Sarin traces found in Syria chemical weapons attack, Britain says

[ProSense]

Sarin traces found in Syria chemical weapons attack, Britain says

By Michael Pearson. Greg Botelho and Holly Yan, CNN

(CNN) -- British military scientists found traces of sarin gas in soil and clothing taken from a patient treated near the site of an alleged chemical weapons attack outside Syria's capital, the prime minister's office said Thursday.

Scientists at the Porton Down military laboratory concluded the samples were unlikely to have been faked, and Britain is sharing its findings with the United Nations, the office said.

The revelation is the most specific statement by British officials regarding the chemical they believe was used in the August 21 attack on a rebel stronghold near Damascus, though the office didn't explicitly say who was responsible. U.S. officials have, blaming Syrian government forces for an attack they say left more than 1,400 people dead, many of them children.

The British statement is not the first allegation that sarin gas -- an extremely volatile nerve agent that can kill -- has been used in Syria's gruesome, two-year civil war.

- more -

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/world/meast/syria-civil-war/

The UN is having samples from Syria tested. France and Germany presented evidence Assad did it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023590778

[spanone]

1. k&r...

[leftstreet]

2. Why did the UK vote, before all this uh...information?

That's rhetorical - don't expect anyone to know

Just seems odd

[jessie04]

3. But...But....But.... Why should we care ?

So some chemical weapons were used to kill 1400 people and 400 were children...who cares? Its not OUR kids.

AND...it could make Assad mad if his weapons systems are attacked and he might do something ....i'm so scared.

And...its none of our business if chemical , biologic or nuclear weapons are used.... Spare me the details.











I think that's sarcasm.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. Lobbing a few vanity missiles will not do anything

Taking out Assad gives the country -- and those very same chemical weapons -- to Al Qaeda.

[jessie04]

5. And doing NOTHING gives this dangerous psychotic a free ride.

Obama got it 100% right.

Surgical strikes to cause Assad "warfare" pain.

IT also tells the next dictator that we wont look the other way.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Saddam held on through 12 years of sanctions with intermittent strikes

It meant nothing to him.

[ProSense]

7. He never did it again.

That would be a success.

In fact, it was the lie that he had acquired WMD that Bush used to push the Iraq war.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. Didn't do what again? Slaughter people by the thousands?

[ProSense]

9. Use chemical weapons. In fact

"Didn't do what again? Slaughter people by the thousands?"

...such weapons in the hands of Saddam would have been a recipe for disaster. This is why Bush lied.

Feingold:

<...>

My colleagues, my focus today is on the wisdom of this specific resolution, vis-a-vis Iraq, as opposed to discussing the notion of an expanded doctrine of preemption, which the President has articulated on several occasions. However, I associate myself with the concerns eloquently raised by Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd and others that this could well represent a disturbing change in our overall foreign and military policy. This includes grave concerns about what such a preemption-plus policy will do to our relationship with our allies, to our national security, and to the cause of world peace in so many regions of the world where such a doctrine could trigger very dangerous actions with very minimal justification.

I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree, post-9/11, we face, as the President said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism. We must be very patient and very vigilant, and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices.

With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations.

Yes, I agree; if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time. I agree, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. I agree, a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.

I also believe and agree, as important and as preferable as U.N. action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this threat to our people. We retain and will always retain the right of self-defense, including self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present itself--and I am skeptical that is exactly what we are dealing with here--then we could, if necessary, act alone, including militarily.

These are all areas where I agree with the administration. However, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I am not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action, but when the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the administration's motives in insisting on action at this time.

- more-

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/Z?r107:S09OC2-0011:

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. So you want to commit to permanent no-fly zones, permanent inspections with no defined end.

Because that is also part of the formula you're preening about. Feel free to tell the American people we should treat this like the 12 year intermission in the Iraq war.

[joeybee12]

10. Whew! For a second there I thought GB was no longer our lapdog! nt