Will UN chemical weapons inspectors investigate the use of chemical weapons near Damascus?
Settled on 08/25/2013 21:18 Settled by kruijs
Winning option: settled question on option 'Yes'. Details: U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moonâ€™s office said Sunday that U.N. experts would conduct an inspection Monday at the site of an alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria, as top lawmakers said the time has come for a U.S. military response. The Obama administration said there is â€œvery little doubtâ€ that chemical weapons were used in the Damascus suburbs last week, and blamed the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. A senior administration official also said that the U.N. inspection comes too late, and suggested the Assad regime has deliberately tried to foil inspection by continued shelling of the affected area. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/un-to-inspect-alleged-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria-lawmakers-call-for-us-military-response/2013/08/25/e171162e-0d94-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html
Exactly a year ago, President Barack Obama declared that if Syria’s regime were to unleash its chemical weapons - or even move them - America’s “red line” would be crossed and the whole “calculus” would change.
If hundreds of people were indeed gassed near Damascus yesterday, President Bashar al-Assad will have marked the first anniversary of that warning by stepping straight over Mr Obama’s “red line”.
Last month, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, told the foreign affairs select committee: “I believe that the Assad regime, given the pattern of events, has at some stage over the last six months or a year given authority for the use of chemical weapons in a small-scale, localised way.”
Well, if the latest reports are true, Mr Assad has now used gas on a bigger scale than anyone else since Saddam Hussein. If so, he is not so much testing America’s “red line” as ignoring it completely and daring his enemies to do their worst.
As Senator John McCain observed, Mr Assad has suffered “no consequence” for using chemical weapons in the past, so “we shouldn’t be surprised he’s using them again”.