(full site)
Fark.com

Try out our new mobile site!


Back To Main
   New intelligence shows Syria was just taking their chemical weapons for a walk and doesn't appear to be planning to use them

11 Dec 2012 02:44 PM   |   2956 clicks   |   CBS News
Showing 1-45 of 45 comments
Refresh
DanZero    [TotalFark]  
images.kaneva.comView Full Size


We can't watch Fox because they own those chemical weapons plants in Syria

11 Dec 2012 11:12 AM
The Stealth Hippopotamus    [TotalFark]  
so, do we trust the entire world when they tell us they have chemical weapons? They were wrong last time.....

11 Dec 2012 11:20 AM
Diogenes    [TotalFark]  
They were totally taking them to a hazardous waste disposal site.

11 Dec 2012 11:22 AM
SnarfVader     
What happens when the regime gets really desperate? This is no time to let your guard down if you are a rebel.

11 Dec 2012 11:29 AM
Marcus Aurelius     
Like I said before, call me when they've got yellow cake and mobile bioweapons labs.

11 Dec 2012 11:32 AM
crypticsatellite    [TotalFark]  
If they did combine them in warheads, I think they have ~60 days to use them before they begin degrading.

11 Dec 2012 01:22 PM
incendi    [TotalFark]  

The Stealth Hippopotamus: so, do we trust the entire world when they tell us they have chemical weapons? They were wrong last time.....


I think you've got the telling and the trusting a bit mixed up

11 Dec 2012 02:52 PM
Voiceofreason01     
A US Carrier Battle Group will do that...

11 Dec 2012 02:54 PM
probesport     
www.rankopedia.comView Full Size

11 Dec 2012 02:54 PM
Day_Old_Dutchie     
Good.
As long as those greasy-bearded hotheads cool their jets it keeps the cost of oil down.

11 Dec 2012 02:55 PM
cgraves67     
"Nooo. We weren't messing with chemical weapons. We were just...uh, making sure they were still where we left them. Yeah."

11 Dec 2012 03:03 PM
Galloping Galoshes     

crypticsatellite: If they did combine them in warheads, I think they have ~60 days to use them before they begin degrading.


Binary weapons don't degrade. Sarin, weeks to months. No reports of VX.

11 Dec 2012 03:10 PM
snocone    [TotalFark]  
Because the "intelligence" we get from the East is so excellent and generally trustworthy.

CIA is a broken and sdrippled tool.

11 Dec 2012 03:16 PM
Somaticasual     
You know, it's moderately hypocritical to go after a country for having the same weapons we've had since WWI. If we have any rationale to have them ourselves for defense or testing, then how can other countries be held to a different standard? And we can't even dismiss them for accidental releases - google "dugway sheep incident".

//yes, I know we're reducing our stocks, but anyone is kidding themselves if they think that quantity will ever reach 0.

11 Dec 2012 03:16 PM
snocone    [TotalFark]  
that was "crippled" last time i looked

11 Dec 2012 03:17 PM
Oznog     

The Stealth Hippopotamus: so, do we trust the entire world when they tell us they have chemical weapons? They were wrong last time.....


There are some claiming that it's the SAME chemical weapons, that Saddam moved them to Syria so that's why nothing was found. Thus conveniently giving a reason why they were never found so "we weren't wrong that time, and must act the same way against the same weapons set now that it's in Syria".

It's not impossible that Saddam had all this stuff and moved it to Syria. But there'd need to be more evidence to support it.

It just seems implausible that a vast operation would be moved and leave no evidence behind. Well, it's plausible when you have a lot of resources and a tightly run operation. But that picture was refuted after the invasion- the country and its industry was quite sloppy, pretty destitute outside the palaces and that includes the military, and it just doesn't make sense that they shipped this stuff off to Syria in secret and left no trace and no credible witnesses.

11 Dec 2012 03:20 PM
crypticsatellite    [TotalFark]  

Galloping Galoshes: crypticsatellite: If they did combine them in warheads, I think they have ~60 days to use them before they begin degrading.

Binary weapons don't degrade. Sarin, weeks to months. No reports of VX.


Binary weapons when mixed can degrade. They have apparently mixed them and loaded them.

11 Dec 2012 03:22 PM
Galloping Galoshes     

Somaticasual: You know, it's moderately hypocritical to go after a country for having the same weapons we've had since WWI. If we have any rationale to have them ourselves for defense or testing, then how can other countries be held to a different standard? And we can't even dismiss them for accidental releases - google "dugway sheep incident".

//yes, I know we're reducing our stocks, but anyone is kidding themselves if they think that quantity will ever reach 0.


First, because we're bigger than they are. Second, because we (and the Russians) have shown over time that we won't use them, whereas in the Middle East, the regimes there have not shown themselves full of restraint. Syria has already used them against its own people, Iraq used them against Iran, and on the Kurds, Yemenis used them on each other, etc.

11 Dec 2012 03:23 PM
Galloping Galoshes     

crypticsatellite: Galloping Galoshes: crypticsatellite: If they did combine them in warheads, I think they have ~60 days to use them before they begin degrading.

Binary weapons don't degrade. Sarin, weeks to months. No reports of VX.

Binary weapons when mixed can degrade. They have apparently mixed them and loaded them.


Binary weapons are weapons where two chemical precursors are loaded into separate chambers within the same warhead. This makes the loaded weapon safer to handle, and prevents degradation (unless the precursors themselves degrade). They're mixed on firing, or while in flight. They will certainly degrade after that.

11 Dec 2012 03:25 PM
david_gaithersburg     

The Stealth Hippopotamus: so, do we trust the entire world when they tell us they have chemical weapons? They were wrong last time.....


.
And here is more to help with your ignorance. Link

11 Dec 2012 03:26 PM
Noah_Tall     
This is a blatant lie. They already used them. I saw the video on YouTube. They used the gas that makes paint and tissue paper stick to your face and arms and makes you wrap your hands with cloth. Sure it isn't exactly a deadly weapon but it has to be embarrassing. Besides, chemical weapons are a slippery slope. Next thing you know they will be using metallic gold paint.

11 Dec 2012 03:34 PM
Holocaust Agnostic     

cgraves67: "Nooo. We weren't messing with chemical weapons. We were just...uh, making sure they were still where we left them. Yeah."


a totally outrageous thing to do when theres a civil war on, yeah?

11 Dec 2012 03:36 PM
snocone    [TotalFark]  

david_gaithersburg: The Stealth Hippopotamus: so, do we trust the entire world when they tell us they have chemical weapons? They were wrong last time.....

.
And here is more to help with your ignorance. Link


There is mile or two of political difference between being "wrong" and "failing to find ".

11 Dec 2012 03:38 PM
crypticsatellite    [TotalFark]  

Galloping Galoshes: crypticsatellite: Galloping Galoshes: crypticsatellite: If they did combine them in warheads, I think they have ~60 days to use them before they begin degrading.

Binary weapons don't degrade. Sarin, weeks to months. No reports of VX.

Binary weapons when mixed can degrade. They have apparently mixed them and loaded them.

Binary weapons are weapons where two chemical precursors are loaded into separate chambers within the same warhead. This makes the loaded weapon safer to handle, and prevents degradation (unless the precursors themselves degrade). They're mixed on firing, or while in flight. They will certainly degrade after that.


I know what binary weapons are, but they are not always mixed immediately pre-flight or inflight; they are sometimes mixed ahead of time and then put into warheads. This is what I read had occurred and why the US, et. al. were so concerned.

11 Dec 2012 03:38 PM
Foundling     
Tyrants pull out chemical weapons.

U.S. President sticks a carrier battle group up said tyrants' asses.

Tyrants put chemical weapons away.

// That's how a "deterrent" is supposed to work.

11 Dec 2012 03:39 PM
fireclown     

snocone: There is mile or two of political difference between being "wrong" and "failing to find ".


Not really. They both end up at 3,000 dead street and "didn't find no WMD" Ave.

11 Dec 2012 03:40 PM
dready zim     

probesport: [www.rankopedia.com image 799x336]


Bad intelligence. Bad!

11 Dec 2012 03:40 PM
dready zim     

Foundling: Tyrants pull out chemical weapons.

U.S. President sticks a carrier battle group up said tyrants' asses.

Tyrants put chemical weapons away.

// That's how a "deterrent" is supposed to work.


is the deterrent the chemicals, the carriers or the nuclear deterrent?

Or is it all three?

hopefully not the asses...

11 Dec 2012 03:42 PM
dericwater     
So Syria's chemical weapon is a dog with real stinky farts?

11 Dec 2012 03:42 PM
snocone    [TotalFark]  

fireclown: snocone: There is mile or two of political difference between being "wrong" and "failing to find ".

Not really. They both end up at 3,000 dead street and "didn't find no WMD" Ave.


Just sayin' "did not find" goes pretty cheaply these days.
One could say it is on sale.

/firesale on Wallstreet

11 Dec 2012 03:46 PM
RanDomino     
Or maybe everyone called bullshiat.

11 Dec 2012 03:48 PM
Somaticasual     

Galloping Galoshes: Somaticasual: You know, it's moderately hypocritical to go after a country for having the same weapons we've had since WWI. If we have any rationale to have them ourselves for defense or testing, then how can other countries be held to a different standard? And we can't even dismiss them for accidental releases - google "dugway sheep incident".

//yes, I know we're reducing our stocks, but anyone is kidding themselves if they think that quantity will ever reach 0.

First, because we're bigger than they are. Second, because we (and the Russians) have shown over time that we won't use them, whereas in the Middle East, the regimes there have not shown themselves full of restraint. Syria has already used them against its own people, Iraq used them against Iran, and on the Kurds, Yemenis used them on each other, etc.


The US used them in WWI (confirmed). So did the russians (slightly less confirmed). While neither side used them on their own civilians intentionally, we've had that blood on our country's hands for a long time. Until we take that final step and ban their use even as a retaliatory weapon, we can't use that as an excuse to invade a country. Even despot-driven middle eastern ones.

11 Dec 2012 03:51 PM
BigNumber12     

Foundling: Tyrants pull out chemical weapons.

U.S. President sticks a carrier battle group up said tyrants' asses.

Tyrants put chemical weapons away.

// That's how a "deterrent" is supposed to work.



There it is. The very best weapons work without ever needing to be fired.

11 Dec 2012 03:57 PM
snocone    [TotalFark]  
Other than loading up the gay bomb, what would demonize them more?

11 Dec 2012 03:57 PM
authorizeduser     
"Panetta told reporters during a flight to Kuwait, adding that U.S. officials "continue to monitor it very closely and we continue to make clear to them that they should not under any means make use of these chemical weapons against their own population. That would produce serious consequences.""

Yeah, Bashar; be a good lad and use them against a neighboring nation!

11 Dec 2012 04:26 PM
robertus     
That's probably for the better. A couple of weeks ago, mrs. robertus and I got stuck in traffic on our way back from a concert, and our chemical weapons shiat all over the carpet.

11 Dec 2012 04:32 PM
E_Henry_Thripshaws_Disease     
i hope they use them, more dead muslims means a safer world;
and what good is being a dictator if you can't gas your own citizens?

11 Dec 2012 04:38 PM
Somacandra    [TotalFark]  

Somaticasual: You know, it's moderately hypocritical to go after a country for having the same weapons we've had since WWI.


As I understand it, its more about the whole 'commiting genocide' thing rather than simply having chemical weapons. Syria's not a member state of the CWC so I don't think they can be invaded just for having them.

11 Dec 2012 04:48 PM
signaljammer     

RanDomino: Or maybe everyone called bullshiat.

 

righto!

11 Dec 2012 05:32 PM
BronyMedic     

RanDomino: Or maybe everyone called bullshiat.


You might have a point, except for the fact that Syria has publicly acknowledged that it has an active chemical weapons program since the Soviets backed them in the 60s. That and they manage to accidentally detonate one every few years and kill a number of their soldiers.

I'm going to say that Assad realized there would be NO WHERE in the world he could run to if he used those weapons, and that it was a bad idea to both bite the hand that feeds him - China and Russia - and Piss off Uncle Sam in the process.

I think I trust the Christian Science Monitor.

According to the Federation of American Scientists, an independent watch-dog group regarding biochemical and nuclear proliferation, Syria is the most advanced in the Arab world when it comes to chemical weapons, and actively pursues a bioweapons program.

11 Dec 2012 05:44 PM
crypticsatellite    [TotalFark]  
Dugway Sheep Kill was in 1968:

Link1

Link2

11 Dec 2012 06:11 PM
Somaticasual     

crypticsatellite: Dugway Sheep Kill was in 1968:

Link1

Link2


I stand corrected on such, and thanks for the links. I'll concede that the timing precludes that part of the argument, I misread the date.

//now more that the facility is still active after that..

11 Dec 2012 07:15 PM
NINDroog     
I don't think Syria intended to use the weapons, they knew that would be insane. However, I would argue that bringing them out was a way of creating unrest among other powers that would intervene. Russia will say "Hey! We don't want them to use those weapons" as an excuse, and the other Middle Eastern powers (who the US is trying to get to intervene) are going to seriously reconsider stepping in; especially since they don't have those weapons.

I think that this was not an illogical choice for Syria to make, if nothing else it will buy them time against a coalition, possibly indefinitely. Not only that, but since they are nominally demonstrating "responsibility" by not using them, it will beg the question who takes over when Assad is gone?

I'm not saying this will work out perfectly for Assad, but I do think it was a rational calculation and will achieve it's purpose- postponing outside intervention.

11 Dec 2012 08:58 PM
Voiceofreason01     

Somaticasual: The US used them in WWI (confirmed). So did the russians (slightly less confirmed). While neither side used them on their own civilians intentionally, we've had that blood on our country's hands for a long time. Until we take that final step and ban their use even as a retaliatory weapon, we can't use that as an excuse to invade a country. Even despot-driven middle eastern ones.


The world is a very VERY different place than it was in 1918.To say that the US has no right to interfere or defend our allies because of something that happened during WWI shows a fundamental lack of understanding about elementary history and of international politics.

12 Dec 2012 12:17 AM
Gyrfalcon     
I can't believe the number of people upset because Assad DIDN'T use his chemical weapons. It's almost like they wanted an excuse to go to war in Syria or something....

12 Dec 2012 01:45 AM
Showing 1-45 of 45 comments
Refresh
This thread is closed to new comments.


Back To Main

More Headlines:
Main | Sports | Business | Geek | Entertainment | Politics | Video | FarkUs | Contests | Fark Party | Combined