AIRSTRIKES ON SYRIA IMMINENT

[nikki1]

UN To US: Wait 4 Days For Team To Complete Investigation Before Deciding On Military Strike

 

“It is essential to establish the facts. A U.N. investigation team is now on the ground to do just that. Just days after the attack, they have collected valuable samples and interviewed victims and witnessesThe team needs time to do its job,” Ban said, according to CBS News, adding that a report needs to be sent to the U.N. Security Council.  More at above link

[Guest]

 

While Assad of Syria is no angel and is a cause of national and international terrorism, the opposition that is trying to overthrow him are religious fanatics backed by Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood and are just as capable, and more, of using gas attacks on innocent people.

 

I have a problem with any attack on the  Syria regime  because .....

 

To date, no national or international agency or media source has been able to show who fired the weapons, and while the UN inspections that have taken place thus far from interviews of victims, reports published that I have read say there is no solid evidence who the culprit is, but shows strong evidence from testimony from victims that the rebels are the culprits. 

Very good point. 

 

 

I agree. While I agree with Fez that a message be sent about the use of chemical weapons, it would be better if we knew who actually fired them first.

[TsukinoRei]

 

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq

This seemed odd to those who had been paying attention. There were widespread reports that in March 2003 US marines had dropped incendiary bombs around the bridges over the Tigris and the Saddam Canal on the way to Baghdad. The commander of Marine Air Group 11 admitted that "We napalmed both those approaches". Embedded journalists reported that napalm was dropped at Safwan Hill on the border with Kuwait. In August 2003 the Pentagon confirmed that the marines had dropped "mark 77 firebombs". Though the substance these contained was not napalm, its function, the Pentagon's information sheet said, was "remarkably similar". While napalm is made from petrol and polystyrene, the gel in the mark 77 is made from kerosene and polystyrene. I doubt it makes much difference to the people it lands on.

 

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/18/was-there-napalm-in-fallujah/?_r=0

 

But a close reading of the article indicates a different story: WP was used for screening missions and later “as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE (high explosives). We fired ‘shake and bake’ missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out.”

Michael Stebbins, the director of biology policy at the Federation of American Scientists, a non-partisan, non-profit group that deals with national security issues, told me that napalm and white phosphorus are “very different.” He said, “No experienced military person would mistake one for the other.”

Napalm and its successor use jellied petroleum products, require an ignition and often kill by suffocating their victims because the fire they create is so intense it uses up all the nearby oxygen. WP ignites on contact with the air and can inflict deep wounds because it burns as long as it has a supply of oxygen.

These are weapons with horrible potential effects, and you might say, “What’s the difference, they both kill.” But, so do 500-pound bombs dropping on Iraq and all the other weaponry employed in a war that inspires strong passions.

Calling what was used in Fallujah “napalm” may have greater emotional impact than calling it WP. Napalm raises images of Vietnam and, especially, that tragic 1972 photograph of a naked little girl, running down a street, screaming in agony from napalm burns.

 

 

Filkins did experience WP first hand. He said the unit with which he was traveling took friendly fire, and chunks of WP burned holes the size of fists through his backpack and sleeping bag.

“But, honestly, I don’t know what that phosphorus was being used for. A flare? A weapon? I don’t know. We were under heavy fire, and it didn’t seem significant enough at the time to ask.”

 

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/08/the-u-s-and-israel-have-used-chemical-weapons-within-the-last-8-years.html

 

Different war, different time.  Were chemical weapons used by allied forces?  Would it matter if they were?  I don't know.  Cynical me thinks they probably were.  Why develop and stock weapons that aren't intended for use?  Besides, mercenary forces aren't subject to international conventions or military police, and mercenary armies are now quite heavily used.  The thought is horrifying, but isn't that the point?  To incapacitate the enemy with horror?

 

I find all the discussions about rules of engagement conjure in my mind the image of Victorian era troops in their dress uniforms, marching towards each other in polite little rows and taking turns shooting at each other.  It seems like such a ridiculous concept, bringing civility to murderous intent.  Maybe if the rules about chemical warfare were relaxed the U.S could carpet bomb the place with sleeping gas and then send in the troops to tuck in the good guys and handcuff the bad guys!  It's a nice thought, but probably naive.  Because in the end we all know that the intent of weapons of war is to kill, to maim, to break the will of the enemy to fight by taking away dignity and health in any way possible.  That's why the rebel armies throughout Africa cut off the limbs and gouge out the eyes of entire villages.  That's why 'shake'n'bake' is used to cause deep burn wounds though it doesn't kill.

 

Even if they weren't used as recently as Iraq, was Vietnam all that long ago?

 

Feeling grim.