At least the UK's use of chemical and biological warfare in WW2 was fairly limited.

It seems that some bomber crews would empty the 'Elsan' chemical toilet over Germany. The Germans discovered this and complained to the Swiss Red Cross, so the crews were told that the practice had to stop!

And even if there were none, the cynic in me thinks it would not be difficult to show the civilian casualties.

Media propaganda is a powerful tool and some media need little persuasion to accept a story at face value.

Only because old fatso didn't get his way...

I should be prepared to do anything [Churchill's emphasis] that would hit the enemy in a murderous place. I may certainly have to ask you to support me in using poison gas. We could drench the cities of the Ruhr and many other cities in Germany ..., and if we do it, let us do it one hundred per cent.

—Winston Churchill, 'Most Secret' PRIME MINISTER'S PERSONAL MINUTE to the Chiefs of Staff, 6 July 1944[9]

How strange that the website devoted to disabusing Churchill myths sidesteps this one :=

Your point was perfectly valid Beags...and it applies to us, just the same as everybody else.

This has been intimated before, however one would have thought an easier option would have been to route one up through Iraq to Turkey to hook-up with the various gas pipelines being built westwards from the Caspian.

One feels Obama's chance has past him by, the time to have struck was the weekend before the summit when World opinion was in turmoil. It now leaves him in a position where World opinion will damn him if he does and there could well be consequences resulting from that, and World opinion will damn him as an indecisive leader if he doesn't, which also has consequences in that the World will think they can call his bluff as he has had to back down.

Either way he and that of his Administration is stuffed, everything going on now appears to be damage limitation.


..

Agent Orange was used as a de-foliant with terrible side effects. Assad has used Sarin against women and children over 14 times. It has no purpose other than to kill.

If anyone wants to know what happened at Ghouta there is now a lot of information.

The BBC feature article gives a quick overview: BBC News - Syria chemical attacks: What we know
The Wikipedia article has just about all the available facts and very many references: 2013 Ghouta attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Brown Moses blog has a forensic analysis of the attack and the weapon system used: http://brown-moses.********.co.uk/
This MIT paper takes the academic road to events: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...iraq_syria.pdf

One wonders what that pair of dangerous clowns, Kerry and Hague, will come up with at their London meeting today....:uhoh:

I've been out of the loop for a long time but have been following this thread closely. One question does spring to mind with the Strategic Defence Review, Options for Change and the general reduction in real-terms spend by the UK is how much has this affected Porton Down?

Porton Down has rightly IMHO a low profile, but its importance as a research establishment and a centre of knowledge/advice to the government is immense especially now. As in most things in the defence arena, skills/knowledge acquired over years and years is quickly lost (vis land-based long range ASW/ASuW capabilities) and impossible/expensive to re-procure in the future.

I sincerely hope that Porton has been spared the bean-counters' axe, their forensic ability to analyse any evidence of CWs being used may be vitally important in any future prosecution for war crimes against Assad or indeed any other leader who uses CWs elsewhere. It would be very interesting to see if samples taken by the UN inspectors in Syria have been sent to PD for examination.

If so it would be another example of where "this little island" can be, and is, useful on the world stage.

MB

So many questions and what a ‘to do’
My brain tells me this is not my fight and this hunk of meat then bombards me with a thousand and one questions. WHY??? Why are we and in particular the US taking the moral high ground regarding this heinous act? Is any sane man (or woman) suggesting those innocent people were not victims of a poisonous gas attack?
Does any sane person not accept that government forces were shelling\bombarding that rebel held area during the relevant time of that attack? France and the USA state they have intelligence showing government forces wearing gas masks during the alleged time of this attack although this information has not been made public. If American so called ‘Intelligence’ told me it was daylight outside, I would look out the window just to confirm that suggestion. I do accept it is not beyond the powers of possibility that the rebels bombarded their own forces with chemicals but….
If I were the Syrian President and I was accused of this act then why oh why would I not insist on having the resident weapon inspectors come in IMMEDIATELY and carry out whatever tests they deem necessary? I say resident inspectors simply because they were but a short distance away from the attacked area (they were in the same city). Instead of inviting in these inspectors the Syrian Government refused entry and for days carried on bombarding that area in the FULL KNOWLEDGE that their actions were destroying any evidence that might be of use in the detection of what was used? Bottom line however is the FACT that the inspectors will NOT investigate who is responsible for the attack, but instead they are only tasked with trying to discover if a chemical was used and to me that is a farce!!
I am a sad person that listened to our parliamentarians debate this issue from start to the finish but what a farce. This was more about politicians claiming expenses for being recalled as opposed to educated people debating a serious topic.. Our government even had a female minister and one of her male assistants shut away in a small room having ‘a discussion’ rather than casting their vote over an issue as important as this. They claim not to have heard the bell but I wonder what bell they did hear when votes were being cast?:mad::mad:;)
When it came to those that contributed to this debate then this person certainly raised a number of points.

I cannot stand this man

but I must confess that I enjoy listening to him when he speaks.
Great Britain voted not to take action against Syria and I guess that is something we have to accept and at first I congratulated President Obama for his stance but then my brain decided to ask even more questions… If this issue was so important then should American politicians be recalled and discuss what actions should be taken, or are their holidays more of a priority? If chemical weapons are such a big no, no, then how do they justify Agent Orange Is that a chemical? Was it used against civilians? (as well as Americans)

If the US wants to draw a line on the ground and say this far, and no further then sadly they are making a HUGE rod for their own backs. Both North Korea and China have humiliated this super power and is the USA now backing themselves into a corner in the Middle East? I accept that the use of chemical weapons is bad but what bigger slap in the face is there when we consider how a sovereign state has a captured US warship on display and uses it as a museum piece? US sailors were fired on, there were deaths and I believe this ship is still in commission. Is it right to take action against someone that lacks any ability to fight back, but ignore the deeds of those who can defend themselves?? The word bully comes to mind!!
If they do back down then what does this say to Iran if it insists on developing a nuclear weapon? Is this more about Super Powers flexing their muscles? Are both Russia and China giving the west the finger and saying keep out? Russia and China both of whom have an awful reputation when it comes to committing atrocities against their own population or countries they have occupied? (I am thinking Chechnya and Tibet) It appears we dare not highlight their atrocities but it is okay to hammer smaller countries that commit lesser acts.
Should the USA take out Syrian Command and Control assets or should we look away and let these evil people carry on murdering innocent women and children? I am undecided as to me evil is evil but I just feel it wrong to differentiate and is it right that we are giving in excess of £400m a year in foreign aid to Syria and its neighbours? That to me is madness.
Would it be so wrong to use long range missiles to take out the command and Control capability of the Syrian Government? I ask this but straight away my brain throws another question at me.. What would the reaction be if these missiles were taken out by the latest surface to air Russian assets that might now be in place in Syria? would the US be embarrassed, would the Middle East laugh at the demise of this type of weapon?

I am not taking sides and am undecided about this issue but is force the right answer? No matter how we talk about this, if we drop missiles onto a sovereign state we are surely declaring war on that nation even if we do not actually say the words? Could Syria launch a retaliatory attack against Cyprus?

Regards
John the armchair warrior

More on Akrotiri being tested: Syria sends fighter jets to Cyprus - Israel News, Ynetnews

Seems the Turkish F16s weren't after our Typhoons after all. They were after the same Syrian intruders.

High flyers huh!

glojo,

Quote:

---

Is any sane man (or woman) suggesting those innocent people were not victims of a poisonous gas attack?
Does any sane person not accept that government forces were shelling\bombarding that rebel held area during the relevant time of that attack?

---

I think the whole world is agreed that Sarin was used in the attack on the innocent people seen in various news broadcasts a few weeks ago.

However, clearly the majority of the world does not accept that government forces did it - or do not accept beyond all reasonable doubt at least.

Russia, China, Brazil, India etc, must be at least two thirds of the world population, most of whom are probably sane!

It's like an argument with the wife when she starts with the lines "Everybody knows....." ;)

Use of Sarin might well have been an unathorised release by a local field commander, rather than directed by the government per se.

Of course al-Assad woudn't suggest this, as it would imply that he no longer had full control over his military forces.

Having just seen him on TV, followed shortly by some fat, smug American politician critical of Obama yet still advocating a large-scale attack, it seems that the hawks in the US are more concerned about Russian and 'Eye-raynian' influence in the area than they are in the facts specific to this incident.

al-Assad was altogether more credible than either the interviewer or that arrogant "Ahh'm an ex-military man" politician.

It is definitely Assad wot dun it: The Folly Of The False Flag Brigade - OpEd Eurasia Review

Well, even if it wasn't the Syrian Government in this case (which it was), they probably deserve a bit of a beating anyway. So no real harm done if we flatten a few of their military installations and then we find out it was just another dodgy dossier.

Indeed. The debate is whether the alleged use of CW by Iran's puppet constitute an adequate pretext for a military response, or do we hold fire and continue our existing strategy of containment, embuggeration (e.g. Stuxnet), and sitting on the Israelis?

Different times, different world. Gas was a recognised and not proscribed weapon of war in use a mere 26 years earlier. Nuclear WMD was being researched by both sides.

It was a very black and white war at that time. Only following the peace have things become less clear cut, no longer are States embraced in Total War.

The really telling point is the last one: let us do it one hundred per cent



It is no use holding a big stick and tapping it lightly so as to do little damage.

Churchill's vengeful appetite for hitting cities, rather than military targets, is well-known.....

....certainly to the survivors of the Dresden attack.

Just how much face would the US lose if the President were to announce "It is clear that nothing is clear. Due to the lack of compelling, direct, unequivocal evidence and the severe collateral risk which would result from military action, we deem such action at this time to be inappropriate and call for all parties to arrange peace talks at a neutral location."

Beags,

The use of Agent Orange and a couple of other Herbicides was not Chemical Warfare in the conventional definition. The daft bastards just did not understand the after effects of its use to defoliate large areas of the countryside.

The US Veterans Administration finally admitted that Agent Orange was responsible for many illnesses and cancers and have included all those who were exposed to it during their service for Compensation upon determination we have Agent Orange Related problems.

We have to be fair in our laying of blame for birth defects as some do occur as a result of other causes.

If you want to fault the US Government for the use of Agent Orange that is fine....but do not describe it as Chemical Warfare in the context of what is being discussed. It was weed killer, applied to kill off vegetation, and was not deployed to with the intent to harm People.

We all know what Chemical Warfare is.....and Agent Orange is not.


DP,

A couple of comments.....the "Hawks" in the current situation are actually "Chicken Hawks" as they were against War before they were for it.

As to the new concern about Iran and Russia is they know they are beating a Dead Horse on Syria as the American People have seen through the silliness of their arguments for the proposed Attacks on Syria and they have to find another bogus excuse to continue their campaign to save Obama's Face.

It isn't going to work.....the American People are just flat assed utterly opposed to attacking Syria for any reason.

Eclectic

Are you just ripping links from other websites now or do you have any input of your own? Why not just link to the thread on the site you are taking "your" posts from?