To our fellow muricans

[Angantyr]

What resources do they have?  That's such a hackneyed, easy, thoughtless, cynical cliche.  Syria's oil production peaked in 1996 and as of 2011 it was below it's 1989 level.  There is probably more oil in Montana shale than in all of Syria.  Governments and politicians, especially in democracies, always react to public sentiment driven by news reports.  There is always public pressure to "do something" whenever there is video of nerve gassing or starving children.  Why else did we intervene in Somalia or in the Balkans?  It certainly was not for resources. 

Besides that consideration, there are very good reasons to sanction or punish the use of chemical weapons.  Humanitarian reasons and the need to discourage future use of these weapons are important also and I'm sure that entered into Obama's opposition to Assad.

Syria has strategic importance being 'close to' ressources. 'One of the greatest material prizes in world history', to quote the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs in the U.S State Department, Gordon Merriam's 1945 memorandum to President Truman, and something that would lend 'substantial control of the world' according to Albert A. Berle, one of Franklin Roosevelt’s closest advisers in relation to the construction of the post-War world. The nature of US strategic interest in the region has never been a secret. Even if the US do not need the oil (and currently it doesn't), it gives great diplomatic leverage.

The stance of US policy makers on the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict is an interesting one for a country with such a rich history of everything from abstaining from laws against chemical, nuclear and biological weapons (including the Geneve convention) to using chemical weapons on civilians in countries such as Vietnam and Iraq, helping wonderful allies like Saddam Hussein build up his chemical and biological weapons arsenal, to openly supporting him gassing Iranians, to the support of the close US ally; Israel, Syria's neighbour, sitting on the Middle-East's largest stockpile of chemical weapons.

[Turkhammer]

Good job, you are only 5 months late

Well I get to the trash late.

[Turkhammer]

Syria has strategic importance being 'close to' ressources. 'One of the greatest material prizes in world history', to quote the Chief of the Division of Near Eastern Affairs in the U.S State Department, Gordon Merriam's 1945 memorandum to President Truman, and something that would lend 'substantial control of the world' according to Albert A. Berle, one of Franklin Roosevelt’s closest advisers in relation to the construction of the post-War world. The nature of US strategic interest in the region has never been a secret. Even if the US do not need the oil (and currently it doesn't), it gives great diplomatic leverage.

The stance of US policy makers on the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian conflict is an interesting one for a country with such a rich history of everything from abstaining from laws against chemical, nuclear and biological weapons (including the Geneve convention) to using chemical weapons on civilians in countries such as Vietnam and Iraq, helping wonderful allies like Saddam Hussein build up his chemical and biological weapons arsenal, to openly supporting him gassing Iranians, to the support of the close US ally; Israel, Syria's neighbour, sitting on the Middle-East's largest stockpile of chemical weapons.

1945?  Can't you find some reference that is older than that?  That's useless.  Having either side win in Syria is not going to put the US in control of anything in the Middle East.

Specify what chemical weapons were used against civilians in Viet Nam and Iraq. 

[Christo]

Well I get to the trash late.

 

[Kafein]

Specify what chemical weapons were used against civilians in Viet Nam and Iraq.

What chemical weapons were used in Vietnam ? Wat

This isn't a secret. Even US veterans filed lawsuits against Agent Orange manufacturers.

[Xant]

Agent Orange was used as a defoliant, not what most people mean when they talk about "chemical weapons."

Not at all comparable to what the Syrians are using, so Angantyr's comparison isn't good.

[Kafein]

Well, Agent Orange was used to make the rural population starve or flee to the cities, which isn't exactly a peaceful use. But yeah its primary goal wasn't to outright kill people. Still, it has the same secondary and long term effects of some "real" chemical weapons, so the problem is still largely there.

[Xant]

There is a huge difference between denying food from people in certain areas and using the real chemical weapons, like Syria has done. One is a WMD, one is a defoliant. I know that I'd rather have the forest next to me sprayed with Agent Orange than be gassed with sarin.

And this is all disregarding the fact that US Government1970 is not US Government2013.

[Kafein]

There is a huge difference between denying food from people in certain areas and using the real chemical weapons, like Syria has done. One is a WMD, one is a defoliant. I know that I'd rather have the forest next to me sprayed with Agent Orange than be gassed with sarin.

Well that's evident, but would you rather be gassed with sarin than nuclear bombed ?

And this is all disregarding the fact that US Government1970 is not US Government2013.

That's a little bit easy.

[Xant]

I'd rather die by getting nuked than by getting gassed, yes.

And what does "that's a little bit easy" mean?

[Turkhammer]

Face it Kafein, you didn't back up your claim that the US used chemical weapons in Viet Nam or in Iraq.  The purpose for Agent Orange was to take away cover and hiding places for the NVA and Viet Cong.  As Xant has pointed out, it is in no way comparable to sarin.

[Turkhammer]

Oh you object when your smart assed post is answered in kind?  Sort of one way don't you think?

[Kafein]

And what does "that's a little bit easy" mean?

While different people were in office, you can't deny the link between the government and the American people. Each US government in history had some legitimacy in its actions with respect to the population. On top of that, people in high places don't always change when the government changes, and some of the most powerful official institutions of the US cultivated very strong ideological bias at the top for a very long time. Saying that the government of 1970 is not the one of 2013 is true, but that doesn't mean everything changed either.

Face it Kafein, you didn't back up your claim that the US used chemical weapons in Viet Nam or in Iraq.  The purpose for Agent Orange was to take away cover and hiding places for the NVA and Viet Cong.  As Xant has pointed out, it is in no way comparable to sarin.

It's chemical and it has been used as a weapon with atrocious health consequences. It's not comparable to sarin because it is not a death gaz, yet it has comparable secondary effects to those of nuclear bombing on the surviving population. Also it was used by primarily targeting food crops, to starve the villages that were supplying the enemy and drive them towards territory controlled by the South. That is, civilians.

[SixThumbs]

[[ptx]]

whatthefuck