Of course people opposed to military strikes are horrified by the use of chemical weapons

[cali]

but I'm also disturbed by this emphasis on chemical weapons diminishing the horrors of other forms of warfare.

I think all of us wish there was a viable solution that would assure that they aren't used again in Syria. I just don't see one.

I'd support a military strike if:

the U.s. was part of a broad U.N. coalition

there was a strong likelihood that such strikes could wipe out the chemical weapon stores without killing people

there wasn't a real possibility that strikes would plunge syria into an even worse condition

there wasn't a possibility that strikes could spark a wider regional conflict

there was no possibility that radical factions wouldn't gain strength

If there was no collateral damage


but we live in the real world and all of the above are possible. some are guaranteed. some are more likely than others. In addition, I don't think bombing syria would send a message to North Korea or prevent future use of chemical weapons by some desperate tyrant. In any case, I think the argument that if we don't strike we'll send a message that you can get away with using chemical weapons is a ridiculous one.

I also believe, the U.S. is the wrong entity to be leading this charge. Our history in the middle east and beyond is too ugly. we've committed far too many of our own human rights abuses, many of them against people from the middle east.

[Nye Bevan]

1. So the trick is to (1) buddy up to Putin so he will veto any UN resolution;

and (2) stash your chemical weapons among the civilian population.

Bingo, you've gotten away with it!

[cali]

4. "getting away with it". Perhaps that's not the most important consideration

I'd suggest that there are far more important considerations.

[rhett o rick]

20. It's easy to take pot shots at others but hard to state your own position. nm

[MNBrewer]

31. I know that PBO has framed the discussion this way

i.e., that anything other than a US military strike = "turning a blind eye"

But that's simply a lie.

There are a number of things that can be done that would "send a message" or "punish" the Assad regime that don't involve the US military.

[Scuba]

2. No, no, haven't you heard? Those of us who oppose war with Syria are OK with chemical weapons ....

... love Putin and are racists too! I read it right here on DU!

[DontTreadOnMe]

26. Or maybe the other way.. people who are for some action against Assad are warmongers...

it goes both ways Scuba

[Scuba]

27. Advocating military action before exhausting all other avenues is indeed "warmongering".

[HangOnKids]

48. Bazinga!

Thank you.

[ellisonz]

53. What other avenues remain?

I don't think what we're proposing to do is a great idea, but I don't think doing nothing is a great idea either.

[Scuba]

58. UN sanctions, for example. I'm certainly not advocating doing nothing.

[ellisonz]

78. Russia and China have opposed all UN action.

Moreover, there is a well-established body of literature that argues sanctions are ineffective and only hurt the civilian population.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/world/middleeast/russia-and-china-veto-un-sanctions-against-syria.html?_r=0

[Scuba]

79. There's a pretty good body of literature that show US military intervention makes things worse ....

... and kills civilians. The past 50 years has all been negative.

[ellisonz]

80. Do you really think it's that simple?

[Scuba]

81. Do I think what is how simple?

Do you really think US military intervention will make things better?

[ellisonz]

82. Do I know for sure it will make it worse?

I think things can't really get all that much worse. 100,000+ and counting dead is pretty bad.

[ellisonz]

94. Depends on the situation.

But nice knee-jerk.

[ellisonz]

96. You're right. It was more flip, than knee-jerk.

My apologies.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. Obama was not previously bothered by chemical weapons use, he never mentioned Reagan's

assistance/lack of response to Saddam's far more extensive use of poison gas upon civilians and military both in Iraq and in Iran. Obama's affectation that chemical weapons have always been some 'red line' is stunning out of a man who when asked about Ronald Reagan, always heaps praise upon the memory of the man and never so much as mentions the 'red line' crossed without any reaction.
Ask me about Reagan, I say he's a Union Busting monster who refused to deal with the AIDS crisis and who let Saddam gas the Kurds with impunity. As Obama about Reagan and he says 'Transformative greatness, better than Clinton, moral, Christian, blah, blah'. Nary a word about that red line, no comment about the fact that during Reagan's administration, the US oversaw the employment of gas to kill thousands upon thousands, no comment about Rumsfeld's congratulatory trip to Bagdad a few weeks after the largest gas attack since WW1. Obama's hero, Ronald Reagan, did nothing about the gas, except tell Saddam where the targets were.
Situational outrage. Posturing. Fakery. Hypocrisy.

[cali]

8. I don't think that's fair. How can you possibly know that

he wasn't "previously bothered by chemical weapons use"? You can't.

You won't ever find a President harshly criticizing his predecessors. It's fucking absurd to expect that.

and it's a flat out lie to state that Reagan is Obama's hero. He's spoken out repeatedly against Reagan's policies- particularly his economic ones.

Your cartoon image of President Obama is no more accurate than the cartoon image of him presented by some of his loyalists.

[ColesCountyDem]

15. ^ +1000

[VanillaRhapsody]

28. Let's not forget that he has been a strong proponent of non-proliferation all along.

[dionysus]

77. +1000 "cartoon" is right

[dionysus]

76. dude, your blind hatred of obama and pushing your "he luvs reagan!1!" lie are making you look absurd

you've even managed to insinuate he condones poison gas. get a hold of yourself man.

[el_bryanto]

5. "If there was no collateral damage" - wouldn't it be simpler to just say I won't support strikes

It's hard to imagine a military strike in which there wouldn't be some collateral damage.

Bryant

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. Or how about

"Until U.N. inspectors finish...."

as if they would change their opinion if the inspectors said without a shadow of a doubt Assad gassed his people and that they have proof to back it up.

[MNBrewer]

34. The fact that a US strike on Syria is illegal doesn't seem to change your favoring it

Why not look to yourself in regards to resistance to facts, first?

[Junkdrawer]

6. The AQ terrorists who did this are monsters.

We should stop supporting them.

[cali]

10. I think, as Juan Cole does, and as recent revelations provide evidence for,

that someone in assad's regime perpetrated ghouta.

Who used the chemical weapons just isn't determinative in my opposition to military strikes.

[LostOne4Ever]

7. Exactly!

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]cali[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]Of course people opposed to military strikes are horrified by the use of chemical weapons but I'm also disturbed by this emphasis on chemical weapons diminishing the horrors of other forms of warfare.

Chemical weapons are horrible but so are traditional weapons. How many innocent civilians have been massacred by bombs and rockets? We are going to get selectively outraged just because chemicals weapons were used after over 100k people have been killed? And had those weapons not been used we would not care? Even if the death toll hit the millions?

Makes no sense to me.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. Perhaps because it is the one thing that 98% of the world agreed to disarm itself of?

getting the world to agree by 98% of a weapon is almost impossible. But if we overlook it "just this once" then we might as well forget ever getting any agreements to disarm ourselves of any others...since that agreement rang so hollow.

[MNBrewer]

37. Those same nations also agreed to mechanisms by which to deal with the use of chemical weapons

You can't cite upholding one set of international agreements as a basis for violating another set of international agreements.

Obama's plans as they have been laid out are clearly ILLEGAL. The War Powers Act does not give the President the legal basis for violating the UN charter, so don't even go there.

[LuvNewcastle]

9. The main reason I'm against it is because of the high likelihood

that the war will spread and we'll be in the middle of it. I think there are some people in our government and the Israeli government who want that to happen, but I don't believe most Americans do. If we can help the victims of this war without bombing or killing anyone, I'm okay with that, but I don't want our military involved in Syria. It's not worth the risk.

[ProSense]

11. So

I'd support a military strike if:

the U.s. was part of a broad U.N. coalition

there was a strong likelihood that such strikes could wipe out the chemical weapon stores without killing people

there wasn't a real possibility that strikes would plunge syria into an even worse condition

there wasn't a possibility that strikes could spark a wider regional conflict

there was no possibility that radical factions wouldn't gain strength

If there was no collateral damage

...you'd support a military strike if there were assurances of all of the above, but in order to reject them you are convinced that all of the above isn't possible?

"but we live in the real world and all of the above are possible. some are guaranteed. some are more likely than others. In addition, I don't think bombing syria would send a message to North Korea or prevent future use of chemical weapons by some desperate tyrant. In any case, I think the argument that if we don't strike we'll send a message that you can get away with using chemical weapons is a ridiculous one."

I don't get this. You'd support a strike under the circumstance above, but you disagree with a message? Why support a strike if, as you seem to be implying, has nothing to do with the potential for future use?

"I also believe, the U.S. is the wrong entity to be leading this charge. Our history in the middle east and beyond is too ugly. we've committed far too many of our own human rights abuses, many of them against people from the middle east. "

Who should be leading the effort? You already stated that one of the criteria is UN support.

[cali]

21. Prosense. there is no one here that I consider

it more pointless to try and have a discussion with. I will no longer even bother with responding to your inane questions. You don't respond to questions asked of you so no one should feel any obligation to answer your questions. I certainly don't.

Your perspective on everything begins and ends with your absolute fealty to President Obama. Everything you post and evidently everything you think is through that lens.

That filter makes discussing anything in any kind of thoughtful way, impossible.

It's just too weird for me.

[VanillaRhapsody]

32. and if Obama succeeds in getting Syria to turn over its chemical weapons to international

authority by doing what he has done...

will you still be "wierded out"?

[cali]

83. that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said in my post

[VanillaRhapsody]

84. "Your perspective on everything begins and ends with your absolute fealty to President Obama.

Everything you post and evidently everything you think is through that lens."

perhaps there is good reason for that...But you are "weirded out" by it.

[cali]

85. there is no "good" or rational explanation for anyone

seeing everything from that perspective.

[VanillaRhapsody]

86. If he is a going down as one of the greatest Presidents ever?

Some people are leaders....some are managers....I am sure Martin Luther King Junior had some flaws too...but he was still a great leader. And people followed. I am sure I woulda felt the same way about FDR....and I bet you would have been "weirded out" by some of what he did too!

[cali]

88. no, not even if that were true

idolizing people and particularly politicians is not healthy.

and btw, most historians so far, do not consider him one of the greatest presidents ever. In any case, it's far too early to make an assessment on where he falls on that list.

[VanillaRhapsody]

89. It is not idolizing having a leader and trusting his judgement....

trusting your own judgement for selecting him....I didn't pick him to follow what the latest polls are and shift with the way the wind blows....he "stands his ground" if you will...But I guess to you he shoulda folded like a cheap suit because of a bunch of signal noise.

[Alkene]

12. Good summation by OP. Speaks for me. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Yeah, that's pretty much how I feel about it right now...

Also, while I suspect the chemical attack was carried out by Assads forces, I still have a niggle of doubt about it and wish I could be 100% satisfied before I'd support any intervention by the UN...not that they will because Russia would veto anything anyway...

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. If you were 98% sure...would that be enough?

what would you need to find for evidence to support it?

[marble falls]

14. I wouldn't supportmilitary action under any circumstance than a direct threat to the US....

for one thing we don't have any real conclusive proof who the attack came from Assad or the rebels. The only thing we do have evidence of is the shipment of precursor chemicals from UK just months ago and sales from of chemicals by companies based in the US prior to that as well as from other sources in Europe and Asia.

This looks more and more like Iraq every single day.

[gopiscrap]

16. Thank you

[ragemage]

17. no point in it now

So what is the point of doing anything at this point? IF we were to do anything (and I don't condone bombing at all) we should have done it at least two weeks ago when the evidence came out. Now we are just like the parent trying to discipline their unruly child with idle threats. Shit or get off the pot.

In reality, the USA should NOT be involved at all. All this effort and positioning to bomb Syria...where is the effort and positioning for healthcare, education, employment, etc. back here in the good ole US of A?

Sanctions, sure. Embargoes, yeah. Bombs, collateral damage...no way. Ever hear of blow back? Go read the late Chalmers Johnson's books. Should be required reading.

[brooklynite]

18. We also live in the real world where the Syrian Government will continue to kill people...

...whether with bombs and bullets or with chemical weapons. Doing nothing will not result in "peace".

[frylock]

23. thankfully, we have Real World Realists like you to explain things to us..

for instance, i'm sure you can explain to us step 2 to bombing the living shit out Of Damascus, as well as who will fill the void when we remove Assad from power? being a Real World Realist such as you are, surely you have this mapped out.

[cali]

24. that real world is also one where Syrian rebel factions will continue to kill

whether with bombs and bullets or with chemical weapons.

Military strikes will not result in "peace"

[VanillaRhapsody]

35. read about Agent Defense Weapons

we have had them more than 10 yrs now...

[cali]

38. that's just bullshit.

there is no way to strike chemical weapon stores without dispersing the chemicals. The Pentagon makes no such claims.

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. Oh really?

Here is an article from back in 2003 saying they were ready:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3419-agent-defeat-weapons-ready-for-use.html#.Ui3eLjaPMu0

[cali]

45. Yes, really, 'nilla.

that article sure as shit doesn't back you up. It's speculation.

Again, the Pentagon makes no claims of having the capability to do this. Not a single military expert claims it.

You seem fond of posting this dishonest crapola.

[MNBrewer]

47. you are seriously grasping at straws, here.

Why are you so hungry for this war?

[VanillaRhapsody]

56. straws of 10 yr mature technology...yeah...sure...

[MNBrewer]

59. you use as evidence

an article that says that prototypes are ready for testing in Iraq, when we find all of Saddam's chemical and biological weapons from 10 years ago.

1. we never found those weapons because they didn't exist.
2. you then extrapolate, for some reason, that these technologies are now mature. Without any evidence at all. Just your own wishful thinking.

[VanillaRhapsody]

62. right....you have seen technology that video games have used for 10 yrs...how has that technology

matured in that time...

Really....nothing but wishful thinking huh?

http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

[MNBrewer]

71. You're really using video game technology as your basis... SRSLY???

Nothing but wishful thinking, I stand by my statement. And ask again, are you really that thirsty for Syrian blood?

From your linked propaganda article:
"The PAW penetrator rods, which range from several inches to more than one-foot, can disable an enemy fuel tank, antenna or helicopter without necessarily damaging people."

unless one of these penetrator rods happen to HIT the person....

[VanillaRhapsody]

73. NO...are you daft?

do you not understand the point that if that is technology YOU have daily exposure too....and can see with your own two eyes how MUCH it has evolved..

Now extrapolate that to military weaponry and how that evolves...

I know you are capable of more than two concepts at once...

[cali]

54. do chew on this information prior to making this silly claim again

Study: Destroying Syria’s Chemical Weapons Arsenal Requires Ground Troops
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/09/rand-study-syria-obama.php

Destroying Syrian Chemical Stockpiles Won’t Be Easy, May Kill Civilians
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/06/destroying-syrian-chemical-stockpiles-won-t-be-easy-may-kill-civilians.html

USA vs. Syria: The massive challenge of neutralizing chemical weapons from afar
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/165580-destroying-chemical-weapons

<snip>

Pentagon budget documents show that testing of so-called Agent Defeat weapon continues. Getting one to work without causing more harm than good has been a struggle. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency has spent tens of millions of dollars developing and testing the weapon. The Navy dropped out of the Agent Defeat program in 2005 because byproducts from its explosion proved toxic.

<snip>

The Air Force has two Agent Defeat weapons, CrashPAD and the Passive Attack Weapon (PAW), according to Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force spokeswoman. Instead of explosives, these relatively low-tech weapons use metal rods or fragments to pierce containers holding toxic chemicals, allowing them to escape.

<snip>

"The risk is that you would create a more serious mass-casualty event than what you were responding to," said John Pike, executive director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense policy organization.

A successful attack with the Agent Defeat weapon requires precise targeting. If chemical weapons are stored near populated areas, the need for a perfect strike increases, said Loren Thompson, a defense industry consultant and military analyst at the Lexington Institute.

"If the weapons miss their aim points or don't burn intensely, they could disperse the chemical agents in a way that causes massive casualties," Thompson said. "The most effective way to render nerve agents and other chemical weapons harmless is to quickly incinerate them in a isolated location such as a bunker. If they are stored among civilians, there is great danger of collateral damage."

<snip>

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/29/syria-chemical-weapons-attack/2723251/

[VanillaRhapsody]

60. the talking points memo and the daily beast?

come on...they really have the inside track on this top secret weaponry huh?

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) is an agency within the United States Department of Defense and is the official Combat Support Agency for countering weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high explosives). DTRA's main functions are threat reduction, threat control, combat support, and technology development. The agency is headquartered in Fort Belvoir, Virginia. DTRA employs 2,000 civilian and military personnel at more than 14 locations around the world, including Russia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Georgia, and Ukraine.

DTRA was established in 1998 by consolidating several DoD organizations, including the Defense Special Weapons Agency (successor to the Defense Nuclear Agency) and the On-Site Inspection Agency as a result of the 1997 Defense Reform Initiative.[1]
In 2005, the Secretary of Defense made the decision to designate the Commander, United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) as the lead Combatant Command for the integration and synchronization of DoD’s Combating WMD efforts in support of U.S. government objectives. To fill this requirement, the USSTRATCOM Center for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction was collocated with DTRA.
Annual published budgetary figures are $346 million (fiscal year 2008), $354 million (FY 2009), and $385 million (est. for FY 2010).[2]
DTRA's vision is "to make the world safer by reducing the threat of weapons of mass destruction."

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

Yes ^^^^ that is totally a fantasy...right

[MNBrewer]

61. wikipedia? Really?

[VanillaRhapsody]

63. You know for a fact I have supplied plenty of articles...

I just wanted to show HOW big this is....

[cali]

65. no, you haven't and you sure as shit have not provided

anyone from the Pentagon or any military analyst who thinks that this is remotely an option.

[VanillaRhapsody]

67. Just did...but here you go..

I will help you again:

http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/

[cali]

72. one more time: NOT AN OPTION

not without potentially causing massive collateral damage.

Weapon stores are near civilian populations. Some are underground. These weapons cannot be used for those reasons.

Evidently you have no problem killings masses of civilians in order to keep them from being potentially killed by the use of gas.

That is infuckingsane and utterly immoral.

Oh, and there would also have to be use of piloted aircraft which brings up the specter of them being shot down.

[VanillaRhapsody]

68. and...

One analyst said if the PAW were to be fired from a high enough altitude and was able to travel with enough terminal velocity – it could destroy chemical weapons stockpiles without releasing contaminants.

“When you hit something at high velocity, what you get is a flash of incredible heat in a confined area extremely fast. That can vaporize everything in small area,” said Daniel Goure, vice president of the Lexington Institute, a Virginia-based think tank.
Goure likened the effect to the impact of so-called “Sabo” Kinetic Energy 120mm tank rounds fired by the U.S. Army’s M1Abrams tank.

“A Sabo round is essentially the same thing, a combination of spalling and heat effects. The round melts its way into the tank,” he said.


Read more: http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/#ixzz2ePikYyxT
Defense.org

[VanillaRhapsody]

66. Here is just one "mature technology"

The CrashPad, or BLU-119/B weapon is a high-heat explosive bomb designed to incinerate chemical agents before they can be harmful, according to defense officials and DoD documents.
The weapon is a 420-pound, high-heat incendiary weapon with what’s called a “blast-fragmentation” warhead. The Crash Pad is built from an existing standard MK 84 bomb body. The “PAD” in CrashPad stands for “Prompt Agent Defeat,” referring to the weapon’s ability to destroy chemical and biological agents without causing contamination, official documents describe.


Read more: http://defensetech.org/2013/08/30/air-force-developed-bombs-capable-of-destroying-syrias-chemical-weapons/#ixzz2ePhv9JaG
Defense.org

[cali]

64. lol. you chide me for using TPM and the DB and go straight to wiki: Hilarious, honey.

and TPM and the DB use excellent sources in those articles.

you really are desperate and unable to grasp the reality of why what you claim is possible, isn't.

It's just kind of pathetic.

[VanillaRhapsody]

69. Only to show the expanse of what we are talking about...

I have provided plenty of support for your edification..

I bet many didn't even know that these existed until I started discussing them.

[MNBrewer]

74. You have provided some nice glossy MIC materials produced for their propaganda effects

[MNBrewer]

39. How does that apply to the question. You responded with a non sequitur.

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. He asked how....and I am supplying an answer

Just because you do not know how it could be done...doesn't mean the technology doesn't exist.

[MNBrewer]

44. So we're going to bomb them with these "Agent Defense Weapons"?

[cali]

46. that claim is a pile of dishonest shit.

[MNBrewer]

75. Agent Defeat Weapons, for YOUR edification

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/29/syria-chemical-weapons-attack/2723251/

"Pentagon budget documents show that testing of so-called Agent Defeat weapon continues. Getting one to work without causing more harm than good has been a struggle. The Defense Threat Reduction Agency has spent tens of millions of dollars developing and testing the weapon. The Navy dropped out of the Agent Defeat program in 2005 because byproducts from its explosion proved toxic."

and

"The Air Force has two Agent Defeat weapons, CrashPAD and the Passive Attack Weapon (PAW), according to Jennifer Cassidy, an Air Force spokeswoman. Instead of explosives, these relatively low-tech weapons use metal rods or fragments to pierce containers holding toxic chemicals, allowing them to escape.

To be effective in densely populated areas, an Agent Defeat bomb must destroy toxic chemicals without dispersing them.

In 2002, the Navy announced that it was developing the weapon and pairing it with bombs designed to penetrate fortified buildings. The Navy described it working this way: after bursting into a storage bunker, the warhead would spray copper plates at high speeds to tear into tanks containing toxic chemicals. Material within the warhead would burn so hot it would vaporize the chemicals that escape. A byproduct that explosion would generate chlorine gas, a disinfectant."

***********************************

So, using these weapons will: 1) allow the chemical weapons to escape from their holding tanks - GREAT idea!; 2) create their own toxic by products; 3) or create chlorine gas, which itself is essentially a chemical weapon.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/165580-destroying-chemical-weapons

"Daryl Kimball of the Arms Control Association framed the problem in his recent testimony on the subject, “If you drop a conventional munition on a storage facility containing unknown chemical agents — and we don’t know exactly what is where in the Syrian arsenal — some of those agents will be neutralised and some will be spread. You are not going to destroy all of them.”"

and

"The result of a PAW strike will still be a toxic mess, but hopefully one that only affects a limited area." HOPEFULLY....wishful thinking?

and

"Use of any of these munitions is made much more complex if the targeted weapons are housed near populated areas, of course. Similarly, none of them have had extensive field tests — although they have been simulated on USAF’s SERPENT attack simulator. As a result, many weapons experts predict that if strikes in Syria do occur, they may not attempt to directly destroy its chemical weapon stockpiles."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/weapons/how-the-us-could-take-out-syrias-chemical-weapons-14826307

The major caveat: Even if these kinds of weapons work exactly as planned, knocking out Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles is not just a weapons engineering challenge. Intelligence is key and, as the war in Iraq showed, pinning down WMD is notoriously difficult. It’s no use taking out a warehouse with the latest hardware if the chemicals were never there, or if they were moved out the previous day. And any action on a stockpile is hazardous. Anything less than 100 percent destruction risks exposing innocent civilians to lethal chemical agents. Agent defeat weapons might offer some options in an unstable and dangerous situation in Syria, but they are certainly not an easy, risk-free solution."

[Snake Plissken]

22. I'm far more horrified by Depleted Uranium than I am of anything Syria has to offer

Depleted Uranium is the gift that keeps on giving for a 1,000 years.

Iraq and Afghanistan are littered with it thanks to us.

If there anything that needs to be secured in the Middle East it's all of the Depleted Uranium which could be easily used to make a 'dirty bomb'

[Hubert Flottz]

25. I'll tell you what I saw in the Army...

I saw a guy volunteer to have a drop on nerve agent placed on his bare arm for a demonstration at Fort Ord California. In about a minute the guy had white foam coming out of his mouth and gushing out the bottom of an M-17 gas mask he was wearing. He began to shake and twitch and the man standing by with the atropine Autopen injectors, began injecting the victim in the leg. In a couple of minutes after the officer had injected the demonstrator with a second injection, he started showing signs of recovery. In five minute's time the man was able to maintain his equilibrium enough to get up out of the chair he'd been seated in since he began the demonstration and stand up on his own. In about fifteen minutes the guy was pretty well back to normal. The private only had the chemical on his arm for about one minute before they washed it off of him. Back then you had CS gas in your sleep and sometimes for three meals a day, because the Drill Instructors thought it was loads of fun.

The key to survival is to be injected very quickly after being contaminated, but the problem is, if the volunteer who had a dose of nerve agent and been by himself, I doubt if he would have been able to inject himself, much more than a minute after he was exposed, because he was so quickly incapacitated. By the time one would be aware of the fact that they'd been exposed to these chemicals, he would probably die a horrible death if he was by himself, even if he had the antidote in his pocket.

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. Your first hand experience explains why it is different...

thank you

[MNBrewer]

41. How many minutes does it take to die from a drone strike?

or a Tomahawk Missile strike?

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. seconds or minutes to die...

versus possible hours and hours...in paralysis and convulsions and drowning in bodily fluids...torturously.

[cali]

49. bullshit, 'nilla

you can bleed to death slowly and agonizingly from internal bleeding, for example. You can have limbs blown off. You sure as shit can die an agonizing death from the results of bombing.

duh.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. Every single one it strikes?

going out for as far as chemical weapons allow...not just those in the exact strike zone?

[MNBrewer]

50. or hours and hours and days and weeks

STOP with the war mongering!!! Are you so thirsty for Syrian blood?

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. I will stop when Assad relinquishes his chemical weapons like the rest of the world has..

do you really think there is no reason why 98% of the world chose to disarm themselves of it? I support ending Syria's dirty little secret... that it has been using these weapons for political gain all along.

[MNBrewer]

55. In addition to Syria

there are four other nations that have neither signed nor acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Angola, Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan.

In addition there are two nations that have signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Israel, Myanmar.

After we follow your plan and (somehow) remove Assad's chemical weapons, which nation do you propose be next for disarming?

[cali]

57. no, you won't stop. It's crystal clear that you will continue spreading

the lie that the U.S. can safely destroy Syria's chemical weapons stores.

people like you have no grasp of context. you have a myopic perspective that disallows for any critical thinking.

[AlinPA]

70. We need more reasonable posts like this on DU. This place has deteriorated with both sides on

this Syria problem. I'm close to giving up on DU.

[Cleita]

87. I would only support a military strike if all other

attempts for a non-military resolution of the whole civil war in Syria were exhausted. It would have to be a very last resort. Why is it the first thing being proposed if it isn't a dishonest excuse for more war profits for the usual players?

[undeterred]

97. The country that brought you Agent Orange, White Phosphorus, Depleted Uranium, and the Atomic Bomb

is horrified by the use of sarin gas.