Syria Crisis.

[OkToBeTakei]

This is basically all that is in the media here at the moment. Interested to here how it is being reported elsewhere?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/syria-crisis-u ... ml#IvBo7a9

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/analysis-syria ... ml#JIE00rL

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/syria-britain- ... ml#Ec6eHWd

The links will probably be outdated in a few hours.

Possible evidence of the use of napalm or chemical weapons against civilians.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

This for me the real issue. The reason I think the UK is reticent this time to commit to another US led offensive maybe?

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 89506.html

Friday 30 August 2013

We should have been traumatised into action over Syria 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

Before the stupidest Western war in the history of the modern world begins – I am, of course, referring to the attack on Syria that we all yet have to swallow – it might be as well to say that the cruise missiles which we confidently expect to sweep onto one of mankind’s oldest cities have absolutely nothing to do with Syria.

They are intended to harm Iran. They are intended to strike at the Islamic republic now that it has a new and vibrant president – as opposed to the crackpot Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – and when it just might be a little more stable.

Iran is Israel’s enemy. Iran is therefore, naturally, America’s enemy. So fire the missiles at Iran’s only Arab ally.

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 had nightmares over.

[miffy]

I was relieved to hear that the UK will not be taking action at this point. Any attacks on Syria or Iran need to be very carefully thought out & have through evidence to support the need to an attack. Both countries are desert tigers who may well fight back & things could escalate very quickly.

[walnut]

What I have seen is, the titles of the news are hypothetical, they are all non-news. Russia would. The UK maybe. The US thinks IF... then... bla bla bla, no serious news, no actual predictions, I'm really tired of watching them doing this gang-bang foreplay in a big circle. No real news anywhere, really. I'm tired of it all.

[MysteryHaggis]

I'm glad that there was a no vote in the UK last night but I'm sceptical it will change anything in the long run. IMO the Iraq war/Blair/dodgy dossier/conflict that created more issues fiasco has turned many of the UK population against the idea of another intervention in the middle East.

I count myself among them- there is no clear objective to this conflict, for all the bluster. There is no end. It will be yet another unwinnable war in the desert dealing with forces that the UK government has shown no aptitude in understanding.

But then, you may say, doing nothing is appeasement -and doesn't help the hundreds, thousands of people being killed. This is true. Personally I feel that even if we *were* to intervene, people would still be killed and the situation would probably get worse, for longer. Not to mention the consequences long term for the "west" which would probably be an upswing in Islamism and terrorism and lo, more reasons for yet more "War on Terror" type intervention, and so the circle continues, on and on and on.

But, but. The number of people being killed is horrific. I don't know what the right course of action would be.

[browngrl]

The mainstream media in my area has been portraying the rebels as the "good guys" and Assad as the "bad guy". From what I have gleaned from different people/places on the internet - the story is not as clear. Assad is a religious moderate while many of the rebels are religious fundamentalists (some who have come from other areas to take part in this fight). Assad has done some horrible things but so have the rebels. There are also people who are stand to profit from this fight (Americans/Russians and Chinese who are selling weapons etc). So I don't think there is a clear "good" guy or a "bad" guy. However there are clear victims: all the civilians who are being killed in the crossfire.

The mainstream media has been portraying the chemical weapons as being the worst thing ever but I am not sure why chemical weapons are so much worse than bullets. Both kill. Dead is dead.

I am very glad that people are giving the UN inspectors time to do a more complete investigation. If they can find clear evidence of a group at fault - then that would make me re evaluate my thoughts. However, I do not think that things will ever be that clear. I think all the different sides have blood on their hands. I am also concerned that any attack will end up killing more innocent victims.

[2xx1xy1JD]

I don't know what the answer is. There doesn't seem to be a magical solution that will stop all the killing and make Syria into a peaceful and stable liberal democracy at the moment.

There are things, though, that can only make things worse.

Russia has been supplying the Assad regime. Assad may not give a shit about the west and diplomatic moves, but there are more links with Russia. They will be hosting the Olympics. The relationship with the US is currently deteriorating fast, but there may still be room to pressure them into cutting off Assad.

Otherwise, Russia flooding Assad with weapons, and the west supporting the rebels, would only increase the weapons and the killing, and create the possibility of another Afghanistan with tons of weapons left after this particular conflict is over.

I realize that there is a need to diplomatic means a chance to work, and you want to make your position clear. I also realize that military strikes require government approval, and ideally some international support as well. I get that. Still, issuing condemnation after condemnation when it's not followed by any concrete action, and making bold threats about "red lines" that prove to be empty words, does not work. It just shows that our words mean nothing. It would be far better not to make any threats at all that we do not fully intend to carry out if necessary. If we did have good intelligence that there was a valid military target, that could be struck with minimal civilian threat and that doing so would reduce the regime's capacity to do more harm - then don't discuss it with the entire world first and give the regime warning.

[AtroposHeart]

I don't want the U.S to get involved with another endless war, so I am against Syrian intervention.

[lizziesmom]

I don't want the U.S to get involved with another endless war, so I am against Syrian intervention.

I was out with friends last night, one of whom is very conservative. The topic of the war came up and her reaction was "This is the party that supposedly doesn't want us in wars so they're hypocrites if we get in. Besides, we have no business involving ourselves in situations where we weren't attacked." I almost bit through my tongue not to point out that her party and her president threw us into a war in Iraq that has nearly bankrupt this country and was never proven to have anything to do with 911, terrorism or any other action against this country. It was all about the oil, baby.

[OkToBeTakei]

I don't know what the answer is. There doesn't seem to be a magical solution that will stop all the killing and make Syria into a peaceful and stable liberal democracy at the moment.

There are things, though, that can only make things worse.

Russia has been supplying the Assad regime. Assad may not give a shit about the west and diplomatic moves, but there are more links with Russia. They will be hosting the Olympics. The relationship with the US is currently deteriorating fast, but there may still be room to pressure them into cutting off Assad.

Otherwise, Russia flooding Assad with weapons, and the west supporting the rebels, would only increase the weapons and the killing, and create the possibility of another Afghanistan with tons of weapons left after this particular conflict is over.

I realize that there is a need to diplomatic means a chance to work, and you want to make your position clear. I also realize that military strikes require government approval, and ideally some international support as well. I get that. Still, issuing condemnation after condemnation when it's not followed by any concrete action, and making bold threats about "red lines" that prove to be empty words, does not work. It just shows that our words mean nothing. It would be far better not to make any threats at all that we do not fully intend to carry out if necessary. If we did have good intelligence that there was a valid military target, that could be struck with minimal civilian threat and that doing so would reduce the regime's capacity to do more harm - then don't discuss it with the entire world first and give the regime warning.

This assumes that the Assad regime is wholly responsible for the atrocities. Despite the age old animosity between the US and Russia it does bear thinking that Russia is pretty tired of saying, you know that's not a good idea. Iraq? Afghanistan? Whilst their motives may not be clear let's be very honest here and say neither are those of the countries supplying the rebels.

So it starts. The Russians are claiming that the US has insisted the UN inspectors return by tomorrow. Is this sounding familiar yet? Apparently the US is going to publish a declassified document that clearly shows Assad's regime used chemical weapons. Is THIS sounding even vaguely familiar yet?

What is not familiar as of yet, is the UK blindly following another folly.

Bombing is really going to help Syria, how?

I have no answer by the way. Just questions I suppose and a healthy fear of previous US administrations using the excuse..

We had to destroy the village in order to save it.

[doggie]

Lets others in the middle east deal with it. we can't deal with every fight over there it never works.

[JesusFightClub]

Arming the rebels was a fucking stupid idea and missile strikes would probably win an utterly fucking stupid idea of the year award. It's a good thing that we stepped away from the craziness there.

George Galloway (who I have many issues with, but who is more often right than wrong)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIddCee7P0c&feature=youtu.be

(He's wrong about sarin and about Aum Shinrikyo - they had nothing to do with Shinto and the sarin they managed to create was a long way from military grade, but this is beside the point).

[2xx1xy1JD]

This assumes that the Assad regime is wholly responsible for the atrocities. Despite the age old animosity between the US and Russia it does bear thinking that Russia is pretty tired of saying, you know that's not a good idea. Iraq? Afghanistan? Whilst their motives may not be clear let's be very honest here and say neither are those of the countries supplying the rebels.

So it starts. The Russians are claiming that the US has insisted the UN inspectors return by tomorrow. Is this sounding familiar yet? Apparently the US is going to publish a declassified document that clearly shows Assad's regime used chemical weapons. Is THIS sounding even vaguely familiar yet?

I don't think that anyone is under the illusion that the rebels are angels. They are Muslim Brotherhood, and have done some pretty atrocious things themselves. The only question was whether the chemical weapons attack was done by Assad's regime, or if it was somehow a false flag attack by rebels hoping to provoke an attack against the Assad regime.

I don't really care why Russia is supporting Assad. My concern is the possibility that outsiders will fuel the conflict by arming both sides. That was one of the ways that both Russia and the US managed to fuck up Afghanistan.

In general, we tend to react to wars not just by the current facts, but by reacting to past wars. The US refused (and even somewhat sabotaged) involvement in Rwanda because of its bad experience in Somalia. You have folks with memories of WWII arguing with folks who have memories of Vietnam.

So yes, in this case, it's reasonable to say, "we were wrong/duped before an issue involvement bad weapons and inspectors, how do we know things are different here?" I can think of a few differences:

1. Iraqis nukes were hypothetical. In this case, the question is whether there has actually been a chemical attack, and if so, who was responsible. You can visit a site and see graves and test people who have been injured. It's a question of evidence, not mere speculation.

2. I don't see any reason that the current United States government would be motivated to want to attack. Realistically, this government has wanted to avoid involvement.

Public waffling can itself be harmful. There is a perception that the Obama administration has no real plan or strategy and is constantly making empty threats. If you don't intend to do anything, don't use language like "red lines".

[OkToBeTakei]

Lets others in the middle east deal with it. we can't deal with every fight over there it never works.

I'm kind of hoping you genuinely have no idea how really ignorant and patronising that sounds.

[OkToBeTakei]

I don't think that anyone is under the illusion that the rebels are angels. They are Muslim Brotherhood, and have done some pretty atrocious things themselves. The only question was whether the chemical weapons attack was done by Assad's regime, or if it was somehow a false flag attack by rebels hoping to provoke an attack against the Assad regime.

I don't really care why Russia is supporting Assad. My concern is the possibility that outsiders will fuel the conflict by arming both sides. That was one of the ways that both Russia and the US managed to fuck up Afghanistan.

In general, we tend to react to wars not just by the current facts, but by reacting to past wars. The US refused (and even somewhat sabotaged) involvement in Rwanda because of its bad experience in Somalia. You have folks with memories of WWII arguing with folks who have memories of Vietnam.

So yes, in this case, it's reasonable to say, "we were wrong/duped before an issue involvement bad weapons and inspectors, how do we know things are different here?" I can think of a few differences:

1. Iraqis nukes were hypothetical. In this case, the question is whether there has actually been a chemical attack, and if so, who was responsible. You can visit a site and see graves and test people who have been injured. It's a question of evidence, not mere speculation.

2. I don't see any reason that the current United States government would be motivated to want to attack. Realistically, this government has wanted to avoid involvement.

Public waffling can itself be harmful. There is a perception that the Obama administration has no real plan or strategy and is constantly making empty threats. If you don't intend to do anything, don't use language like "red lines".

You may want to go do some reading on the bolded (as the first bolded has actually already happened) possibly from a few different perspectives.

I agree that political waffling based on public perception is not a good answer. I think though that Obama is early in a second term and hopefully this would not be a motivation. Cameron just got a right slapping trying that one. Quite rightly so.

[JesusFightClub]

Saying nowt, but...

If sarin caused that level of casualties, it is military-grade sarin. Or weapons-grade sarin, if you prefer. That cannot be manufactured under beds or in some ol' shack. Ask Aum how well they did with that. (Hint: their kill count was far below what they were hoping for.)

Military-grade sarin has to be manufactured in a well-supplied lab. George Galloway was lying when he said any weirdo could manufacture sarin. Aum didn't have effective sarin even though millions of dollars were pumped in.

If sarin killed all those kids, it was supplied from a military lab. I'm just saying.

[OkToBeTakei]

Mr Putin said: "I am convinced that it (the chemical attack) is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States."

The 13-strong UN team left their hotel in Damascus in seven vehicles and then crossed the border into Lebanon, where they have arrived at Beirut international airport.

Yesterday, they finished collecting samples from the site of an alleged gas attack that the US claims killed more than 1,400 people, which they will now take to The Hague to be analysed.

A UN spokesman stressed that all available information, including lab analysis of the samples, had to be evaluated "before the mission can draw any conclusions about the incident".

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has told Security Council members that may take two weeks.

The inspectors left hours after the US outlined the evidence it believes proves Mr Assad's forces were behind the attack.

A US intelligence report blamed Syria's government for the attack with "high confidence" and said it was "highly unlikely" the atrocity was plotted by rebels.

I think I would prefer to wait for scientific analysis than go on 'high confidence' or 'highly unlikely.'

[jaelh]

it's an enormous pity that peace keepers aren't an option.

that something - short of strikes - aren't being proposed.

is there nothing between "do nothing" vs "war baby war"?

JD - agree with the importance of history to what people are willing to do. Add Cambodia to that list too, please.)

[BlueChair]

it's an enormous pity that peace keepers aren't an option.

that something - short of strikes - aren't being proposed.

is there nothing between "do nothing" vs "war baby war"?

JD - agree with the importance of history to what people are willing to do. Add Cambodia to that list too, please.)

In my mind, something along the lines of a limited bombing campaign such as what happened with the Kosovo conflict would be a middle ground. Obviously the Syrian conflict is it's own beast so the approach would have to be altered to fit the Syrian context, but there was a reason the Kosovar civilian deaths were low and there hasn't been a resurgence of violence in the last 12 years.

This was not a "boots on the ground campaign" so the risks to life and limb were minimal for NATO and the amount of troops needed much different than an Iraq/Afghanistan scenario. The limited bombing campaign stopped the violence and the peacekeepers who came in afterwards helped them remain stable while they sorted out what kind of society they were wanting to build.

[RosyDaisy]

I don't want the U.S to get involved with another endless war, so I am against Syrian intervention.

Me too. This is looking like a classic setup for a world war. My whole problem with intervention is that we can't and won't spend money to provide healthcare and basic needs for our own people, but we are willing to go overseas drop bombs, kill people, and provide basic needs for other countries? HELL NO!!! :angry-screaming: It's time we take care of our own first.

[SPHASH]

I think President Obama still wants to attack Syria, but the GOP will either block a vote from making it to the floor, or the vote will be no thus tying President Obama's hands. Then they will blame him when things get worse over there, or he will go ahead and send strikes, and the GOP will scream impeach him! Either way he is fucked.

[RosyDaisy]

I think President Obama still wants to attack Syria, but the GOP will either block a vote from making it to the floor, or the vote will be no thus tying President Obama's hands. Then they will blame him when things get worse over there, or he will go ahead and send strikes, and the GOP will scream impeach him! Either way he is fucked.

Either way, all involved are fucked. Things will get worse over there, regardless of what action is/isn't taken. This isn't our war to fight. The U.S. getting involved will only make things worse seeing as how we have no REAL allies in the middle east anymore since Desert Storm, Afghanistan, Iraq, and. Our presence over there is most definitely not welcomed.

As far as impeaching Obama, hell, the GOP has been screaming that since the first day he took office. That's nothing new. This could also go bad for the GOP as well considering they are responsible for the last 3 wars in the middle east.

[Burris]

Lets others in the middle east deal with it. we can't deal with every fight over there it never works.

Oh wow is that ever a stupid comment!

You honestly think all the billions and billions and billions and billions and billions of dollars your country dumped into arming various factions throughout the 1980s, especially – that’s when the US armed the fucking Taliban - has so little bearing on what goes on now that you can basically wash your hands of any responsibility?

What? You don't want to be the world police anymore? (As if you ever did even a halfway decent job of policing any conflict where your own interests weren’t heavily represented.)

Hahahaha!

You made your bed. Go rot in it.

[RosyDaisy]

I'm with doggie on this one. Sure, we pumped billions of dollars and armed the Taliban and other things. However, I think it's time we learned a lesson from all of that and stay out of middle eastern affairs. No good has ever come from it. So yeah, it's time we washed our hands, and concentrated on our own people. You do realize that Syria is being used as a distraction from the more pressing problems in our country, right?

[Burris]

I'm with doggie on this one. Sure, we pumped billions of dollars and armed the Taliban and other things. However, I think it's time we learned a lesson from all of that and stay out of middle eastern affairs. No good has ever come from it. So yeah, it's time we washed our hands, and concentrated on our own people. You do realize that Syria is being used as a distraction from the more pressing problems in our country, right?

`Learn your lesson and stay clear of it?` Oh yeah; that's some funny stuff.

Even if you never go anywhere near Syria, your hands are dirty. However your government is using this news, you and your parents are still partially responsible. I don't necessarily support any sort of intervention in Syria. but there's no way anyone should be allowed to pretend the US is avoiding Syria merely out of the realization that 'only the Middle East can take care of its own problems; we're tired of being the white knight here.'

Do whatever you want about it – which will almost certainly be either nothing or worse than nothing. It doesn’t matter: They’ll kill and kill. And they`ll do a lot of that killing with weapons you paid for.

[RosyDaisy]

We and our dirty, bloody hands are just sick of being put in a part of the world that has never and will never welcome our presence, especially when it's obvious that our reasons for intervening aren't for peace keeping purposes. War and violence have existed in that part of the world since the beginning of time, and will continue regardless of what America does. So yes, it's time to learn our lesson and butt out. We don't need to keep getting our hands bloody and dirty in places that resent us. If you find that funny, then oh well, laugh your ass off.

Edited for spelling