OPCW Nobel Peace Prize acceptance

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_12_10/Head-of-chemical-weapons-watchdog-accepts-Nobel-Peace-Prize-8726/

I read numerous articles prior to posting this one. The new articles stating the Obama administration and the UN or US Intelligence knew about the bombings or weapons before the actual attacks does not surprise me. I'm quite sure our government and political protectors know of plenty of cases that could unfold. The tricky thing about sharing or making moves before any action is knowing a bluff from a true intention. I'm sure that if any agency could stop war and attacks they would but that would require fighting and threatening different people and countries daily, which they probably already do. Logically, these attacks were going to happen regardless if the Obama administration had inside information about an extremist group possessing weapons or not. Touching base with the article I posted, the Head of chemical weapons in the OPCW Director General Ahmet Uzumcu is proud to have 190 members of states joining the global ban. I believe this is a positive and necessary organization. The opposing side in my view is that this organization is a lot like treating the symptoms to an illness instead of truly trying to cure the aliment. If the UN were a stronger more productive global force maybe we wouldn't necessarily need to rely so much on the OPCW to clean up and commit to the outcomes of chemical disposals.

Read more: http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2013_12_10/Head-of-chemical-weapons-watchdog-accepts-Nobel-Peace-Prize-8726/

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/347410558726055895/


I thought I would share this additional blog post. When this assignment first started I found this picture on Pinterest. I did not post it because I did not understand the whole problem of the chemical attack so I could not analyze this picture. Now that we have all completed this assignment I thought I would share to hear other peoples thoughts. Pinterest is known to share compelling picture from all over the world. Yet this picture shows a different message than what we are learning. Since this pin came from a "normal Pinner" not connected to a news site obviously it is not a good news source. It shows you that you can never take what you are as true until further research. Clearly the "free world" is not just sitting back and watching them die. Throughout our research we have heard of a lot of "free world" countries including our own helping with this issue.

Syrian Chemical Disarmament Deadlines Could Be Missed

Experts from the OPCW, including the organizations director-general Ahmet Uzumcu, say the December 31^st destruction deadline will most likely be missed. He cites the complications of getting the chemicals out of a country safely in the midst of a civil war as the primary reason for the probable delays. I agree with his assessment; the December deadline seems too ambitious, especially considering the logistics of having to collect all the chemicals from the storage sites, and then transport them through battlegrounds, praying that nothing goes awry along the way. Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Faisal Mekdad, requested international aid to acquire armored vehicles and proper transportation materials, but international leaders are wary of giving the Assad regime equipment that could be used to suppress rebel forces. I believe the destruction process is too far along, and the Assad regime is too firmly entrenched under the international microscope, that any further use of its chemical weapons or abuse of international aid would be near impossible. However, the concerns are legitimate and in my opinion the process may have to wait until the war has calmed, or proper aid is provided; only problem is that leaves the chemicals vulnerable and could take far longer than many are willing to wait.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303560204579248092358920978

US Knew Syrian Rebels Could Carry Out Chemical Attack?

This article states that the United States knew Syrian Rebels could cause a chemical attack before the attack on August 21st, 2013. Writes Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh. He received this prize through his investigations during the Iraq and Vietnam wars. He says that months before the American Intelligence agencies knew that al-Qeada had mastered the creation of sarin and could manufacture it in high amounts. The chemical attack took place on the same day UN inspectors arrived in Damascus to investigate allegations of use of chemical weapons. The idea of the U.S. knowing the possibility of the creation of chemical weapons in Syria was denied by the Director of National Intelligence, Shawn Turner. We can not be positive if all of this is true, but if it is the United States could have saved any lives. 

http://inserbia.info/news/2013/12/us-knew-syrian-rebels-could-carry-out-chemical-attack/

Obama lied about Syrian chemical attack, ‘cherry-picked’ intelligence: report

In this recent article a pulitzer Prize winning journalist, Seymour Hersh, claims Barrack Obama knew of Syria rebels ability to launch a chemical attack. This causes much controvesy because in the week safter the attack the Obama Administration focused their attention on blaming President Bashar Assad. it states that the Administration had kept secret the fact that U.S. spy agencies found that Assad did not have access to sarin. If Assad did not have access to sarin, than there is no way he could have fueled this attack. According to Hersh, the American intelligence agencies created a series of reports that cited evidence that the al-Nursa Front, a jihadi group linked to al Qaeda mastered a way in which to use sarin to attack. After this finding they were placed on the foreign terroristorganization list, yet after the attack thye were never brought up as a suspect when clearl they should have. Obama Administration apparently left this out in order to build a case against Assad. If this claim is true, then this would back Russia’s orginal claims that it was the rebels behind the attack and not the Presidents. The question is why Obama choose to hide this information and decide he wanted to build a case against Assad and then back down and agree upon a compromise? I feel more needs to be looked into this and Obama and his Administration need to come out and speak on their behalf. Overall, it was an interesting article to read and again provides a different side to the story and shows how each side is hiding this and leaving information out to benefit themselves.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/9/obama-lied-about-syrian-chemical-attack-cherry-pic/

OPCW warns of delay in moving Syria chemical weapons

http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/opcw-warns-of-delay-in-moving-syria-chemical-weapons_895353.html

This article is more or less a notification from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) that there may be a delay in moving Syria’s chemical weapons. The OPCW developed a roadmap with a deadline of December 31^st as the date in which all “priority” weapons will be removed from Syria, but OPCW director Ahmet Uzumcu says this might not happen due to “technical issues”. Although there may be a delay, he says that he is confident that the OPCW will meet the June 2014 deadline, which is the time when all chemical weapons in Syria will be destroyed. The article highlights that 1,290 tons of chemical weapons material are to be destroyed by the latter deadline.

I think that this article is important, especially in the light of the article posted to this blog a few days ago (Syria Chemical Weapons Facilities “Destroyed”) which stressed that we do not know what “destroyed” actually means. This lack of clarification, coupled with this new article saying that the OPCW is having technical difficulties seems to be pointing to the fact that things are not going as smoothly as originally hoped. It also seems as though the OPCW is quick to update the public when things are going right, like the facilities being destroyed, yet brush off delays by reassuring that they will still meet the final deadline. This article also mentions that the Norwegian Nobel committee honored the OPCW as the 2013 peace laureate for their “role in dismantling chemical weapons”, so it does make sense for them to want to keep their public image as high as possible. 

Growing suffering of Syria's besieged civilians

In this BBC article titled "Growing suffering of Syria's besieged civilians" gives an overview to the Syrian civilians living in the rebel areas and the troubles they face. This is happening due to the Syrian government taking siege in the rebel areas of Damascus and Homs. Millions are trapped and starvation is taking place around the area. The article says that electricity has been cut and no food, medicine or gas can enter the town in these areas.  As one Syrian army officer told the BBC: "They either surrender or starve." So far they are not surrendering.I feel that this is a great article to show how the civilians of Damascus are struggling to cope with the ongoing conflicts around the area. Not only is this a political and military struggle but also the many citizens of Syria. Many of the weapons and facilities are still gone but peace for the people is still far away. It's is a good article to raise awareness of how the ongoing conflicts in Syria affects their people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25240296

Syria chemical weapons facilities "destroyed"

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/10/syria-chemical-weapons-facilities-destroyed-2013103182859524946.html

This is a really great article to take a look at and is a portal for many other interesting titles and blogs on the area. The title itself shows hows there are so many people claiming that all the tasks and goals are met and completed. "Destroyed" in quotations shows the lack of clarification of what destroyed really means. Is it that Syria no longer has the weapons in their possession or are no longer able to use them? Is it that the weapons have poof, disintegrated and all the mess is cleaned up? It is none of the above. The article goes into depth about the deadlines the Syrian's met for allowing outside forces to come and clean house on 21 out of 23 facilities. Another deadline that was met was taking them out of the country and destroying some of the chemicals within the country for immediate relief. The third deadline that is mentioned will not be met until June 2014, which is the complete disposal of the chemical weapons and equipment. The OPCW does not have a part in this and therefore the UN has to out source and acquire a group to take on the role of figuring out what to do with such weapons.

It is helpful to read Aljazeera's articles and know that they are not as biased and information withholding as I would have assumed. People want to read and learn about what is going on, deadlines and specific goal intentions are very comforting to read because it shows actions are taking place and not all are just behind closed doors or talked about. There is always the other side to this but all in all Aljazeera has been the most reliable website for update situations.

The Write UP!!!!!

For the reflective write up I would like each of you to analyze what happened within the blog as a whole. This analysis should include 2-4 ‘themes’ or ‘categories’--preferably, though not necessarily exclusively, themes from class. Trace your chosen themes through the posts on the blog. You can quote from the posts, or the media itself, but please cite it in the paper. Please discuss posts that are not just your own! Using comments as well as primary posts to support your themes is encouraged. In many ways I picture this project as a research paper without the final product. What I mean by this is that online you are discovering and interrogating sources—analyzing them as raw pieces of data. In this written (and more formal) portion, I want you to create/impose order on the chaos that is data collection. This write up is just the analysis or discussion portion of a ‘normal’ paper, with some ‘conclusionary’ remarks for good measure. This essay may include personal observations and will definitely show what you thought most interesting. The essays should be between 3-5pages long and are due on BB by 5pm on December 16, 2013 (our final period). If you need some help likely categories might include geopolitics, individual perspectives, Al-Jazeera vs BBC, how the US is involved, role of oil, regime change..... These are *just examples* you do NOT need to use these!!! I wanted to give you some clues as to the possibilities so it would be easier to see the themes for yourselves.

Bad Teeth?

This political cartoon was found on Daryl Cagle’s Political Cartoons. If was made by Olle Johansson from Sweden on September 30^th 2013. So thinking about what Sweden’s view is on Syria having chemical weapons one can look at this political cartoon and see they want them removed. Due to its geographical location clearly they feel Syria having chemical weapons as a threat to their country. I think it clever of the artist to design the cartoon to look as though they are “plucking” the problem out of Syria; like plucking a bad tooth from a mouth. This solution seems so simple, remove the weapons and the problem is fixed. Through research this simple analogy is not very simple after all. After removal another problematic question arises; how to dispose of the chemical weapons? Who should remove them? Where should they depose of the weapons?

http://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/cf31a120-d7f6-4c36-956d-3cf52d45a45b.html  

Syria's Deputy Foreign Minister Asks for International Aid In Weapons Dectruction

Syrian deputy foreign minister, Faisal Mekdad, spoke with BBC’s Anna Holligan about the removal of chemical weapons and agents from Syria. In the interview Mekdad tells the BBC that the Syrian government requires international aid in acquiring HGVs (heavy goods vehicle) and reinforced vehicles to move the chemicals safely from Damascus, through the turbulent city of Homs, and out to the port of Lattakia where the primary phase of cargo transportation is set to take place. Mekdad makes the case that ordinary vehicles would give those he describes as terrorists, the opportunity to attack and destroy the convoys. Many people may rightfully be wary of giving the Syrian government further means of armament and mobility; when asked if any of the equipment was actually dual-purpose Faisal described that idea as "nonsense" claiming that Syria has no ulterior motives apart from delivering their weapons stockpile in a timely fashion. It helps to see a person’s demeanor and conduct in a visual manner, rather than a strictly auditory account since body language can be a very helpful tool in determining one’s truthfulness. Although many politicians and government officials can be cunning and sly, from what I can tell the request seems to be based upon a legitimate concern for the safety of the civilian populous and those delivering the weapons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25191673

Iran's support in the Chemical Weapons Treaty

The Foreign Minister of Syria is now on board with joining and forming the Chemical Weapons Convention and Tehran and Iran's leader was a large influence in that decision. Faisal al-Meqdad said "the assistance and consultation were constructive and helpful." After reading this article and many others about the disposal of the chemical weapons it was interesting to see the UN and the OPCW quickly putting deadlines and organizations intact to prevent these weapons from being used, created, distributed, destructed and stockpiled. These weapons are considered capable of mass destruction and so implementing global laws are very wise. I also see these laws being somewhat concerning because we the rest of the population have to trust that these offshore facilities and laws are all being followed up with and are actually safe. The guidelines of disposal seem to be revolving around keeping people of the countries safe but there are far more issues environmentally that we have to factor in because now or later they will absolutely effect us. The convention has approved and accepted the help from the United States, we are very quick to want to support the destruction and disposal and funding for Syria to give up these weapons but there seems to be an unseen fire behind our fuel to help and Syria's to give them up. These are the factors of this issue that I would want to read articles on but they are not covered or possibly shared in bias ways. This also sheds light on the tricky topic of who started the chemical weapon creation and use other than the extremists on either sides of the parties.

www.tasnimnews.com/English/Home/Single/210969

Syria chemical weapons: Equipment needed says Mekdad

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25191673

This article briefly highlights a short interview that Syria’s deputy foreign minister Mr. Mekdad gave to BBC’s Anna Holligan regarding the disposal of Syria’s chemical weapons. Mr. Mekdad claims that Syria needs equipment, like lorries and armored vehicles, to move the chemicals to be destroyed. He argues that normal vehicles could be targeted by terrorists, and dismissed the notion that the equipment would be used for any other purpose besides taking the chemical weapons out of Syria.

Drawing conclusions from the previous article I posted, I believe Syria will receive the necessary equipment from the United States. The article I posted earlier stated that the United States will help with the destruction of the chemical weapons and it seems that Syria does need assistance to do so. And although Mr. Mekdad said that the equipment would not be used for other purposes, I believe that the United States or any other country that provides this equipment should closely monitor what the equipment is being used for. 

In the plan to destroy Syria's chemical weapons, Albania says they will not aid in the destruction of these weapons.  Albania's prime minister says it is impossible for them to get involved in this operation. They "lack the necessary capacities." By the end of December, 1,300 metric tons of toxic munitions are to be transported out of the country. This made efforts harder for the United States to find a country that would destroy the chemicals on their own land. Albania says they can not destroy these chemicals on their own land because it will create substantial amounts of toxic waste. Norway also decline this request saying they did not have the equipment or expertise to destroy these toxins. I do not blame either of these countries for not wanting to destroy these chemicals on their own land. These chemicals could cause serious harm if they are not destroyed in the right way and both countries said they did not have the equipment or the people for this project. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/world/middleeast/syria.html?_r=0

Syria’s ability to launch chemical attack said to be limited after key equipment destroyed.

Inspectors have destroyed nearly all of Syria's chemical weapons within four weeks.( This article was published October 28th.) This reduced the country's  ability to have wage another chemical attack like that in August. These teams have visited all but 2 of the 23 chemical weapon sites. The other two chemical sites are said to be storage facilities, but it is unknown what kind of production they make. Obama's officials are optimistic saying that they could have all weapons destroyed by early summer. They developed a plan with Russia for the destruction of chemical weapons that was supposed to be completed by November 1st. A researcher for the European Union Institute for Security Studies, said in a report that Syria’s ability to make more chemical weapons “is fairly reduced, if not entirely destroyed.” This means that the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons, has deducted the chance of Syria every attacking with chemical warfare again. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrias-ability-to-launch-chemical-attack-said-to-be-limited-after-key-equipment-destroyed/2013/10/28/71c4a5dc-401d-11e3-a624-41d661b0bb78_story.html

US to play role in offshore destruction of Syria's chemical weapon

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-offers-to-destroy-syrian-chemical-weapons/1800880.html

This article centers around a statement the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical weapons (OPCW) made on Saturday, November 30^th. The OPCW said that the United States government would help to destroy Syria’s Chemical weapons by providing “destruction technology, full operational support and financing”. This article then goes on to describe the OPCW and the destruction process, noting that the chemical weapons will not be destroyed in Syrian waters.

I think that this article is interesting for two reasons. First, it shows how committed the United States is to destroying chemical weapons by offering the technology, operational support, and funding to get rid of them. Second, I found it interesting that the weapons would be destroyed off-shore, and specifically, not in Syrian waters. Is this for the safety of the Syrian people or is it because the OPCW does not want Syria to recover the chemical weapons? Can anyone shed some light on this subject? 

Syria Chemical Weapons Destroyed

This article discusses how Syria, with the help of the OPCW, has officially destroyed all of its chemical weapons in the proper amount of time allotted from the negotiation between the U.S, Russia, and the OPCW. This announcement has come just in time for the Algerian United Nations advisor to meet and discuss peace talks with Assad. Assad refuses to engage in peace talks and feels it is the Syrian people alone who will decide what happens to Syria in the future. This has caused much uproar considering a main point of the National Coalitions peace talks deals with the resignation of Assad. Russia is a huge backer of the Assad regime and feels that it is in the best interest to not let the peace talk initiative “fizzle out” and to do everything they can in order to make the talks a success, while the French Prime Minister, as well as, other nations agree and feel the talks should focus on transitioning governments and end the killing that is going on in Syria.

After reading this article I am happy to see that the OPCW was able to work with Syria to destroy all chemical weapons. Before reading this article I felt that it was a task that would most likely never be complete, and I never thought Russia would be the ones taking the initiative to push for the destruction of the weapons. I feel that the UN should do everything it can to make the peace talks occur and to work towards an end of this Civil War and the many deaths that have been a result. The UN must not backdown now because Assad is in opposition of the talks, especially since they have already made strides now that they have gotten rid of the chemical weapons. In previously posted articles from September and earlier October the belief that the chemical weapons would be destroyed were slim to none and now that they have overcome that obstacle there is no reason they can’t find a way to negotiate with Assad and other National representatives to find peace.

http://www.arabnews.com/news/470241

Syria Chemical Weapons Destruction Begins

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24423660

According to BBC, on the date October 6^th 2013 Syria chemical weapons destruction began. They have said that Syria has met their first requirement to supply their numbers in supplies and locations of chemical weapons. Even though they have cohered about their deadlines, there is worry about false information. This video expresses the thoughts that the weapons and sites of the weapons were incorrect and the government could be misusing the destruction process by transferring weapons in to Lebanon. Overall Syria has agreed to the destructions of its arsenal but there are international concerns about Syria completely following through with agreement.  I would be interested into how they found this information and why there is skeptical feelings about this subject. In further research most findings are also skeptical of this subject.

Private Industry may help get rid of Syria's chemical weapons

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/22/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html?iref=allsearch

This article touches base on a few factors that I was trying to research. One, who is doing the chemical bombing. Two, is the U.S. the only major government and administration trying to destroy, dispose of the chemicals and weapons. and Three, how will intervening either provoke other countries such as Russia and possibly the Free Syrian Army to then form a conflict with the U.S.

After reading a few other articles about disposing the chemicals that are in their substance form or still in a weapon I learned the Obama administration had been looking into disposing them by sea instead of land. This opens a large can of worms into environmental issues, ownership and responsibility issues and the lack of long- term effects that have yet to be researched. So reading an article that has shared private industries are now trying to find ways to dispose of the chemicals so that they pose minimal threats to our environment and people is a slight relief. The article also mentions the lack of response the Syrian government and President had been given in the beginning of the bombings. Ownership and responsibility was never claimed and maybe therefore the U.N. could not find any one person or party accountable. In my personal view the many different parts of the "rebels" could not have the ability to means to make such weapons without government help or funding. Therefore, I believe the government is responsible for the attacks on its own people. As Russia has funded weapons to Syria in the past why is now the time for conflict of support? Regardless that Russia is not being attacked by the Syrians other than those angry with the military and weapon support, Russia now would like to help diffuse the war and potential issues that come from chemical weapons.

Destroying Syria's chemical weapons on ship

Because of the disposal of chemical weapons on land or sea could have everlasting implication if not done properly the U.S. officials say, the government is aiming to dispose of Syrian weapons on a government-owned ship in international waters. The article states that "Under a plan yet to be approved, the chemicals would be transported to the MV Cape Ray in the Mediterranean Sea. The nearly 700-foot-long ship would be outfitted with a special system to neutralize the chemical material. U.S. warships would provide an escort and security." I feel that this plan for disposal is still not ideal. Though no country has really committed to disposal on their soil as the article says this option could be more suitable, but environmental effects could still pose a problem out on sea. To consider discharging poison gases into seas will affect the ocean but will eventually reach land. The fact that it has never been done on a ship poses great concern and risks that this could be done properly. In the accompanying vide oQueen's Univ. professor Stan Brown gives convincing difficulties in regards to disposing chemical weapons at sea

Article: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/u-s-considers-destroying-syria-chemical-weapons-ship-article-1.1532489

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2013/11/29/2857050/sea-disposal-of-poisons-is-not.html#storylink=cpy

Video: http://video.theloop.ca/home/watch/weapons-disposal-at-sea-safe/2876550202001?sort=date&page=1&lineupid=1995280562001#.UpmTR8RDuSp

Power in Syria

This article spoke about Assad in Syria staying in power. The article did have some mental maps but overall the Middle East's people are seen sympathized, the article even compares Saddam Hussein with Assad, and that "it is like getting a fine for murder" paraphrased. The author of this article being American even knows the oil industry is a big part in American and Middle Eastern conflicts.  





http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/11/03/21290348-analysis-did-syrias-assad-get-away-with-chemical-weapons-attack

Connecting Syria's allies and enemies

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2013/08/201383111193558894.html

     This post gives you a chance to have an interactive look at the political and military positions for Syria’s allies and enemies. These positions include being for or against a military intervention in Syria. This interactive post was last updated on August 31^st 2013. It shows that there is two major divisions of countries opinions wither being for or against military intervention but is further broken down into other categories. The countries included that support military intervention include Israel, United States, United Kingdom, France, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey. The Countries that opposes military intervention are China, Russia, Egypt, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq.  The circle size of each country is represented of their military capabilities base on the GFP power index. The larger the circle the more power that military has. The colors of the circle give each country a broad characteristic of why they are on whichever side. The underlining circles connect a few countries that have similar qualities regarding being members or the UN Security Council or being a supported to the rebel groups.  By clicking on each country there is a more detail description on the reasons why they stand for what they believe.

     When exploring through this interactive website I began to question why certain countries were located next to other countries; for example why Egypt and Israel were located in far left or right filed and not connected to other countries yet they do have some similar qualities. Another characteristic that was not written but given from this website was how the countries closer to the separation line seemed to be the key members in the outcome. The size of US, UK, France, China and Russia in fact represent their military power but this image suggests military power in fact the overall power to the outcome on involvement.

BBC News- Albania shuns Syria chemical weapons destruction

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24963241

I chose this article because I really liked another BBC article that was posted on this blog. This article, from November 15, talks about where Syria's weapons can be destroyed. Albania was a proposed venue, but the government stated that they would not participate. I never even thought about this problem. Obviously the weapons need to be destroyed, but where? Other possible locations are France and Belgium. Norway has elected to provide cargo ships to transport the 1,000 tonnes of chemical weapons but has not agreed to let them be destroyed on Norwegian soil because they do not have the skills needed. There are many countries involved in this decision. It's interesting to see the interactions between them. It has been agreed that the weapons should be destroyed outside the country, but it is not certain where.

Syria’s chemical weapons: Can it be done?

This article from the Economist dated Oct 5, 2013 touches upon the potential of Syria's use of chemical weapons. The article talks about how the OPCW teams "are expected, “using every means possible”, to have overseen the scrapping of the Syrian regime’s ability to manufacture such weapons." They could possibly destroy, dismantle and safe keep all of Syria’s 1,000 tonnes or so of chemical-weapons agents and precursors. With that how strong can Syria continue it's production? The article says that "unless temporary truces on the ground can be arranged between government and rebel forces, it may be unacceptably dangerous to reach those in contested areas, particularly given concerns over the agenda of some jihadist militias such as Jabhat al-Nusra, which has links to al-Qaeda." It also claims that 7 of the 19 declared stockpiles and facilities are in combat zones so there are still facilities that are active. OPCW’s spokesman, Michael Luhan reckons that the pitfalls are underestimated but the security counsel and all parties of interest need to use force in seeing the job done. The article closes that stripping Syria of chemical weapons is worth doing but it will not stop the regime "meting out death and destruction to civilians by conventional means."

http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21587239-destroying-chemical-arsenal-midst-civil-war-unprecedented-can-it

Syria's Chemical Weapons Stockpile

This BBC article explores the various chemical nerve agents used in the Aug. 21^st chemical attacks in Damascus, as well as the estimated size and scope of Syria's chemical weapons stockpile. One item worth noting: Syria has never signed the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OCPW) Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) Agreement, thus a formal declaration of its possessions and capacity for warfare has never been fully declared or documented. Some believe the country may contain the largest collection of chemical arms in the world. In 2002 the United States made a statement, based on a report from the US Congressional Research Service, which claims Syria likely began amassing its chemical weapons in 1972 or 1973, after the country was given a small number of chemicals and delivery systems by Egypt prior to the start of the 1973 Yom Kippur War. According to US, British, French, and Israeli intelligence, this was not the first time the Syrian government resorted to the use of chemical weapons to suppress internal upheaval. The editorial also highlights the primary locations where production, storage, and research of chemical agents were conducted within Syria. Creating a permanent prohibition on chemical weapons may be nearly impossible. Should more steps be taken by peace keeping organizations such as the UN to prevent emerging chemical and nuclear powers from amassing such alarmingly robust and dangerous weapon stockpiles? Even-though many of these emerging powers are simply catching up with the rest of the chemically and nuclear armed world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22307705