Syria

[LooseCannon]

I thought the point of the strike was to destroy Assad's ability to produce and deploy chemical weapons. This won't swing the outcome of the war. So...if that happens, then who cares? The regime can fight it out with guns rather than gas. That's the point.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

A reasonable argument/point, LooseCannon, if this is actually possible --&, importantly, this is the (narrow) aim of the proposed US involvement. But do you actually think this is what will happen, if the US choose to use force? (--i.e. that it will be this simple &/or narrow in scope?) In response to Forostar --I feel you're making the mistake of concluding that not taking military action is "doing nothing" (I paraphrase generally; I'm not quoting you). The international community (as it stands at present) is making a choice; they're choosing not to use force. I fail to see, with what limited evidence is publically available (at present), why this is not a defendable position to take.

 

[King Of Twilight]

Bush telegraphed to Iraq he was going to invade for over a year. Not surprisingly, no WMDs were found when he finally did. Now 0bama has given Assad plenty of time to disperse his WMDs - if he has them, and if we knew where they all were, in the first place. Do you think we will find them now, after 0bama has telegraphed, like Bush, for weeks? And what if Assad hides his WMDs in residential neighborhoods? Do we bomb them there? Do we play into the propaganda of dead children, this time from US bombs rather than chemical weapons? And what do you think happens when you bomb chemical munitions, they just harmlessly vaporize? What do you do about Iran, who surely will retaliate - perhaps in Israel, Iraq or even in the US? Is it really in America's interest to turn a civil war in Syria into WWIII? Has anyone in the 0bama administration thought this through? How big is your appetite for war, because this will NOT end with a few cruise missiles lobbed at a medicine factory. At some point does the Nobel committee ask 0bama for their prize back?

The realistic solution is to do what you should always do when a country is in the middle of a civil war, to do what we have been doing for the past 2 years as more than 100,000 people died already, to do what the entire rest of the world is firmly committed to doing, to do what Britain has already voted to do, and what NATO and the UN is resolved to doing - NOTHING. Because a strike is just a more costly way of accomplishing the same thing.

 

[Forostar]

The realistic solution is to do what you should always do when a country is in the middle of a civil war, to do what we have been doing for the past 2 years as more than 100,000 people died already, to do what the entire rest of the world is firmly committed to doing, to do what Britain has already voted to do, and what NATO and the UN is resolved to doing - NOTHING. Because a strike is just a more costly way of accomplishing the same thing.

First of all, doing nothing, I find that morally wrong (already argued about this earlier in this thread). Second of all, you can't predict that the strike will have the outcome that you suggest. I have given examples of how chemical weapons were destroyed in Iraq (this was before 9-11) and how the Kosovo campaign effectively eliminated Milosevic' grip of power.

Third, you two are premature with your conclusions that the rest of the world will do nothing. There's political support for military action from the EU, that is if the route of the United Nations will be taken. That's going to be the crux of support or not.

The questions are: Will Obama wait for the outcome of the UN research which is going on now? The US are convinced that chemical weapons were used and are sure it was Assad's regime who did this (and the EU sounds convinced as well, if you followed the news yesterday).
What will the UN say and do when they've finished their research? Big chance China and Russia will make a block again.

 

[King Of Twilight]

First of all, doing nothing, I find that morally wrong

Even if doing something only causes even more suffering and death? Even if it runs the very real risk of inflaming the region and leading to a wider outbreak of war beyond Syria's borders?

Sacrificing other peoples' lives to satisfy your own sense of right and wrong is actually quite selfish and morally deficient.

Second of all, you can't predict that the strike will have the outcome that you suggest.

No, you can't. You can't predict that it won't either. You can't predict that it will have any positive effect. You can't predict any of it. It is a huge gamble. That is why historically we have only taken such huge risks when our vital interests are at stake, and the immediate threat to the US by inaction outweighs the potential negative consequences of action. Action in Syria simply does not meet this test. The only threat we face is one of international humiliation because of 0bama's ill-considered "red line" being exposed as an empty threat. But do we go to war to protect one man's ego? Empires do, the US does not - at least not up until now. It is a dark day for our Republic when we do.

I have given examples of how chemical weapons were destroyed in Iraq (this was before 9-11) and how the Kosovo campaign effectively eliminated Milosevic' grip of power.

Perhaps you missed this quote from one of the many sources I cited above:

There is one precedent for bombing a chemical weapons storehouse. In 1991, during the first Persian Gulf War, the U.S. bombed Bunker 13 in Al Muthanna, Iraq. Officials figured it contained 2,500 artillery rockets filled with sarin, the same nerve gas suspected in Syria. More than two decades later the site is so contaminated no one goes near it even now.​

The 0bama administration has already ruled out regime change, so your Kosovo example is moot.

Third, you two are premature with your conclusions that the rest of the world will do nothing. There's political support for military action from the EU, that is if the route of the United Nations will be taken. That's going to be the crux of support or not.

The questions are: Will Obama wait for the outcome of the UN research which is going on now? The US are convinced that chemical weapons were used and are sure it was Assad's regime who did this (and the EU sounds convinced as well, if you followed the news yesterday).
What will the UN say and do when they've finished their research? Big chance China and Russia will make a block again.

They are betting on it. So that leave us where we started - going it alone in a war of choice that violates both international law and rational judgement. You find that morally acceptable?

 

[Forostar]

I am not impressed by your rational judgement. Everything is based on fear of things getting worse.

The Kosovo example is not moot, it was brought up to show how things can be done. Yes the aim is not regime change, the aim is to punish. To give a strong message that these weapons should not be used.
Back to this:

No, you can't. You can't predict that it won't either. You can't predict that it will have any positive effect. You can't predict any of it. It is a huge gamble.

I don't know what happens, you don't know what happens. Your ignorance on what will happen says "we don't know, so we won't act".
Mine says "we don't know, but let's not tolerate these weapons and see what we can do to show this".

My morals are working now. Your morals are working on something that might be happening in the future, but also might not. The question is: Where are they now?

Whatever history or anti-Obamanism you're going to mix up with this, you accept that these chemical weapons are used. And if all politicians in the world will do the same, we're going to have a dangerous precedent.

 

[King Of Twilight]

I am not impressed by your rational judgement. Everything is based on fear of things getting worse.

That is what intelligent military planning is based on. Not pie-in-the-sky Hope & Change.

Yes the aim is not regime change, the aim is to punish.

Who are we punishing? We aren't going to be killing Assad. So how does killing a bunch of people who almost certainly had nothing to do with it punish Assad? Do you punish a criminal by killing his neighbors? This is pretty twisted logic. I suggest you go back to the drawing board.

Not to mention, when a democratic nation such as ours resorts to its military, it should only be for defense, never to 'punish'.
This is a dark path you want to follow 0bama down, and there is nothing moral about it.

I don't know what happens, you don't know what happens. Your ignorance on what will happen says "we don't know, so we won't act".

You're saying let's throw some bombs and see what happens. That is a reckless and dangerous way to conduct foreign policy, and totally unbecoming of a world super-power. It is extreme amateur hour in the White House, and you're right there with them, cheering them on. There's a reason the British voted down the possibility of a military response.

Mine says "we don't know, but let's not tolerate these weapons and see what we can do to show this".

So consequences be damned, what matters is making an empty 'statement' for the sake of appearances, eh?
The problem with 0bama is he has built a career out of making empty statements for the sake of appearances. He has done nothing BUT make empty statements for the sake of promoting his own image. But now his narcissistic personality disorder is going to kill a lot of people.

My morals are working now. Your morals are working on something that might be happening in the future, but also might not. The question is: Where are they now?

Are they? You think that saying "killing 100,000 people is OK as long as you use bullets, but killing 1,400 people with gas is unacceptable" is a morally superior position? It is not. It is an arbitrary position.

You think that saying "to hell with the future, let's act impulsively today" is a morally superior position? It is not. It's not even a responsible one.

You think that saying "let's kill a lot of people to make a statement" is a morally superior position? It is not. It's not even morally defensible.

Whatever history or anti-Obamanism you're going to mix up with this, you accept that these chemical weapons are used. And if all politicians in the world will do the same, we're going to have a dangerous precedent.

Doesn't attacking a country that poses no threat whatsoever to us or our vital interests, just to "save face," set an even more dangerous precedent?

Here's some history... you know why chemical weapons were outlawed by the Geneva Protocol after WWI?
Because it was the easy thing to do. WWI showed that gas was an unpredictable and ineffective weapon that tended to kill more troops on the side using it than of the enemy. Nations gladly signed on. It allowed them to prevent some other country from possibly using a weapon against them that they had no interest in using themselves. It was not done for moral reasons and there is nothing inherently more immoral about using gas than using other methods of mass death such as bombs or radiation to kill people.

And we don't know who used the gas. It makes no sense for Assad to use it, but a lot of sense for Al Qaeda to make it look like he did. You couldn't even get a conviction in a court of law here, but you're ready to start a war on a hunch?

Do you know why I am anti-0bama?
Because as even Forrest Gump can tell you, stupid is as stupid does.
If he wasn't so dangerously stupid, I wouldn't be so adamantly against him.

I take it you are an 0bama booster. Even in the face of ill-conceived war, you stand blindly by him. Even as his other supporters have fled in droves, unable to continue their own self-deceptions, you find new justifications to support something you damn well know you would have opposed vociferously had it been hatched by Bush and Cheney. And it sure as hell could have been. It is straight out of their playbook, from the region, to the planning, to the justification, to the execution. So how do you think that is going to turn out? You have faith in hypocrites who are now making the same arguments that they mocked just a few years ago? The only thing that has changed is it served them politically to oppose it when they were out of power, and it serves them politcally to pursue it now that they are in power. How gullible can you be?

Look how much your devotion to 0bama has made you compromise your own principles, even to the point of turning them inside out. This is how monsters have been made throughout history, and how entire nations have lost their souls.

 

[Mosh]

I am not impressed by your rational judgement. Everything is based on fear of things getting worse.

I think we should be cautious though. There are a lot of things to consider before taking action; what if Assad wasn't the one who used chemical weapons? I know Obama and Kerry has said that they know it was Assad, but we've yet to be shown proof. Last time that happened, we invaded a country looking for WMDs and found none. It's likely, but in my opinion likely isn't good enough. What if Iran retaliates? You're looking at it in a very black and white lens when it's a lot more complicated. Many variables are involved here.

On that note, a couple weeks ago I posted that action shouldn't be taken in Syria. After thinking about it some, I've reconsidered a bit. If Assad's forces used chemical weapons, then something should be done for two reasons. The first is that we've made a ban on chemical weapons; that's a big deal. What's the point in having that ban if it's not enforced? All that does is give other countries the idea that if they use such weapons they'll get away with it. Secondly, the red line comment was made, as much of a mistake that was, I think it's very important that Obama lives up to bold declarations like that. Which, to his credit, he's finally doing. Like the chemical weapon ban, it's setting an example to other countries. Iran and North Korea are allies of Syria, ignoring the fact that Assad used chemical weapons (if it was him) makes the US look like it's all talk. These are countries that need to not have that idea.

So basically what I'm saying is that there is more to it than a choice between doing something or not. Possible outcomes should be weighed first and we need to be 100% certain that it was Assad's regime who used the chemical weapons.

 

[CriedWhenBrucieLeft]

I have a few scattered points...

Firstly, just in response to Forostar's comment that I (& King Of Twilight) was "premature" with my "conclusions that the rest of the world will do nothing" --I said "The international community (as it stands at present) is making a choice; they're choosing not to use force"; which was perfectly correct at the time of posting, barring the US & France. I didn't say new evidence or increased diplomatic pressure wouldn't change their minds; I just said, at the time, they were choosing not to endorse military action. Just to clear that up.

Secondly, I've seen a few folks on the box using the term "WMD" specifically in reference to chemical weapons. Is this what chemical weapons are referred to as? Thinking back to Iraq & their supposed WMDs, for some reason I'm not sure what I thought they were referring to at the time (--although they weren't found after the invasion in any case.) Inhumane, yes. But "mass destruction" doesn't seem to really describe them very well. Anyway, did Saddam not use chemical weapons, as has been mentioned --& the world did nothing? I don't mind folks saying this was an incorrect call at the time, but I'm pretty tired of hearing Kerry state that this convention (against using chemical weapons) hasn't been broken in "nearly a hundred years". It has. So why does he keep saying this?

And, well, I was going to question the morality, motivation, logic etc behind a few of the comments Forostar made --but I think King Of Twilight has already put them under pretty sharp scrutiny, to the point where me adding anything would be covering the same ground. As I said before, not using military force ain't "doing nothing". Forostar, you seem to be (rightly) aghast at what's happening. We all are. But just because no other options seem available doesn't mean you should rush headlong into doing something utterly illogical. It's almost like you've considered everything else & all you've been left with is the military option --so you're going with it. It just doesn't make sense, in my opinion, right now. It's pretty good to see all the diplomatic activity now going on though. I just don't understand why Kerry & Obama had to come out with all the fighting talk before all this diplomacy...

 

[King Of Twilight]

If Assad's forces used chemical weapons, then something should be done for two reasons. The first is that we've made a ban on chemical weapons; that's a big deal. What's the point in having that ban if it's not enforced? All that does is give other countries the idea that if they use such weapons they'll get away with it.

These bans are enforced against the losing side when the war is over. People are tried for war crimes. And if it is the winning side that used the banned weapons, then they face sanctions and global isolation. This is how it is done, not by other uninvolved countries electively inviting themselves into the war and adding to the war crimes.

Secondly, the red line comment was made, as much of a mistake that was, I think it's very important that Obama lives up to bold declarations like that.

You're talking about taking a nation to war because its incompetent president made a stupid comment trying to look tough that everyone (but him) acknowledges was a grave mistake. There's a lot of talk about punishing Assad for what he's done, but what about 0bama? It will be the first time in US history that the country goes to war because the president trash-talked himself into a corner. This is not an individual who has the right temperament for the job. Now we're learning the hard way what he meant when he said "elections have consequences."

I've seen a few folks on the box using the term "WMD" specifically in reference to chemical weapons. Is this what chemical weapons are referred to as? Thinking back to Iraq & their supposed WMDs, for some reason I'm not sure what I thought they were referring to at the time (--although they weren't found after the invasion in any case.) Inhumane, yes. But "mass destruction" doesn't seem to really describe them very well.

WMDs are nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Of the three, only chemical are actually banned. And as I pointed out, they're only banned because no one wants to use them.

Anyway, did Saddam not use chemical weapons, as has been mentioned --& the world did nothing? I don't mind folks saying this was an incorrect call at the time, but I'm pretty tired of hearing Kerry state that this convention (against using chemical weapons) hasn't been broken in "nearly a hundred years". It has. So why does he keep saying this?

Kerry keeps saying it because he is pathological. Clearly the protocol was broken by Saddam. However, it is not correct to say the world did nothing.

And here is perhaps the key to why Kerry wants to flush that down the memory hole -
The world did two things - first, it placed sanctions on Saddam for a decade. That is the correct course of action. To acknowledge this would expose just how wrong the 0bama administration is going about it.

Secondly, the world invaded Iraq and destroyed his regime, captured and killed its leadership, and handed Saddam over to his people to be tried and executed. Kerry and 0bama were both vocal critics of the action. They said the UN and sanctions were the right path, not war. They said sanctions worked, and even pointed to no WMDs being found as proof of that. They said Bush was reckless and violating international law, and should be removed from office because of it. To acknowledge this would be to expose themselves as extreme hypocrites.

So instead, Kerry goes on TV and tells the world that 2+2=5. And for the most part, he's getting away with it.

 

[Travis The Dragon]

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?: http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/obama-offers-assad-secret-deal/

 

[King Of Twilight]

My thoughts on that, Travis, if true, is that either Assad is laughing his ass off, or 0bama is lying his ass off.

0bama has stated that there will be no regime change. His administration has gone out of their way to emphasize just how futile and symbolic any strike would be, even listing the targets well in advance, so Assad can be sure that they're emptied long before the strike. Assad even knows how long he needs to hunker down for - a mere 72-hours.

The strike will have zero effect on Assad. It is designed only to make a political 'statement' because 0bama painted himself into a corner. So why would Assad agree to those terms to avoid a pin-prick?

And here's the clincher - the use of chemical weapons came exactly one year after 0bama's "red line" was drawn. Whoever launched it did so to provoke a response from 0bama. If, as 0bama claims, it was Assad who did it, then he made a calculation to invite a US attack. Probably in order to enlarge the conflict and draw Iran, Russia, Israel, and Iraq in. It would give Iran the perfect justification to attack Israel, and that is exactly what will happen if 0bama launches an attack against Syria.

So if it was Assad who used chemical weapons in order to draw others into a larger conflict, he sure as hell is not going to take an offer to step down to avoid the conflict he is trying to orchestrate, and surely 0bama knows this, that is if he believes his own pronouncements that Assad was behind it. It would also mean that 0bama has to know that he is about to set off a trap, but just can't help himself because of his own frail ego - like Marty McFly being called "chicken."

I think 0bama finally realized that he had not given Assad a chance to avoid war, which would make the US the bully and aggressor, and deprive the 0bama regime of any moral authority. So an offer was made, knowing it would be rejected, just so 0bama could reclaim some sliver of legitimacy.

One thing is for certain, if such a deal was actually offered sincerely and in good faith, then it shows that 0bama is even more foolish and desperate to find some way out of his mess than he has let on.

Final thought on it - isn't this exactly the same deal that Bush offered Saddam 48-hours before "Shock & Awe" began?
Once again, 0bama is following in Bush's footsteps, even if he is dithering every step of the way.

 

[Mosh]

These bans are enforced against the losing side when the war is over. People are tried for war crimes. And if it is the winning side that used the banned weapons, then they face sanctions and global isolation. This is how it is done, not by other uninvolved countries electively inviting themselves into the war and adding to the war crimes.

Chemical weapons are against international law, period. Especially in a country like Syria, something should be done (not necessarily by the US) when chemical weapons are used.

You're talking about taking a nation to war because its incompetent president made a stupid comment trying to look tough that everyone (but him) acknowledges was a grave mistake. There's a lot of talk about punishing Assad for what he's done, but what about 0bama? It will be the first time in US history that that the country goes to war because the president trash-talked himself into a corner. This is not an individual who has the right temperament for the job. Now we're learning the hard way what he meant when he said "elections have consequences."

You pretty much ignored my point so that you could go on a tangent about Obama. Whether or not you think he's right for the job is irrelevant. His #1 job is commander in chief, he made his declaration and he either lives up to it or he makes the entire country look spineless. I agree that it was a dumb comment, but it can't be taken back. It's about more than punishing Assad, it's also about setting an example. You mentioned Iran and Israel; Iran wants to destroy Israel, they are set on doing that. Do you think if they finally decide to attack them, they're going to take any of the US' warnings seriously after nothing was done when Assad used chemical weapons?

 

[bearfan]

I think the red line comment is important .... in retrospect, it was really foolish to make, but it was made , so it has to be factored into how we move forward. The problem is that it extends beyond Obama, US foreign policy, in general, maintains a continuity from administration to administration and the failure to act on this red line affects future Presidents.

That said, it is still not clear to me what we could or should do about it ... which makes the red line comment look even worse as it was clearly made with no thought about how to back it up.

 

[Travis The Dragon]

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blog...interview-210811303--abc-news-topstories.html

I sure don't want to find out what that retaliation will consist of! Because of that, I think we should just leave Syria alone.

 

[LooseCannon]

World Nut Daily isn't a news source - it's full of lies and misinformation. Please do not treat it as a news source.

King of Twilight, I'd take you a hell of a lot more seriously if you'd spell Obama properly. When you use 0, you look like a stupid fucking talking head, and I don't take talking heads seriously for either side. The conservatives on the board will tell you that I'm fair and I listen to genuine arguments. You undermine yourself when you put your hatred for the president before your rationality.

 

[Mosh]

World Nut Daily isn't a news source - it's full of lies and misinformation. Please do not treat it as a news source.

Had the same thought, so I went straight to the source. You can actually listen to an excerpt of the Charlie Rose's interview here.

King of Twilight, I'd take you a hell of a lot more seriously if you'd spell Obama properly. When you use 0, you look like a stupid fucking talking head, and I don't take talking heads seriously for either side. The conservatives on the board will tell you that I'm fair and I listen to genuine arguments. You undermine yourself when you put your hatred for the president before your rationality.

Conservative here, he's right. To be completely honest, I didn't even bother to read any of your posts until you replied to me because I thought the 0 thing was fucking dumb. Lets have a real discussion, leave the silly mindless bashing out of it, if I wanted that I'd go to some other site where the only intention is to feed parrots who aren't going to think for themselves and just go with whatever their favorite talking head tells them. I loathe Obama, I think he's spineless, a liar, and definitely not fit to be running the country. But I can do much better than spell his fucking name wrong.

 

[King Of Twilight]

Mosh, this has everything to do with 0bama. What happens in Syria is of no consequence... unless the US involves itself.

We all acknowledge 0bama's red line was stupid. But why was it stupid? Because it committed us to an ill advised war. So why then double down on stupid and follow through with the ill-advised war?

Not doing so won't hurt the US's credibility in the long run. It only affects 0bama's. but the damage is already done. The world already knows 0bama is an empty suit.

LooseCannon, I really don't care if you don't take me seriously. I make my points, and you can do with them as you will. The merits of my points stand on their own, regardless of how I spell 0bama's name. I do not blindly give deference to authority. This is an Iron Maiden forum. Go take a look at the cover of Sanctuary. If you bow to authority then you have lost the punk rock spirit.

BTW, I am not a conservative, and the only "talking head" in my posts belongs to Paul.

 

[LooseCannon]

Why do people keep saying this is just like Iraq? It isn't in any way. It's very similar to the 2011 intervention in Libya.

1. We know the Syrians, somewhere, some of 'em, have weapons of mass destruction. We know this because they used them on their own populace. Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. They had no nukes, no gas, no biological weapons. The US government lied about the reason for the attack on Iraq. Period. Full stop. Even if Western governments are wrong about who used the chemical weapons in Syria - they were still used by someone.

2. We are not accusing the Syrian government of taking part in a terrorist act against the United States nor any NATO member. We are accusing the Syrian government of attacking their own people with a chemical agent. When the USA attacked Iraq a large part of the rhetoric was that Saddam and Osama bin Laden were in bed with each other. This is clearly not the case for two reasons: Osama bin Laden is dead and Al-Qaeda is a shadow of its former self, incapable of doing much more than putting a name on other Islamic groups.

3. The United States is not proposing a full-scale assault. They are suggesting a limited strike to destroy the ability of the Syrian government to manufacture, store, and deploy Sarin and NX gas. The scope is entirely different.

4. The action against Iraq was not justifiable by international law; there is some justification for a strike on Syria under Responsibility to Protect and the violation of the Geneva Convention of 1925. Yes, Obama and Kerry opposed the strike on Iraq because there was no evidence. In this case we have the bodies, we have international law, and oh, what's the other thing? That's right, no sanctions. So...it's a totally different situation. Comparing cases in international politics is difficult and it's very, very easy to draw a very simple comparison between two situations that are totally unrelated.

LooseCannon, I really don't care if you don't take me seriously. I make my points, and you can do with them as you will. The merits of my points stand on their own, regardless of how I spell 0bama's name. I do not blindly give deference to authority. This is an Iron Maiden forum. Go take a look at the cover of Sanctuary. If you bow to authority then you have lost the punk rock spirit.

Using words like "incompetent" "empty suit" "pathological" to describe the members of the administration undermines your arguments. Points do not stand on their own merits - they stand on the reputation of those making them just as much as they do the facts underneath. You wouldn't take Obama seriously on anything he says because he has no respect in your eyes. That door swings both ways. I do not blindly give deference to authority. When I disagree, I believe in civility and determination. After all, if you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite - and in the end, can give your cause the greater strength.

Oh, and punk rock died before I was born.

 

[Mosh]

Mosh, this has everything to do with 0bama. What happens in Syria is of no consequence... unless the US involves itself.

When did I say it has nothing to do with Obama? Once again you're ignoring my points.

We all acknowledge 0bama's red line was stupid. But why was it stupid? Because it committed us to an ill advised war. So why then double down on stupid and follow through with the ill-advised war?

Furthers my suspicion that you're barely reading an of the posts. I already explained why we should consider following through.

Not doing so won't hurt the US's credibility in the long run.

Yes it will, when the leader of the country draws a line people absolutely listen. What he says is going to affect how other countries perceive us.

Why do people keep saying this is just like Iraq? It isn't in any way. It's very similar to the 2011 intervention in Libya.

It's a similar reaction. It's very important to know who made the chemical weapon attack. At this point we don't know, Obama is saying that it was Assad but that he hasn't found evidence/he has evidence isn't going to release it. If there's going to be an attack on Syria on the grounds that the Assad regime used chemical weapons, then we should probably be shown proof that it was in fact the Assad regime who used chemical weapons.

If it wasn't Assad, then I'm not sure what the reaction should be. An attack may be a very bad idea in that case.