Your claim is refuted by your source, rather than supported
This is why I invited you to read critically and make your own conclusions. Because one posts an article to establish certain caveats of information does not mean that one views that article uncritically, much as a researcher will cite a source which he understands to contain some degrees of fallible information.
Reading in full, and (which I further encourage) about detection methods for Sarin, the point stands: John Kerry's statement did not nearly approach such a time limit for the dispersal of on-body evidence. The five-day limitation was not bound by any limitation of prognostication, but by the fact that on the same day, a few hours prior to Kerry's “too late” speech, the Syrian government formally accepted the requests of the UN inspectors. The time pressure for Syrian implementation was always to be a flexible concept (George Bush himself, on pushing UN inspectors on Iraq, made the same speech about “brooking no delay or defiance” from Iraq,) the definition of “delay” being based on the period of time the Iraqi government took to submit to increasingly intrusive demands, and not based on the innate limitations of the investigation at hand.
Some tips on how to read news articles, whether online or in print when looking for relevant information:
The following Statement:
Another hurdle, experts note, is that Syria has been shelling the area of the massacre in what Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday described as an attempt at “systematically destroying evidence.” The clock may be ticking not only on environmental clues in Syria, but biological ones as well. Ron G. Manley, a former British military specialist and director of verification for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, said studies had shown that the human body eventually metabolizes traces of nerve agents, erasing the chemical evidence. Even so, Dr. Manley said in an interview, British scientists had managed to find unambiguous signs “in blood and urine samples for up to two weeks” after a chemical attack.
Can be informationally reduced to: “Sarin can be unambiguously found for up to two weeks in forensic samples after initial exposure, after which it may be metabolised to untraceable levels.” The rest of the statements: “Experts say what John Kerry called...” “The clock may be ticking, but...” is journalistic flourish, filler prose to conjure up an illusion of synthesis rather than factual juxaposition from the scattered statements in the article.
No. The U.S. urged an investigation in response to the attack, but subsequently found that the evidence to be redundant based on what they've found since the 24th. Since the UN team is being fired at and the team (as admitted by the UN itself) won't be able to determine which side used the weapons (only if/what weapons were used), there's no need to put their lives in danger.
This is the State Department line. It was in US which first on the 26th called for the withdrawal of the inspectors on these pretexts. Ban Ki-Moon at the time resisted the pressure and gave the inspections team the green light to proceed with their work. Today the UN has reversed course and is pulling out. Whether the UN mission has changed its fundamental position concerning the risks of hostile fire since Monday, or whether it is because it could no longer hold back the American military timetable, I shall let you determine.
I don't care if it's a nerve gas, if it melts skin, or if it has some other horrific effect. Nobody has questioned whether a serious chemical agent was used. This argument is entirely semantic and distracting from the real issue.
Lastly, if this is all a setup by the US govt, how do you explain the Arab league? They independently found the regime at fault. Are they in on the conspiracy too?
The scale and type of infection is relevant to the US government's central claim that the rebels did not have the means to generate this sort of attack. One questions this angle, in connection with the American administration's eagerness to see the inspections ended. Why order the withdrawal of UN inspectors, if the Western governments, who have thus far failed to convince their respective publics of the positive case for war, would gain public moral reinforcement from a finding which strengthens their case? The price is calling off the airstrikes for a few days. I never insinuated a conspiracy of any kind, nor have I designated the potential members of such a conspiracy. Being a partisan of incredulity, you will forgive if I lack sympathy for the violence of your passions. Because I disbelieve that Assad is constitutionally attempting to outfox the world in the commission of his diabolically evil acts, does not mean that I have located the devil in Elysium.
If there is a final argument about my personal inclination on the entire affair, it is this: on the whole, I have not seen any channels of evidence the Western Powers may have assembled apart from that supplied by the aforementioned Israeli sources. If this is the extent of it, and it is presumably the same intelligence sold to the willing Arab nations (or rather, the Sunni coalition,) I do not see how this phenomenon amounts to multiple attestation, rather than circular sourcing. If you are willing to give credit to the proclamations of interested parties, would you give the same credit to Russian proclamations of the opposite nature? But “The Russians have an interest in pinning the attacks on anti-government forces.” Yes. If the US and Allied governments had (as of yet unleaked) incontrovertible proof (which the British government admitted this afternoon that they did not,) why not release it immediately, to assuage the incredulous public about their collected resolve? (Or, as John Kerry might put it, why wait until it's too late, Mr. Obama? What do you have to hide?) This circumstance, the precedence of clumsy behaviour during similar crises this May, and last year with the “massacres” of Houla and Tremseh, suggest to me that the government's case will probably turn out to be some mendacious Blair Dossier, with most of the delay spent trying to dress it up in its least unappetising form.
Note that when created, the purpose of the Security Council was to take armed action in order to maintain international peace and security (which is not exactly the case during this civil war, even considering its international ramifications). The Responsibility to protect doctrine is very recent and it's not clearly defined in any treaty, so claiming it is part of international law (by virtue of it being customary and mandatory) is very much debatable, especially in situations in which it goes against the SC's original purpose of maintaining international peace by creating big points of tension between global powers.
It is defined in the General Assembly's 2005 world summit declaration and in a resolution passed by the Security Council in 2006. It does not, however, grant any state or organization of states the legal authority to intervene militarily against another state/organization of states without prior approval of the Security Council.
Which basically means Russia and China can hold up the vote forever and there is nothing anyone can do about it, so why even bother paying attention to the UN or the security counsel? Just wait for the report to arrive and confirm what we already know and then act without approval from the UN because it will never happen anyways.
Yes anyone with veto power can stymie any vote.
This is how the US has prevented Palestinian participation in the UN for decades despite the US and Israel being the only countries that opposed it.
What does that have to do with the use of Chemical weapons in Syria? I don't think the two are the same issue at all.
Sorry, its just how I know the answer to your question and an example of how even one country with veto power can stop any vote.
If you have a better example, please let me know.
Right, the UN is a pointless in these issues and cannot solve problems between major world powers because it has limited to no ability to enforce any rulings over them. That and the laws and rules can be bypassed or ignored by any of the member of the Security counsel at will and there is little they can do about it.
As I said before, I don't really care if the US or UK take any action, I am sure the legality of such action is a huge concern to the people in Syria who may have chemical weapons used on them. It one of these pointless debates the members of the UN like to get involved with and people love to throw, claiming that the US and UK did so without the approval of the UN. Like the use of chemical weapons was somehow approved before hand.
On August 30 2013 03:33 Godwrath wrote: Stop talking bullshit pls, if the UN confirms it was Assad who used chemical weapons, there is nothing China or Russia can do.
How is the UN going to do that? They will be able to confirm what chemicals were used, but it is highly unlikely that the Un can confirm who used them.
The people who are claiming to know that it was Assad are intelligence agencies, notably Israeli intelligence.
There is a pretty limited number other groups that could have done it. I don't need 100% proof, just beyond a reasonable doubt. They can get that just by figuring out who made the chemical weapons.
Except this is a civil war. Unless all chemical weapon storage is in government hands and accounted for both sides have access to the same weapons.
That is the question, but I doubt the other side are going to use the weapons on themselves. Chemical weapons are no joke and the US and UK would pull support from the rebels if they started throwing around chemical weapons.
But there is some evidence (not proven) that the rebels did in fact use chemical weapons in May. It was certainly not on the scale of what happened last week, but either way there was no threat of withdrawing support of from the rebels.
In fact that is just not how things work. When there are two sides, as there often are in global politics, then one side will always ignore evils that they commit while condemning the opposing side for doing the same things.
Agreed, and personally I could give two shits about what is going on over there. There is no good solution and I have already sent my brother over to two separate countries in that region for 2 years and all we got was hate for that too. It is slightly heartless to think that way, but I have grown tired of trying to help while the rest of the world just criticizes from afar. Local powers should attempt to resolve the conflict, rather than the US and UK.
I don't think people criticize the US/UK for "trying to help" other countries. They criticized them for failing to do so, staging large invasions, misleading the public about a number of things, and for not having an exit strategy. Nobody criticizes the Red Cross (not for this, anyway), and I bet they help fucked up countries, too. The difference is that the Red Cross doesn't go about doing so by sending in the military, ergo it has a lot less ability to wind up killing innocent people.
On August 30 2013 03:33 Godwrath wrote: Stop talking bullshit pls, if the UN confirms it was Assad who used chemical weapons, there is nothing China or Russia can do.
How is the UN going to do that? They will be able to confirm what chemicals were used, but it is highly unlikely that the Un can confirm who used them.
The people who are claiming to know that it was Assad are intelligence agencies, notably Israeli intelligence.
There is a pretty limited number other groups that could have done it. I don't need 100% proof, just beyond a reasonable doubt. They can get that just by figuring out who made the chemical weapons.
Except this is a civil war. Unless all chemical weapon storage is in government hands and accounted for both sides have access to the same weapons.
That is the question, but I doubt the other side are going to use the weapons on themselves. Chemical weapons are no joke and the US and UK would pull support from the rebels if they started throwing around chemical weapons.
But there is some evidence (not proven) that the rebels did in fact use chemical weapons in May. It was certainly not on the scale of what happened last week, but either way there was no threat of withdrawing support of from the rebels.
In fact that is just not how things work. When there are two sides, as there often are in global politics, then one side will always ignore evils that they commit while condemning the opposing side for doing the same things.
Agreed, and personally I could give two shits about what is going on over there. There is no good solution and I have already sent my brother over to two separate countries in that region for 2 years and all we got was hate for that too. It is slightly heartless to think that way, but I have grown tired of trying to help while the rest of the world just criticizes from afar. Local powers should attempt to resolve the conflict, rather than the US and UK.
american self-pity over the afghan and iraq war on account of being criticized? i'm eating here...
On August 30 2013 03:33 Godwrath wrote: Stop talking bullshit pls, if the UN confirms it was Assad who used chemical weapons, there is nothing China or Russia can do.
How is the UN going to do that? They will be able to confirm what chemicals were used, but it is highly unlikely that the Un can confirm who used them.
The people who are claiming to know that it was Assad are intelligence agencies, notably Israeli intelligence.
There is a pretty limited number other groups that could have done it. I don't need 100% proof, just beyond a reasonable doubt. They can get that just by figuring out who made the chemical weapons.
Except this is a civil war. Unless all chemical weapon storage is in government hands and accounted for both sides have access to the same weapons.
That is the question, but I doubt the other side are going to use the weapons on themselves. Chemical weapons are no joke and the US and UK would pull support from the rebels if they started throwing around chemical weapons.
But there is some evidence (not proven) that the rebels did in fact use chemical weapons in May. It was certainly not on the scale of what happened last week, but either way there was no threat of withdrawing support of from the rebels.
In fact that is just not how things work. When there are two sides, as there often are in global politics, then one side will always ignore evils that they commit while condemning the opposing side for doing the same things.
Agreed, and personally I could give two shits about what is going on over there. There is no good solution and I have already sent my brother over to two separate countries in that region for 2 years and all we got was hate for that too. It is slightly heartless to think that way, but I have grown tired of trying to help while the rest of the world just criticizes from afar. Local powers should attempt to resolve the conflict, rather than the US and UK.
I don't think people criticize the US/UK for "trying to help" other countries. They criticized them for failing to do so, staging large invasions, misleading the public about a number of things, and for not having an exit strategy. Nobody criticizes the Red Cross (not for this, anyway), and I bet they help fucked up countries, too. The difference is that the Red Cross doesn't go about doing so by sending in the military, ergo it has a lot less ability to wind up killing innocent people.
Yeah, well it is easy when the Red Cross only provide food and medical aid. Everyone wants that. When people want guns and bombs to stop other from shooting at them, the Red Cross just says "we don't do that part, sorry."
And I agree, the US should stop invading countries that are at war like this, since there is no good solution in cases like that. The problem is that everyone wants the fighting the stop, but no one wants to assume the risk and cost of making it so that can happen. And anyone who tries will simply be blamed by those who are sitting on the sidelines. Since there is no good solution, its really not worth trying, which is why we are hearing so much opposition.
On August 30 2013 03:33 Godwrath wrote: Stop talking bullshit pls, if the UN confirms it was Assad who used chemical weapons, there is nothing China or Russia can do.
How is the UN going to do that? They will be able to confirm what chemicals were used, but it is highly unlikely that the Un can confirm who used them.
The people who are claiming to know that it was Assad are intelligence agencies, notably Israeli intelligence.
There is a pretty limited number other groups that could have done it. I don't need 100% proof, just beyond a reasonable doubt. They can get that just by figuring out who made the chemical weapons.
Except this is a civil war. Unless all chemical weapon storage is in government hands and accounted for both sides have access to the same weapons.
That is the question, but I doubt the other side are going to use the weapons on themselves. Chemical weapons are no joke and the US and UK would pull support from the rebels if they started throwing around chemical weapons.
But there is some evidence (not proven) that the rebels did in fact use chemical weapons in May. It was certainly not on the scale of what happened last week, but either way there was no threat of withdrawing support of from the rebels.
In fact that is just not how things work. When there are two sides, as there often are in global politics, then one side will always ignore evils that they commit while condemning the opposing side for doing the same things.
Agreed, and personally I could give two shits about what is going on over there. There is no good solution and I have already sent my brother over to two separate countries in that region for 2 years and all we got was hate for that too. It is slightly heartless to think that way, but I have grown tired of trying to help while the rest of the world just criticizes from afar. Local powers should attempt to resolve the conflict, rather than the US and UK.
american self-pity over the afghan and iraq war on account of being criticized? i'm eating here...
Mostly I am burned out on caring about the political state of countries on the other side of the world. Again, I had a brother over there for two years and it sucked the entire time. I don't really care what happens there, but I do care what happens to him. If I had my way, we would double down on electric cars and get off the need for gas ASAP, so we can stop caring about happens over there. I would add some clever quip about Norway, but I can't really be bothered to look anything up to take a dig at you for.
Note that when created, the purpose of the Security Council was to take armed action in order to maintain international peace and security (which is not exactly the case during this civil war, even considering its international ramifications). The Responsibility to protect doctrine is very recent and it's not clearly defined in any treaty, so claiming it is part of international law (by virtue of it being customary and mandatory) is very much debatable, especially in situations in which it goes against the SC's original purpose of maintaining international peace by creating big points of tension between global powers.
It is defined in the General Assembly's 2005 world summit declaration and in a resolution passed by the Security Council in 2006. It does not, however, grant any state or organization of states the legal authority to intervene militarily against another state/organization of states without prior approval of the Security Council.
Which basically means Russia and China can hold up the vote forever and there is nothing anyone can do about it, so why even bother paying attention to the UN or the security counsel? Just wait for the report to arrive and confirm what we already know and then act without approval from the UN because it will never happen anyways.
Yes anyone with veto power can stymie any vote.
This is how the US has prevented Palestinian participation in the UN for decades despite the US and Israel being the only countries that opposed it.
What does that have to do with the use of Chemical weapons in Syria? I don't think the two are the same issue at all.
Sorry, its just how I know the answer to your question and an example of how even one country with veto power can stop any vote.
If you have a better example, please let me know.
A better example is the USSR vetoing a UN Resolution calling for a withdrawal of Soviet troops from Aghanistan in Jan 1980!
Note that when created, the purpose of the Security Council was to take armed action in order to maintain international peace and security (which is not exactly the case during this civil war, even considering its international ramifications). The Responsibility to protect doctrine is very recent and it's not clearly defined in any treaty, so claiming it is part of international law (by virtue of it being customary and mandatory) is very much debatable, especially in situations in which it goes against the SC's original purpose of maintaining international peace by creating big points of tension between global powers.
The Responsibility to Protect Doctrine was used as the basis for the UN intervention in Libya. Of course Russia and China abstained from that vote.
On that note, Gaddafi called that one 2 years in advance lol.
The original on site translation cuts out frequently, this one doesn't.
I remember when he made this speech the media ridiculed him and claimed he was drugged. All I kept hearing about was his Ukrainian nurse and the dispute over where he would stay in NY.
Watching it now, he actually makes a pretty good case for why the UN is bs in the first 20 minutes.
By 'this' I mean the fact that I don't care enough to get fully informed about this whole thing in Syria. Me and 99% of people out there don't know nearly the whole truth. And by whole truth I mean the truth you could learn if you honestly tried your best and got all the information you could, from present and from history.
And then you can't really raise your voice, because if you say "I don't want this war", some interest group may easily serve your with some 'truth' that proves the attack is neccessary.
And it makes me sad that we as people don't care enough, and potentially billions of dollars are being wasted on war that doesn't need to happen.
If only finding out the truth was simple. And if people unquestionably knew what they're talking about, there would be no room for manipulation.
On August 30 2013 05:15 CYFAWS wrote: i sincerely hope sweden declares war on any country that invades syria. not that it's gonna happen, but.
It would be symbolic, right? Sweden isn't going to throw down with Turkey if they decide enough is enough.
The more the US sticks its nose into places, the more people want to knock us off our pedestil.
I'm an American and I've had enough, I can imagine what the average Swede thinks.
People outside the US also aren't subject to our "news" so they tend to have different ideas.
As I said before, I don't really care what happens in Syria. They can continue to shoot each other until they are doing or whatever else happens. If we decided to preform some strikes to say "knock it off with the chemical weapons" that is fine by me too. We are going to take shit for it no matter what.
As for other countries getting upset about the US "sticking its nose into places," I don't really get that bothered about that either. Its each to heap criticism on from the side lines. A lot countries have gotten very good at it.
Edit: I would also pay money the beating odds if Sweden declared war on the US. They would be pretty amusing.
Why even bother trying to do anything over there? The same people who hates the regime and what it has done will in a day after bombings call for jihad against western forces. Let them be and they can solve their own shit. Would be good if you could actually ask the people there if they want USA to start bombing their country.
On August 30 2013 05:12 Plansix wrote: Mostly I am burned out on caring about the political state of countries on the other side of the world. Again, I had a brother over there for two years and it sucked the entire time. I don't really care what happens there, but I do care what happens to him. If I had my way, we would double down on electric cars and get off the need for gas ASAP, so we can stop caring about happens over there. I would add some clever quip about Norway, but I can't really be bothered to look anything up to take a dig at you for.
it seems dishonest to frame the wars in question as 'caring about the political state of countries on the other side of the world' in the context of nationalistic self-pity.
say that norway smells of old farts if it pleases you. i am not a nationalist. however old farts are off topic and i have probably filled up my self-righteousness quota a couple of times over already in this thread.
On August 30 2013 05:12 Plansix wrote: Mostly I am burned out on caring about the political state of countries on the other side of the world. Again, I had a brother over there for two years and it sucked the entire time. I don't really care what happens there, but I do care what happens to him. If I had my way, we would double down on electric cars and get off the need for gas ASAP, so we can stop caring about happens over there. I would add some clever quip about Norway, but I can't really be bothered to look anything up to take a dig at you for.
it seems dishonest to frame the wars in question as 'caring about the political state of countries on the other side of the world' in the context of nationalistic self-pity.
say that norway smells of old farts if it pleases you. i am not a nationalist. however old farts are off topic and i have probably filled up my self-righteousness quota a couple of times over already in this thread.
I am just one guy, not the entire nation of the United States. After 10 years of this crap, I am tired and my family is too. Its not nationalistic self-pity, but that I am tired of having a brother and a sister in law(yes, they are both in the army together) over seas and hearing about how messed up everything is first hand. I am tried of hearing about people dying and being glad its no my brother and feeling guilt about that. I didn't vote to invade either country and never voted for anyone who did. I don't want to get involved any more or tell countries what to do. I am just tired of it all and want anyone else to fix the problems that is not the US. And I am very tried of people from other countries who never get involved with anything like this criticizing from the cheap seats. All of it get very old.
On August 30 2013 05:15 CYFAWS wrote: i sincerely hope sweden declares war on any country that invades syria. not that it's gonna happen, but.
This is the funniest post in a long time and I cant tell if its ironic or a troll because it feels so sincere. Someone invades some other country, we disagree with it and the proper response is to declare war. Really?
Im not a nationalist but the one thing I am proud of is that we havent been in a war for 200 years.
And on the topic at hand. My guess is that Russia called the security meeting to say 2 things A. Get the undenaible evidence to us and/or out there or stfu. B. Dont bomb our ally.
I guess the west can just ignore Russia and to some extent China who probably dont care that much but in the end it will only lead to some cold war level bullshit.
But Russia is for sure calling Obamas hand on the evidence part this time around.
On August 30 2013 05:12 Plansix wrote: Mostly I am burned out on caring about the political state of countries on the other side of the world. Again, I had a brother over there for two years and it sucked the entire time. I don't really care what happens there, but I do care what happens to him. If I had my way, we would double down on electric cars and get off the need for gas ASAP, so we can stop caring about happens over there. I would add some clever quip about Norway, but I can't really be bothered to look anything up to take a dig at you for.
it seems dishonest to frame the wars in question as 'caring about the political state of countries on the other side of the world' in the context of nationalistic self-pity.
say that norway smells of old farts if it pleases you. i am not a nationalist. however old farts are off topic and i have probably filled up my self-righteousness quota a couple of times over already in this thread.
I am just one guy, not the entire nation of the United States. After 10 years of this crap, I am tired and my family is too. Its not nationalistic self-pity, but that I am tired of having a brother and a sister in law(yes, they are both in the army together) over seas and hearing about how messed up everything is first hand. I am tried of hearing about people dying and being glad its no my brother and feeling guilt about that. I didn't vote to invade either country and never voted for anyone who did. I don't want to get involved any more or tell countries what to do. I am just tired of it all and want anyone else to fix the problems that is not the US. And I am very tried of people from other countries who never get involved with anything like this criticizing from the cheap seats. All of it get very old.
What countries never get involved ? In what ? Invading Iraq ? Being cautious =/= Not getting involved.
On August 30 2013 05:40 Nausea wrote: Why even bother trying to do anything over there? The same people who hates the regime and what it has done will in a day after bombings call for jihad against western forces. Let them be and they can solve their own shit. Would be good if you could actually ask the people there if they want USA to start bombing their country.
Assad has done a fine job painting everyone in the resistance as a jihadist. A fine job indeed.
EPT
.
