Syrian forces may have used gas without Assad's permission according to German Bild am Sonntag paper - Polidicks

[QUOTE=snookypookums;42121015]It's like history repeating itself - first the media was full of reports on possible WMD's in Iraq, then the invasion and they found nothing there. Now this chemical attack/weapons in Syria (though the case is still being investigated) and the US is ready to go to war?[/QUOTE] the US is ready to go to war because Iran and Russia are behind the Assad regime, while Saudi Arabia and some other countries no one really cares about are behind the rebels it's a proxy war, that if won by the rebels, would be a strike against Iran and Russia

[QUOTE=snookypookums;42121015]It's like history repeating itself - first the media was full of reports on possible WMD's in Iraq, then the invasion and they found nothing there. Now this chemical attack/weapons in Syria (though the case is still being investigated) and the US is ready to go to war?[/QUOTE] The US doesn't [I]want[/I] to go to war. The UN decided that chemical weapons were going to be classified as WMDs, and that using them is a big no-no. Cept, now that someone's gone and used them, everyone in the UN is siting around with their thumbs in their asses doing nothing. The US either does what they and everyone else agreed to do in the first place, or nobody does anything, and the UN continues to be useless. Now, I'm not saying I'm looking forward to my country marching into yet another conflict, but at the same time, [I]someone used chemical weapons on a civilian population.[/I]

[QUOTE=Van-man;42121067]Although be tactical about delivering the message. That means carpetbombing is out of the question.[/QUOTE] Of course, but people seem to oppose all military action in Syria, even against people who deserve it, which is almost as dumb as going into Syria and carpet bombing it off the map

[QUOTE=catbarf;42120952]Have you seen any evidence that the rest of the military and government are denouncing these actions and calling for repercussions against the responsible parties? If the rest of the government is tacitly approving of these attacks then it doesn't matter who exactly is pushing the button.[/QUOTE] Well, if these reports are to be believed, then the government denied their request for using chemical weapons. There are many reasons why a government in war would wait for the war to end before punishing their own, Divisional and brigade commanders don't grow on trees. Edit: Although, if international pressure would be shifted towards punishing any offenders instead of Syria as a whole, they might give in.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;42121177]Of course, but people seem to oppose all military action in Syria, even against people who deserve it, which is almost as dumb as going into Syria and carpet bombing it off the map[/QUOTE] The reason people oppose is because it'll either be fuckexpensive, require troops to be sent to the frontline with the risk of being killed, or a combo of those. Basically people want war without the part that makes it a war.

[QUOTE=Irespawnoften;42121120]The US doesn't [I]want[/I] to go to war. The UN decided that chemical weapons were going to be classified as WMDs, and that using them is a big no-no. Cept, now that someone's gone and used them, everyone in the UN is siting around with their thumbs in their asses doing nothing. The US either does what they and everyone else agreed to do in the first place, or nobody does anything, and the UN continues to be useless. Now, I'm not saying I'm looking forward to my country marching into yet another conflict, but at the same time, [I]someone used chemical weapons on a civilian population.[/I][/QUOTE] But isn't it still an alleged attack, the investigations are still being conducted and the results are not due for atleast three weeks? In such a case, if turns out chemical weapons weren't used, how will the US stance change? I'm with you thou when you say that nobody wants the US in more conflicts - their wars tend to have a lasting effect on the world.

[QUOTE=Irespawnoften;42121120]The US doesn't [I]want[/I] to go to war. The UN decided that chemical weapons were going to be classified as WMDs, and that using them is a big no-no. Cept, now that someone's gone and used them, everyone in the UN is siting around with their thumbs in their asses doing nothing. The US either does what they and everyone else agreed to do in the first place, or nobody does anything, and the UN continues to be useless. Now, I'm not saying I'm looking forward to my country marching into yet another conflict, but at the same time, [I]someone used chemical weapons on a civilian population.[/I][/QUOTE] someone also used bombs and guns on civilians, but i guess their deaths mean nothing to you?

[QUOTE=JerryK;42121351]someone also used bombs and guns on civilians, but i guess their deaths mean nothing to you?[/QUOTE] That is what I was wondering as well - if it turns out this was some sort of hoax/false flag operation, it doesn't appear likely like the US can just go "Well, that changes everything, I figure you rebels can sort it out, have a lovely revolution" without facing a significant amount of international backlash. It seems like at this stage the US has pretty much made up its mind to attack in Syria, regardless of what the outcome is. At any rate, everything is conjecture at this point.

Source is dubious, still no reason to intervene regardless.

[QUOTE=catbarf;42119780]If it was used by the Syrian military it doesn't matter if the president personally approved it or not.[/QUOTE] It depends - if they tried to do steps to prevent the usage (deny permission and the like) then they'd be legally in the clear, as they did try to prevent the usage to a certain extent.

[QUOTE=JerryK;42121351]someone also used bombs and guns on civilians, but i guess their deaths mean nothing to you?[/QUOTE] First off, cut the holier than thou crap. Second, guns and bombs aren't banned for the express reason of being ungodly horrific. Civilian deaths are civilian deaths no matter how you spin it, and deserve the full attention of the world population to halt.