sarin gas

Banned under international law, chemical weapons are still making it onto the battlefield today. This is how their use developed throughout the 20th Century, before being deployed in Syria.
The guided-missile destroyer USS Porter launches airstrikes on the Shayrat airbase near Homs, Syria in response to chemical attacks in the town of Khan Sheikhun.
But the OPCW, which is not mandated to assign blame, said chlorine has been used "systematically and repeatedly" as a weapon
Poison gas is not only a "moral obscenity" -- one the United States stockpiled for decades after its use was banned in warfare -- but a metaphor for human recklessness and wasted science.
This is one of those charts that should be read from the bottom to the top. Read more on upworthy.com
It is fair to say that the on-going story of Syria has brought to the forefront a new truth about the United States in the early twenty-first century: We have lost our thrill for war.
French intelligence says deaths from the gas attacks could be as high as 1,500, but it reported confirmed deaths from video
When President Obama addresses the nation on Syria, he must make it clear that he is the one who is in command, driving events, and making the tough decisions. And he must reinforce this impression with his decisions and actions in the pivotal weeks to come.
It is horrific to envision the scene at those hospitals the day of the alleged attacks. For health care professionals, the most difficult task in such a situation is immediately determining what type of poison the patient was exposed to, in order to choose the proper course of treatment.
It is important to remember that President Obama was against our attack of Iraq, and that he was the candidate who said he
Over the last weeks, since the inception of the demonstrations in Egypt for president Morsi's ouster, to the sarin gassing of innocents in Syria these past days, the price of oil has skyrocketed. After Saudi Arabia, the most immediate beneficiary of this spiking of oil prices is Russia.
Returning to the debate on military intervention in Syria, I resolutely reject the notion of "self-interest" as THE red line, THE bottom line, the line in the sand, as the sole, or as the primary consideration as many political leaders and pundits seem to argue.
As a parent, I see no way to ignore the flagrant violation of international law in Syria and not rue the choice. I realize as well that international law is violated often around the world. But we can't fix what we don't know is broken, and much of such abuse takes place in shadow.
The American people have a right to a full release and vetting of all facts before their elected representatives are asked to make a decision of great consequence for America, Syria and the world.
We're told that Syria is much different than Iraq. If the word 'wolf' comes to mind, ignore it. These are the same people that wanted to attack Iran less than a year ago because they were eerily close to a nuclear weapon.
Let's not lose sight of the grotesque reality of chemical weapons. But what about military intervention? Can we make things better? War is evil. Assad is evil. But what is the likelihood of some targeted cruise missile strikes actually improving things? In the words of the philosophers, what is the reasonable likelihood of success?
There's a lot more at play here (and many more players involved, e.g., Israel, I would wager) than a U.S. "air strike" on
The U.S. is a founding member of the UN and a party to the UN Charter which, at its core, was designed, in response to the devastation wrought by WWII, to prevent aggressive war of the type the Obama Administration is contemplating.
"The case hasn't changed and the case doesn't change at all. The rationale for a military response is as powerful today" as
As the Obama administration contemplates its next moves in Syria, a decision that is now more pressing with Israel twice bombing Syria in the past week, U.S. credibility hangs in the balance.