I just meant that US refused to ratify it because they knew they couldn't follow it.
I shooped it myself real quick.
Syria has a history of sponsoring Palestinian and Lebanese insurgents, and some other local flavor. This may be a degree different from a state where the extremists are in power. The reasons for the support have been mostly geopolitical; the Baathist government of Syria has come down hard on islamism in the past, and are hostile towards Al Qaeda.
I would assume the vast majority of people who become casualties of war did not deserve to die or get hurt. But I guess it's all about working towards an omelette that, in the end, was worth breaking the eggs for.
At this point, most of the indicators do point towards government forces beingresponsible for the chemical weapons attack. Though it is possible the regime itself did not order it; things can get a bit confused in a civil war. While Hafez had an iron grip on the military, Bashar has never been able to establish anywhere near the same kind of hold as the old man. Assad does not seem to have much to gain from a chemical weapons attack, but a rival clique within the military who'd like to see Assad go certainly might. Could have been a rogue op.
Pretty much. It didn't start out that way, the rebellion was quite secular in the beginning. But then the extremists started getting outside funding and weapons, while the moderates received cautious encouragement. As a result, the extremists have been in the lead for a good while now, and the moderate elements have been marginalized to insignificance.
Yeah, pretty much.
this is the option that doesn't directly kill more people and create more terrorists, so I'm going to go ahead and say this is right
But apparently the aliens would need to use something more substantial than chemical weapons.
Even if they didn't order the attack from the top, the weapons were most likely created and stockpiled by them. Merely by making and storing them for future use you are culpable when they are used, by your order or not.
Isn't that why we have F-22s in the first place? You don't make anti-Decepticon planes if you're not going to fucking fight the Decepticons.
Which emphasis the point even further over how it's wrong. Thanks for the assurance.
Heh, and here I was going for The Watchmen.
In a legal sense, wouldn't it be treated as a war crime? I imagine it becomes a question of command responsibility, and not necessarily one of manufacturing and storage.
That would certainly prevent either side from killing any more civilians.
Syria does not have [edit:MUCH] oil. I thought they were out of the producing areas.
...and Bin Laden was a swell fella too.
Clinton was all about free military hardware.
I always thought he was more about really focused insertions.
Careful there. That would mean the US, being the world's biggest stockpiler of nuclear, chemical AND biological weapons would be in the wrong too. So, no, clearly and obviously, having ABC weapons isn't necessarily wrong, as long as you're keeping them "safe" and "just in case" or something
Patently false. Russia has more Nukes, and we have burned up our chemical stockpiles. We never had weaponized biological weapons. We do keep and study the most popular biological agents so we will know how to treat the victims of such an attack.Careful there. That would mean the US, being the world's biggest stockpiler of nuclear, chemical AND biological weapons would be in the wrong too. So, no, clearly and obviously, having ABC weapons isn't necessarily wrong, as long as you're keeping them "safe" and "just in case" or something
Which would be enough to be punished according to what TommiR said.
Actually, I said (or at least meant) the exact opposite. Manufacture and storage of chemical weapons is not enough IMHO to incur culpability for their use. The use of chemical weapons would likely constitute a war crime, and if the leaders were held responsibile, it would likely be happen according to the principle of command responsibility.
I'm not really sure how many people knew about this. I don't think it was the same level of news that the Syria thing is.
No, I think it would be more accurate to say Russia is about to send more guns, bombs and tanks to the regime we're about to bomb, if we bomb them. Which might mean more bombing, which might mean more Russian arms. And they might throw in Iran as a two-fer on the arms.
Hitchens would beg to differ with that general. I don't have the book on hand where he talks about it but here's a review of that portion:
