Why would it be likely Assad would use them

again if the world is now watching?

[KittyWampus]

22. the world was already watching and he used them. To keep his core from defecting.

[Harmony Blue]

31. His core was defecting before the use of the chemical weapons

and the world was watching and they still don't agree on the events.

[LanternWaste]

13. Iran.

Iran under the rule of Ali Khamenei-- sophisticated pharmaceutical industries, dual usage stockpiles, and multiple delivery systems.

(Simply an answer-- no attempt to validate or invalidate any positions)

[MNBrewer]

16. Iran is one of the least likely nations to use chemical weapons, IMO

And it's not REALLY a dictatorship, is it?

[LanternWaste]

21. Generous use of chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran war

Generous use of chemical weapons in the Iraq-Iran war. Is there a specific policy action change since then that would lead us to believe their position has changed to any relevant degree?

"And it's not REALLY a dictatorship, is it?"
I imagine at this point, it depends primarily only on classical usage of political and sociological definitions applied consistently. Though I'd guess one may argue either way depending (I imagine) on one's predisposition to the answers they may be fishing for.

[MNBrewer]

25. THey do have elections. and the candidates are distinguishable at least superficially

If Iran is a dictatorship, then so is the US.

[MNBrewer]

26. Iraq used them during that war. Did Iran?

[MNBrewer]

36. Did Iran use chemical weapons, as you imply in post #21?

[KittyWampus]

23. "And it's not REALLY a dictatorship, is it?" Is hitting Assad's airfield's w/ bombs really a war?

I am pretty sure the Guardians are in charge in Iran.

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

[n2doc]

27. The other side-How many dictators were prevented from using chemical weapons by our actions in Iraq?

I can think of at least one who wasn't dissuaded. We went in last time we had a conniption fit about chemical weapons, hunted down Saddam and his sons, had our lackeys in the Iraq government hang and behead Saddam, and yet...

Brutal dictators are brutal dictators. They will do what they feel they must do to retain power. Making an example of one of them doesn't do much to prevent the next, it seems.

[Sand Wind]

28. The Russian and Chinese president to begin with. Nt

[MNBrewer]

29. Umm... OK....

[Harmony Blue]

32. Cool story

but it is not grounded in reality.

[hughee99]

35. We need to send a message to dictators who think they can kill their own people with chemical

weapons. The preferred way to do that seems to be by killing more of their people with missiles.