tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post4516147725449182083..comments2024-01-12T18:59:05.080+00:00Comments on Defence With A "C": Latest chemical weapons use in SyriaUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-36686467053041390442016-09-06T18:21:55.029+01:002016-09-06T18:21:55.029+01:00At this rate there might not be many people left i...At this rate there might not be many people left in Syria full stop.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-64571414001380879682016-09-06T11:33:53.031+01:002016-09-06T11:33:53.031+01:00Considering that Assad and Russia heve spent the l...Considering that Assad and Russia heve spent the last years ignoring ISIS (as much as possible) while engaging "moderate" rebels with murderous intent. I doubt there are many "good rebels" left. That was the intent after all, give the world a choice between Assad and ISIS.<br /><br />I thought - like you - there should have been a retaliatory strike to stigmatize the use of WMDs. I wasn't a vocal supporter however - which I regret today - as I feared NATO getting sucked into another open-ended conflict. Søringshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08640861530359044255noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-49706669917555378542016-08-18T11:11:44.058+01:002016-08-18T11:11:44.058+01:00Don't forget he kicked all this off by killing...Don't forget he kicked all this off by killing some of his own people...<br /><br />The dilemma that strikes would have to create would be whether the damage done by NATO would be more or less than not using chemical weapons. It would have to create a situation where chemical weapon use would be pointless, because the retaliation it would draw would be worse than just pulling out of a particular neighbourhood.<br /><br />But the window for that has probably closed now. Which means it's a three way battle between Assad, ISIS, and the morass of pockets and groups that make up the "good rebels", not all of whom would actually meet our definition of "good". <br /><br />And your last point sums up the problem. Chemical weapon use is already being viewed as "well, it's not that bad". Until someone takes it up a notch.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18182426936194426623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1835455773953043846.post-12763332550516259142016-08-18T08:32:03.512+01:002016-08-18T08:32:03.512+01:00I understand your reasoning, but....
Big picture,...I understand your reasoning, but....<br /><br />Big picture, for Assads side its victory or extermination.<br />A few Nato punishment bombings would just be factored in to the cost of using chem.<br />He isn't going to meekly watch his people slaughtered or taken as slaves by ISIS to avoid a few lots C4 posts.<br /><br />Our ability to constrain him is likewise hobbled, because every bomb we drop on him is one step closer to reopening the damascus slave market.<br /><br />If its a choice between normalising gas or slavery, gas all the way from this blogger.<br /><br /><br /><br />*Additional<br />I think this is being over sold.<br />It does appear that it was a Military use' in that is was used to deny terrain during a battle, like an air dropped mine field, rather than a terror use, dropped on a civilian area specifically for mass casualties.<br />Although I suppose that's the danger of normalisation<br />TrThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07316335177828136131noreply@blogger.com