I recall that the gassings you mention during the Iran vs Iraq war did not get us or the UN involved either.
Of course, during that war, Iraq and Saddam were considered our ally.
Um, we were involved. Hell, documents this week were released showing our involvement and Reagan’s culpability: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/new-docs-show-us-involvement-saddams-nerve-gas-attacks/68698/
And really, it wasn’t so much as allies as feeling more threatened with the Iranians so helping the Iraqis a bit more suited us better. But we equally didn’t want the Iraqis to take control….just a balance of power.
And I say we when I really mean the doodooheads in charge back then. I was a kid back then.
And lets be clear here.
“Tear gas” is a chemical weapon.
When can I expect my shipments of VX? for my next axis and allies game?
That’s a stable substance to be playing with isn’t it? :p
We’ve all seen the rock. Pfftp, those pansies just didn’t know how to tough it out and hold their breath.
@rjpeters70:
Not really for tear gas. That’s more of a riot control agent.Â
Most Chemical Weapons are defined as toxic weapons having the potential for lethal effect (according to the CWC). So, we’re talking stuff like:
Chlorine (Cl)
Phosgene (PG)
Diphosgene (DP)
Chloropicrin (PS)
Sulfur mustard (H, HD)
Nitrogen mustard (HN)
Phosgene oxime (CX)
Lewisite (L)
Hydrogen cyanide (AC)
Cyanogen chloride (CK)
Arsine (SA)
Tabun (GA)
Sarin (GB)
Soman (GD)
Cyclosarin (GE, GF)
VX
Been Chlorine gased, I work for a water utility and work with the gas every day. In 2000 I got exposed to the gas, felt like a fish out of water. I can only imagine getting gased by a more toxic gas!
It’s a set up for the U.S. and it only depends on if the U.S. falls for that.
It is questionable if the U.S. is still super power, if they have to rethink the strategy when Russian Ship are sent down there for “Training”.
The best way is to settle for a diplomatic solution and peace without a fight. Then figure out who exactly dropped the gas bombs.
Then persecute who ever was behind the gas attack.
The solution is to butt-out.
Is killing more syrians, because syrians killed syrians with CW’s, really the answer?
And the syrians who get killed in US stirkes, probably will have nothing to do with the syrians who launched gas.
I mean, unless the U.S. can assassinate Assad, any other attack is ludicrous.
Looks like if you do take some sort of action, it will be without us.
Cameron’s vote failed to pass in parliament.
He can’t be making many friends over there can he?
Doesn’t sound right to me.
Thank you for that and all other information.
Here’s an odd historical footnote to the Syria situation, involving yesterday’s vote by the House of Commons on British Prime Minister David Cameron’s motion to authorize the principle of military strikes by Britain against Syria. The “principle” part was a watering down of what Cameron originally wanted, which was the actual authorization to use force, but Cameron’s motion was nevertheless defeated by 285 votes to 272. Cameron thus became the first British Prime Minister in 231 years to lose a Parliamentary vote on military action, the last one being Lord North, who, in 1782, saw Parliament vote against further fighting in the American Revolution and thus effectively concede independence to the American colonies.
@rjpeters70:
Like I said, I think the President was backed into a corner by his own rhetoric, and now feels compelled to act in order to shore up his own credibility, but it’s not something he really wants to do.
Really sad for the leader of a superpower.
And Aequitas: The U.S. is still a superpower: We’re the only nation able to project force on a global scale. We are, I’ll admit, in a rough patch, but we’re better set up to remain the global hegemon for the next three decades than anyone else.
I prefer the good old Monroe Doctrine days.
@CWO:
Here’s an odd historical footnote to the Syria situation, involving yesterday’s vote by the House of Commons on British Prime Minister David Cameron’s motion to authorize the principle of military strikes by Britain against Syria. The “principle” part was a watering down of what Cameron originally wanted, which was the actual authorization to use force, but Cameron’s motion was nevertheless defeated by 285 votes to 272. Cameron thus became the first British Prime Minister in 231 years to lose a Parliamentary vote on military action, the last one being Lord North, who, in 1782, saw Parliament vote against further fighting in the American Revolution and thus effectively concede independence to the American colonies.
Well I never! Good to know. Thanks again Marc.
