Is anyone seriously suggesting that they didn’t do it?
Apart from the usual tinfoil hat brigade and the Russians that is.
(
wheresthefish Partly filled with wrong, Sat 14 Apr 2018, 15:12,
Share,
Reply)
There are lots of tinfoilers coming out of the woodwork.
But, no: I don't think any sane person is denying it. Still: it is interesting to have the intel assessment as directly as possible.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sat 14 Apr 2018, 15:16,
Share,
Reply)
It's just that chemical attacks are so often precede American invasions that you'd think regimes would learn that it's a sure fire trigger.
(, Sat 14 Apr 2018, 15:51, Share, Reply)
Invasion, or airstrikes?
Anyway it clearly isn't a surefire trigger.
The US did not involve themselves in the North Yemen Civil War at all, when various villages were gassed: Kawma (1963), Kitaf, Gahar and Gadafa (1967).
Nor did they do anything in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) in the 1970s.
Nor did they respond when the Vietnamese used Phosgene gas against the Cambodians in Thailand.
In the Falklands War, Argentina deployed tear gas (which while non-lethal IS a chemical weapon and banned in warfare), and white phosphorus, but I think you'll find that the US were broadly of the opinion that the UK should have let Argentina have the islands.
In Angola in the 80s, VX and sarin were apparently used by the Cubans, and apparently South Africa has also been accused of using poison gas of some kind. The US made a lot of noise but did nothing.
There was no immediate response to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, when tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iranian soldiers were gassed, with around 20,000 killed immediately. Nor when the Kurd were gassed in 1988 with a cocktail of lethal agents.
In fact, I'm struggling to find many cases where the US has intervened directly after usage of chemical weapons at all. Certainly, in the two gulf wars, the historical use of such weapons by Saddam was cited as one of many reasons for action, but it was never the smoking gun.
Edit: I fucking love the internet.
(, Sat 14 Apr 2018, 16:10, Share, Reply)
Obama never responded to previous chemical attacks in Syria either over the years.
And trumps one attack last year was for show.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Sat 14 Apr 2018, 16:44,
Share,
Reply)
And Cameron went to parliament.
Neither had to.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Sat 14 Apr 2018, 17:57,
Share,
Reply)
Yeah I dunno where people get the idea that the PM
has to ask parliament about it. Tony Blair did it once, and now everyone seems to think that is normal.
(, Sat 14 Apr 2018, 19:38, Share, Reply)
I have never understood why we have never gone in to Zimbabwe
Mugabe terrorised his own people for decades. Assad is getting the strong- arm treatment for a reason we are not party to
(
The_cold_stare Coming here only when very, very bored, Sat 14 Apr 2018, 23:12,
Share,
Reply)
Isn't it all about pipelines? So I think Russia and Iran have a deal, and they need to push their pipelines through Syria but the US and some other countries don't want that... they want a monopoly or something.
Also relates to gas in Europe.
(, Sun 15 Apr 2018, 1:11, Share, Reply)
No. It's not.
I mean, the Iranians may benefit from a frieldly government willing to accommodate a pipeline, but the idea that that's a reason to support Assad is nuts. (Assad being Alawite has more to do with it.) Neither does Russia have any particular reason on that front. What it does lack is a warm-water port, which Syria has traditionally provided.
(
Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Sun 15 Apr 2018, 9:59,
Share,
Reply)