Chemical weapons in Germany | DW Documentary

 

Tabun, sarin, phosgene and mustard gas are chemical warfare agents invented to kill. They were carelessly disposed of after Germany lost two world wars. Still buried or underwater in many places, they have become a public-health time bomb.

Mission Accomplished

On 1 May, 2003 former President George W. Bush landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln sailing just off the coast of California.  He was there to give a speech updating the situation for the ongoing war in  Iraq.  Just behind him was a banner proclaiming Mission Accomplished.  While he never utter the words Mission Accomplished President Bush announced the end of major combat operations.  Unfortunately, following that speech L. Paul Bremer announced the disbandment of the Iraqi army and the sacking of all government officials belonging to the Baathist party.  This led to the insurgency that would claim more lives than actual combat operations.

 Donald Trump used that phrase 'Mission Accomplished' in proclaiming success after the U.S., the U.K. and France bombed known chemical weapons manufacturing facilities near Damascus and Homs.  While the air forces and the navies of countries involved may have incapacitated some of Syria's chemical weapons production it's foolish to exclaim that that capacity has been completely degraded.       

Remember this is Donald Trump, Reality T.V. star who believes that governing and the popularity of ones administration is based on ratings. Much like a  television programme rather than tangible accomplishments. 

Trump: US launches strikes on Syria

President Donald Trump announced on Friday he ordered strikes on the Syrian regime in response for a chemical weapon attack last weekend.

"I ordered the United States armed forces to launch precision strikes on targets associated with the chemical weapon capabilities of Syrian dictator of Bashar al-Assad," Trump said from the White House Diplomatic Room.

Trump said the strikes were in coordination with France and the United Kingdom, adding that the purpose of the campaign is to "establish a strong deterrent against the production, spread and use of chemical weapons."

If you really believe that Donald Trump cares about the people of Syria you're fooling yourself. He doesn't. This is his Wag The Dog moment. It's an illusion meant to distract the American public from his failed time in office. 

Syria war: US launches missile strikes following chemical 'attack'

The US has carried out a missile attack against targets in Syria in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack on a rebel-held town.

A Pentagon official said about 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired from Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean at a Syrian air base.

It came after US President Donald Trump warned that "something should happen" against the Syrian leadership.

Dozens of civilians died in a suspected nerve gas attack in Syria on Tuesday.

The US missiles hit the Shayrat airfield, where the US believes Tuesday's deadly attack was launched, one US official was quoted as saying.

Bill Maher: America's Syria policy makes it look like George Zimmerman

George Zimmerman, a schoolyard bully, and Zeus. Those are just a few of the choice words Bill Maher used to describe the United States' bomb-happy foreign policies on Friday night's "Real Time." At the end of his "New Rules," Maher weighed in on the Syria debate by asking why the U.S. seems to feel an obligation to intervene (a.k.a. bomb) a new Middle Eastern country every few years, and insisted that we won't feel safe from terrorism until we stop.

"Forget the Syria debate, we need to debate on why we're always debating whether to bomb someone," Maher said. "Because we're starting to look, not so much like the world's policeman, but more like George Zimmerman -- itching to use force and then pretending it's because we had no choice."

Syria crisis: Assad confirms chemical weapons handover

Syria's President Bashar al-Assad has appeared on Russian TV to confirm that his country's chemical weapons will be placed under international control.

Mr Assad told Rossiya 24 the move was as a result of a Russian initiative and not the threat of US military action.

The comments came as the Russian and US foreign ministers prepared for key talks in Geneva.

The US accuses the Syrian regime of killing hundreds in a poison-gas attack in the Damascus suburbs on 21 August.

The government denies the allegation, blaming rebels for the attack.

'Chance for peace'

Mr Assad told Rossiya 24, the state-run news channel: "Syria is placing its chemical weapons under international control because of Russia. The US threats did not influence the decision."

Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov earlier outlined three main phases of Moscow's proposal:

• Syria joins the Chemical Weapons Convention, which outlaws the production and use of the weapons
• Syria reveals where its chemical weapons are stored and gives details of its programme
• Experts decide on the specific measures to be taken

President Obama's speech on Syria

Following World War I the worlds governments have worked to ban the use of chemical weapons which killed thousands during that conflict.   And, where used again during World War II by the Nazi's which led to the  Geneva Conventions of the rules of War and the use of Chemical Weapons.


President Obama has stated that Syria's chemical weapons threaten US national security even though they really can't be used against America.  He also stated that it would send Iran a message in that Western nations will not tolerate not only chemical weapons but Iran's nuclear programs.  How one correlates with the other is a slippery slope.  Yes, Iran supports Syria but they have been on the recieving end of chemical weapons attacks.    President Obama pointed out that a the use of force by the United States will not be a "pin prick" as no other military can deliver what the US's can.

President Obama announced that Secretary of State John Kerry will meet with his Russian counterpart and other allies to discuss the proposal put forth by the Russian government on Monday.

The arguments  presented by President Obama have not changed since the original act in August even though he has asked the US Senate to delay a vote on the use of force against Syria.

In the end the President hasn't presented any new concrete evidence that proves the Syrian government  actually  used chemical weapons.

The reality is that neither the American people or the US Congress support an attack on Syria by Americas military as many believe that it would lead to a wider war.

Syria accepts Russia deal on chemical weapons; France to seek UN resolution

Obama agrees to UN discussion about Russian proposal on Syria chemical weapons

Syria confirmed it would accept a Russian-brokered proposal to place its chemical weapons under international control Tuesday, just hours after France announced it would seek a U.N. Security Council resolution seeking a similar plan.

Syria’s Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem told Russia's lower parliament that Damascus had agreed to the plan in order to “remove the grounds for American aggression,” according to a report by the Interfax state news agency.

His statement sounded more definitive than remarks Monday, when the Syrian foreign minister said that Damascus welcomed Russia's initiative.

Sergey Lavrov, al-Moualem's Russian counterpart, said Tuesday that Moscow was working with Syria to prepare a detailed plan of action, according to The Associated Press.

The comments added to the international momentum behind the proposal, which has already been endorsed by Iran and China and cautiously welcomed by Britain, France and Germany.

What are the alternatives to military intervention in Syria-video

Samantha Power outlined what the United States has done at the United Nations in a speech at the Center for American Progress, and it's not very optimistic. As long as Russia and China obstruct, the UN Security Council remains stymied. To review, here is what has taken place on that front:

Since 2011, Russia and China have vetoed three separate Security Council resolutions condemning the Syrian regime’s violence or promoting a political solution to the conflict. This year alone, Russia has blocked at least three statements expressing humanitarian concern and calling for humanitarian access to besieged cities in Syria. And in the past two months, Russia has blocked two resolutions condemning the generic use of chemical weapons and two press statements expressing concern about their use. We believe that more than 1,400 people were killed in Damascus on August 21, and the Security Council could not even agree to put out a press statement expressing its disapproval. The international system that was founded in 1945 —a system we designed specifically to respond to the kinds of horrors we saw play out in World War II—has not lived up to its promise or its responsibilities in the case of Syria. And it is naive to think that Russia is on the verge of changing its position and allowing the UN Security Council to assume its rightful role as the enforcer of international peace and security. In short, the Security Council the world needs to deal with this urgent crisis is not the Security Council we have. Many Americans recognize that, while we were right to seek to work through the Security Council, it is clear that Syria is one of those occasions – like Kosovo – when the Council is so paralyzed that countries have to act outside it if they are to prevent the flouting of international laws and norms. But these same people still reasonably ask: Beyond the Security Council, what support does the United States have in holding Assad accountable?

US interventions post-Cold War

The proposed US military strike on Syria would be the latest in a long list of overseas intrusions.

August 2, 1990 — February 28, 1991

First Gulf War

Rationale: To rebuff Saddam Hussein’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait. 

International authority: U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing subsequent international coalition. 

Type of operation: Airstrikes and ground invasion. 

U.S. involvement: Massive investment of military resources, including at least 575,000 troops at vanguard of 34-nation coalition. 

Outcome: In conducting the war, 294 U.S. personnel were killed; Iraqi deaths – both civilians and soldiers -- numbered between 20,000 and 40,000. As a result of the invasion, Saddam’s forces were repelled from Kuwait, and the Emir of Kuwait was restored to his throne. U.N. economic sanctions on Iraq, initiated by a Security Council resolution before the war, continued after the war’s conclusion. Also after the war, Saddam crushed an Iraqi Shiite uprising against his rule, which had been encouraged, but not supported, by the United States.

How "Surprising" US Senate Froeign Relations Committee Votes For War

In a vote so unsurprising the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations committee voted to authorize the use of force against Syria.   When given a chance to vote on American military involvement in some far off conflict America's elected representatives get all loud, proud and patriotic.  Chomping at the bit to show just how tough they are when voting to send someone else's child to war.

Though the resolution passed is more limited than what President Obama wanted the first casualty will lead to screaming for a wider intervention so that  Americas Senators and House Members can prove they will never back down in the face of adversity.   Just as long as it isn't them or their children having to face said adversity.


   A US Senate panel has approved the use of military force in Syria, in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack.

By 10-7, the Committee on Foreign Relations moved the measure to a full Senate vote, expected next week.

The proposal allows the use of force in Syria for 60 days with the possibility to extend it for 30 days. It prevents the use of US troops on the ground.

source: BBC 

The yes votes comprised seven Democrats and three Republicans, including Sen. John McCain, who had expressed reservations that the United States was not doing enough to arm the rebels fighting Syrian leader Bashar Assad.

"We commend the Senate for moving swiftly and for working across party lines on behalf of our national security," read a statement from the White House. "We will continue to work with Congress to build on this bipartisan support for a military response that is narrowly tailored to enforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons, and sufficient to protect the national security interests of the United States of America."

source: NBC News

`No Expectation` to lose Syria vote: Susan Rice National Security Advisor to Pres. Obama-video

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

When the peaceful protests against the Presidency of Bashar Al Assad turned deadly back in March of 2011 with coordinated attacks by the Syrian military the worlds governments to didn't say much. As the violence escalated with more civilians being killed the world took some notice but world leaders continued to insist that it was an "internal Syrian problem." Even as the number of people killed surpassed 100,000 and the number of refugees grew the world still watched from the sidelines, expressing regret at the human tragedy taking place in Syria. Today there are more than 2 million Syrian refugees living in Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey with an unknown number who internally displaced and more than 200,000 dead the world has finally taken notice but not for the reasons they should have two years ago. The world began clutching its collective pearls following a chemical weapons attack which left 1,426 people dead. Suddenly the worlds governments are taking notice of this years long tragedy and are ready to send Bashar Al Assad a message. Sending messages will accomplish what exactly? Nothing. If the world was going to intervene Syrian conflict they should have done so two years ago. Before this civil war escalated beyond anyones control.

Kerry: Samples from Syria tested positive for Sarin-video

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

"In the last 24 hours, we have learned through samples that were provided to the United States that have now been tested from first responders in east Damascus and hair samples and blood samples have tested positive for signatures of Sarin," Kerry said on NBC's Meet The Press. "So this case is building and this case will build." Sarin is a man-made chemical warfare agent considered the most toxic and fast-acting of its kind. The odorless, colorless nerve agent interferes with an enzyme called acetylcholinesterase, which controls nerve signals to the muscles. Kerry said the use of chemical weapons puts Syrian President Bashar Assad in the same category as the world's most bloody dictators. "Bashar Assad now joins the list of Adolph Hitler and Saddam Hussein [who] have used these weapons in time of war," he said.

Unfortunately credibility is a problem. To many people were burned by the Bush administration's assertions that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when the evidence clearly proved he did not. Any claims made by the present administration will only be viewed as a cover to approve a military responce because President Obama drew a red line over the use of chemical weapons.

When elective representative government really works

In February of 2003 then Secretary of State Colin Powell went before the UN Security Council to laid out the evidence that would lead to the invasion of Iraq in March of that year.  Everything Secretary Powell told the Security Council was a lie.  Fabricated evidenced based upon the accusations of one person known to the CIA as Curveball a man who claimed to have been an engineer  working to develop Iraq's arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons.  The Bush administration bought it hook, line and sinker because they wanted to believe that no matter how outrageous the claims Iraq had these weapons.  

In July of 2003 the Iraq survey group announced that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq and that there was clear evidence that  programs had been dismantled  in the aftermath of the first Gulf War.

Yesterday the British House of Commons voted by a narrow margin (13 votes) to deny David Cameron's government the right to involve  Great Britain  in the American scheme to attack Syria for that governments use of chemical weapons against its civilian population.  A majority voiced concern over the lack of concrete evidence of just what happened and who actually carried out the attack.  MP's invoked the memory of Iraq over and over again unwilling to useful fools to justify military action against Syria.          

A must read from Robert FIsk about Syria

We should have been traumatised into action by this war in 2011. And 2012. But now?

Iran is ever more deeply involved in protecting the Syrian government. Thus a victory for Bashar is a victory for Iran.  And Iranian victories cannot be tolerated by the West

So there is nothing pleasant about the regime in Damascus.  Nor do these comments let the regime off the hook when it comes to mass gassing.  But I am old enough to remember that when Iraq – then America’s ally – used gas against the Kurds of Hallabjah in 1988, we did not assault Baghdad.  Indeed, that attack would have to wait until 2003, when Saddam no longer had any gas or any of the other weapons we nightmared over.  And I also happen to remember that the CIA put it about in 1988 that Iran was responsible for the Hallabjah gassings, a palpable lie that focused on America’s enemy whom 

Saddam was then fighting on our behalf.  And thousands – not hundreds – died in Hallabjah.  But there you go.  Different days, different standards.

And I suppose it’s worth noting that when Israel killed up to 17,000 men, women and children in Lebanon in 1982 in an invasion supposedly provoked by the attempted PLO murder of the Israeli ambassador in London – it was Saddam’s mate Abu Nidal who arranged the killing, not the PLO, but that doesn’t matter now – America merely called for both sides to exercise “restraint”.  

It's funny how western governments pick and choose which countries are rogue nations and which are allies even though they are barely two degrees to the left of North Korea.  When its covenant these governments turn a blind eye to torture, extrajudicial executions, mass imprisonment of the dictatorships flavor of the month opponents, suppression of basic freedoms, and so much more.  But now its time to bomb Syria back to the stone age because its government is supported by Iran.      

Syria: The drums of war

We examine whether the West has a mandate for military intervention in Syria.

Weighing up military options against Syria, the United States has given its strongest response yet to a suspected gas attack that killed hundreds of civilians last week. The White House insists there is little doubt President Bashar al-Assad is responsible, with the US government describing the suspected chemical weapons attack as a "moral obscenity" that is "inexcusable" and "undeniable".

"What is the objective of the intervention of the West? Is it to get rid to Bashar al-Assad? Or is it to help Syrians to achieve democracy and freedom? Or is just because Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons? There should be [an] investigation and tangible evidence that the regime has used chemical weapons; [they should] not base their claims on YouTube videos that have not been verified.” Halla Diyab, a spokesperson for the Organisation for Freedom and Democracy in Syria

A special correspondent for Le Monde, Jean-Philippe Rémy, spent two months with FSA fighters in the Damascus suburbs.

Guerre chimique à Damas 投稿者 lemondefr
A special correspondent for Le Monde, Jean-Philippe Rémy, spent two months with FSA fighters in the Damascus suburbs. Remy reports the fighters were repeatedly attacked with chemical weapons while he was with them. Remy's detailed report, a recommended read, says in part:

The men cough violently. Their eyes burn, their pupils shrink, their vision blurs. Soon they experience difficulty breathing, sometimes in the extreme; they begin to vomit or lose consciousness. The fighters worst affected need to be evacuated before they suffocate. [...] In two months spent reporting on the outskirts of the Syrian captial, we encountered similar cases across a much larger region. Their gravity, their increasing frequency and the tactic of using such arms shows that what is being released is not just tear gas, which is used on all fronts, but products of a different class that are far more toxic.

Needing A New Enemy: Western Nations Hoping to Bomb Syria

 Recently declassified C.I.A documents show the  U.S. government discovered that Iraq was using chemical weapons in its war with Iran, a war which the Americans encouraged Saddam Hussein to start in the hopes of exploiting the ongoing political turmoil  roiling Iran following the Islamic Revolution.  

Not only did the American government know of these weapons deployed against Iranian troops it would seem that they also helped to cover it up.

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.

On March 16 1988 Iraqi military forces launched against the Kurdish village of  Halabja killing somewhere between 3,200 and 5,000 people most innocent civilians.

The five-hour attack began early in the evening of March 16, 1988, following a series of indiscriminate conventional (rocket and napalm) attacks, when Iraqi MiG and Mirage aircraft began dropping chemical bombs on Halabja's residential areas, far from the besieged Iraqi army base on the outskirts of the town. According to regional Kurdish rebel commanders, Iraqi aircraft conducted up to 14 bombings in sorties of seven to eight planes each; helicopters coordinating the operation were also seen. Eyewitnesses told of clouds of smoke billowing upward "white, black and then yellow"', rising as a column about 150 feet (46 m) in the air
Survivors said the gas at first smelled of sweet apples;^[9] they said people died in a number of ways, suggesting a combination of toxic chemicals (some of the victims "just dropped dead" while others "died of laughing"; while still others took a few minutes to die, first "burning and blistering" or coughing up green vomit).^[10] It is believed that Iraqi forces used multiplechemical agents during the attack, including mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX;^[3] some sources have also pointed to the blood agent hydrogen cyanide (most of the wounded taken to hospitals in the Iranian capital Tehran were suffering from mustard gas exposure)

With clear evidence that the Iraqi armed forces had carried out the attack neither the Iraqi military or Saddam Hussein suffered any consequences for having used chemical weapons against a civilian population which is a clear violation of international law.


Today the drums of war are beating as Western governments prepare to  launch a military strike against Syria for a chemical weapons attack that took place more than a week ago.  

Why the sudden outrage over these attacks?  Is there some difference between the attacks carried out by Iraq in the 1980's and today?   Let's face it the second Gulf War was fought in an attempt to gain control of Iraq's oil reserves by major western oil companies while Syria has no natural resources whirt stealing.  Perhaps the Pentagon wants to show off its new toys in a revival of Shock and Awe.

American forces are "ready" to launch strikes on Syria if President Barack Obama chooses to order an attack, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel says.
"We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfil and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take," Mr Hagel told the BBC.
US Secretary of State John Kerry has said there is "undeniable" proof that Syria used chemical weapons.
The UK Parliament is to be recalled on Thursday to discuss possible responses.
Prime Minister David Cameron, who has cut short his holiday and returned to London, said MPs would vote on a "clear motion" on the crisis.
Syrian opposition sources have said they have been told to expect a Western intervention in the conflict imminently.

Assaf AboudBBC Arabic, Damascus

A good number of Syrians, in particular those supporting the regime, believe the visit of the UN chemical weapons investigation team is nothing but a move to justify a military attack on Syria. The opposition, however, thinks that these visits will lead to some evidence being unearthed, proving that chemical weapons have been used against civilians by the Syrian regime.

Above all, fear and discomfort are palpable among those living in the capital. People are haunted by the possibility of a Western military strike on Syria, discussion of which is dominating the headlines of satellite channels.

"I don't want Syria to become another Iraq... Enough bloodshed," cried one Syrian woman.

"We, and thousands like us across Syria, will face any country that tries to attack us," threatened a young man, pointing at his weapon, which he uses to protect his neighbourhood. "These are Syria's problems and it is up to us, Syrians, to solve them."