Syria Crisis.

[jaelh]

Ok, so there are questions on the gas.

Do you accept that 5,000 Syrian's a dying a month? (Red Cross and MSF confirmed?)

That there are now 2,000,000 Syrian displaced persons in neighbouring countries? (UNHCR)

That 1 Syrian is leaving Syria every 15 seconds? (UNHCR)

Gas, no gas. Ok.

It's still *pretty damn monstrous,* either way.

I'm not saying that an all out war is a good thing; or even that military strikes are a good thing. I am not a military strategist; I don't think any of us here are. but surely some kind of intervention is necessary?

(and the national security argument? Good skydog. The Iraq stories were all the worse because they were about some imagined national security threat; ditto Afghanistan. These last wars *aren't like Syria* - they were done for this abstract security ideal; and not - ever - for the purpose of protecting civilians)

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Thing is, "we have to do something" isn't a full answer. The question is if the actual proposed action is going to have any benefit, and on that I think the jury is definitely out. What exact actions are being proposed hasn't even been decided on.

Meanwhile yes, at least in the US the discussion is turning toward this being all about national security (possibly because people pushing the action think that's the one way to get the isolationists in the House to come around, I don't know). Of course this time that national security argument is about the "red lines" bluff being called, so if anything it's even more abstract of a "national security" idea - it's about Iran getting emboldened by seeing Obama not follow through on a threat he never should have made to start with.

And a lot of the Japanese coverage is about how the US coverage is turning to national security arguments, including side-eye of that rhetoric too, and pointing out that any actions without UN approval, whether morally great OR not, are technically illegal. And of course about the standoff between the US and Russia.

There IS a far greater international commitment to aiding refugees. That part isn't controversial. Japan is expressing commitment to that also.

[JesusFightClub]

I know I'm fucking boring about this shit, but if 1,500 people were killed by sarin gas, there was a state actor.

Sarin is relatively easy to develop, but rather hard to get to weapons-grade. Aum chucked tons of money at the problem and they still didn't manage to get it working correctly.

The delivery method is also crucial, as it is with any chemical weapon*. To kill that amount of people is really tricky. If a "terrorist group" or a group of rebels managed to kill 1,500 people with sarin, they ought to be giving lessons, because that shit is fucking amazing and I, for one, want to know how they did it.

Sarin produces the kind of side-effects people tend to want to flee from, so you would have to saturate an area to achieve a kill-count that high. Where did the money come from, if it was a rebel group? More to the point, where did the sarin come from?

*Or any weapon, really. It depends on the effect you want to achieve. But chem weapons tend to disperse, and thus prove ineffective, unless correctly targeted.

[jaelh]

There IS a far greater international commitment to aiding refugees. That part isn't controversial. Japan is expressing commitment to that also.

That's nice, but it'd be even better if there was international commitment to stopping people becoming displaced in the first place. What does an international commitment mean anyway? Money? Money helps; but it's only a very small part of dealing with large scale movement of people. Accepting massive number of people? Even if it were politically viable, the numbers would be insufficient. Sending money to medical aid organisations? Wonderful; people can be more healthy than they would otherwise be, while living in tent cities and unable to work.

The lions share of the burden coping with Syrian refugees falls to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq. None of whom who have shut their boarders. "aiding refugees/displaced people" is an easy political point, with limited real expense attached.

[OkToBeTakei]

That's nice, but it'd be even better if there was international commitment to stopping people becoming displaced in the first place. What does an international commitment mean anyway? Money? Money helps; but it's only a very small part of dealing with large scale movement of people. Accepting massive number of people? Even if it were politically viable, the numbers would be insufficient. Sending money to medical aid organisations? Wonderful; people can be more healthy than they would otherwise be, while living in tent cities and unable to work.

The lions share of the burden coping with Syrian refugees falls to Lebanon, Jordan, Turkey and Iraq. None of whom who have shut their boarders. "aiding refugees/displaced people" is an easy political point, with limited real expense attached.

So you think dropping targeted bombs on the perpetrators of the maybe, maybe not offensive is going to solve this, who are they by the way?

[JesusFightClub]

Yeah, what OKToBe said.

We have no fucking clue what's operating in Syria or WHO is operating in Syria. Bombing doesn't sort the good guys from the bad.

[latraviata]

[jaelh]

So you think dropping targeted bombs on the perpetrators of the maybe, maybe not offensive is going to solve this, who are they by the way?

Honestly; maybe. Maybe it would. Has worked in other places, when it was fast and successful. But at the same, maybe it wouldn't.

But I'm curious - my argument, do something, but all out war isn't it (which is what I've been saying throughout the thread; *not* the US should bomb Syria) - is only "part of the answer", according to GVT.

Ok. that's my part of the answer. Help me with the rest.

What do we do? You don't want to drop bombs (or is it, not intervene militarily at all? I can't tell). Ok. So do we just leave it be?

The choice isn't bomb the ever-loving crap out of Syria; or do absolutely nothing.

You've valiantly defended against bombs. Ok. But what, then, do we do? Where is the line that demands a response? And what response?

And if you do think that, at some point or some level, military action might be appropriate - what level of support does it require?

If the US bought other nations on board?

If NATO agreed?

If China agreed?

If every medical agency operating in Syria agreed?

FWIW: I've not actually at any point explicitly advocated for the US position on this; I am actually pretty undecided on what the right thing to do is (other than, turning away when stuff like this is going on isn't the right thing to do). But this is a big moral question. It's easy to say - no we shouldn't do that. So give me a better response - what would *you* do?

[OkToBeTakei]

Honestly; maybe. Maybe it would. Has worked in other places, when it was fast and successful. But at the same, it maybe it wouldn't. Who knows.

But I'm curious - my argument, do something, but all out war isn't it (which is what I've been saying throughout the thread) is only "part of the answer", according to GVT.

Ok. that's my part of the answer. Help me with the rest.

What do we do? You don't want to drop bombs. Ok. So do we just leave it be?

The choice isn't bomb the ever-loving crap out of Syria; or do absolutely nothing.

You've valiantly defended against bombs. Ok. But what, then, do we do? Where is the line that demands a response? And what response?

And if you do think that, at some point or some level, military action might be appropriate - what level of support does it require?

If the US bought other nations on board?

If NATO agreed?

If China agreed?

If every medical agency operating in Syria agreed?

FWIW: I've not actually at any point explicitly advocated for the US position on this; I am actually pretty undecided on what the right thing to do is (other than, turning away when stuff like this is going on isn't the right thing to do). But this is a big moral question. It's easy to say - no we shouldn't do that. So give me a better response - what would *you* do?

Well in an ideal utopian world, aid Syria to settle the dispute peacefully. I did say ideal.

I think UN backing would be the only way to prevent possible armageddon (dramatic) should military strikes be used.

There are 2million displaced Syrians and the UN estimates that £3 billion is required to aid them until the end of the year. Britain just pledged £52 million. Not a fix to the problem.

Beyond that I have nothing.

Lets look at the potential problems a possible non UN backed US military strike will have.

1. Assad's regime has no one clear enemy. It is estimated that the rebels are conservatively made up of hundreds and less conservatively thousands of different factions. They have one common enemy but what or who is going to be a way forward if his regime is toppled and what is their agenda, bearing in mind the strongest tend to be the richest and they are Islamic Fundamentalists who really don't love the US much.

2. Opinion only, states a possible number of reactions to military action. Assad will sit it out. Assad will retaliate against US allies within range. Hezbollah will react, they have already mobilised allegedly. Israel will retaliate. Syria has proven itself to be very proficient at cyber attack and the US infrastructure is particularly vulnerable. Iran, yes Iran, well they have already warned the US there will be 'harsh' consequences if they attack Syria. Terrorist attacks, the US and other Western countries has made many enemies that will grab the opportunity. Finally Russia. China. There, is a big fat question mark.

3. Lots of people die. Not just the collateral damage that the bombs themselves will have on civilians in Syria. LOTS of people.

[jaelh]

I think UN backing would be the only way to prevent possible armageddon (dramatic) should military strikes be used.

There are 2million displaced Syrians and the UN estimates that £3 billion is required to aid them until the end of the year. Britain just pledged £52 million. Not a fix to the problem.

Beyond that I have nothing.

Lets look at the potential problems a possible non UN backed US military strike will have.

The UNSC permanent members aren't going to agree on this. China and Russia on the one side; US and France on the other, the Brits in the middle (or at least; more likely to move on this than Russia and China).

Would you accept NATO, or another regional co-operation instead?

[a lot like Yugoslavia, really]

(and I'm 100% with you on the ideal)

[OkToBeTakei]

The UNSC permanent members aren't going to agree on this. China and Russia on the one side; US and France on the other, the Brits in the middle (or at least; more likely to move on this than Russia and China).

Would you accept NATO, or another regional co-operation instead?

[a lot like Yugoslavia, really]

(and I'm 100% with you on the ideal)

Probably not because I think the outcome would be the same. Also the UK has vetoed any military action so I can't see it being viewed as co-operation unless all NATO members agree. Russia is Partner for Peace in NATO so that would fracture even more relations.

Russia has not ruled out agreeing with the UN incidentally. Their stance is that clear evidence and not of the WMD debacle would need to be established or any action would be illegal. China tends to follow.

[Curious]

I have nothing of value to add, but I did want to leave this link here: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/opinion/o ... in-arabic/

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Yeah, what OKToBe said.

We have no fucking clue what's operating in Syria or WHO is operating in Syria. Bombing doesn't sort the good guys from the bad.

Exactly.

"We have to do something!" is not an answer. The question up for debate is if the US should bomb some stuff (again - what stuff?) with cruise missiles, and (according to the news this morning) also do cyber attacks at the same time. It's looking likely that any bombing is going to happen without UN approval, meaning that it will be illegal. There doesn't appear to be any "coalition of the willing" this time, and it seems most of even the US is not in favor (quite possibly because they feel "burned" from Iraq and Afghanistan - that's just PART of why those actions were not such grand ideas).

And the gassing, horrible as it was, already happened. So the question is, will this action (this specific action) help prevent more death?

Meanwhile Obama's spokesman this morning refused to answer the question of if Obama would take military action anyway even if Congress votes it down. The spokesman said that well, Obama has the authority to do it anyway, but would not answer any questions about what he thinks Obama would actually do in that situation. He also would not answer the question of how can he be so sure that supposedly Iran will not take any retaliation for the US attacking their ally.

What do I want? I don't know. But for starters I'd like some acknowledgement (from the US news in particular) that it's not just "wonderful rebels fighting against an evil guy who everyone hates and we're going to go in there and help them and that will fix it." Things are more complicated. There are multiple groups of "rebels" and yes there are still people supporting the government, also. Also as OKBT says, it's the extremist groups which have more support from outside and are predicted to be more powerful in the event a government falls. There were some efforts at making alternative parliaments and whatnot in Syria earlier during all this and they haven't really taken off - people just aren't united.

And yes, I do think international support matters. Right now there is pretty much NO support for this thing. Forget NATO, not even individual allies are willing to go in this time (other than France, and they're doing it against their own parliament and without popular support).

If the cause is so very just, it should be possible to convince others. The US needs to show their evidence, also, and not always say "well we have evidence but we can't show you." I don't think it's so out there for people to request to see some evidence before just moving ahead, PARTICULARLY given recent history.

But mainly I just notice quite the difference in the various news sources I get - and it seems the US ones are very much into writing a simple narrative, and yet it's not selling this time.

[walnut]

Is like... anything happening? Because my newsfeed and timeline is flooded with this Syria nonsense. Now Obama is the devil, a puppet for Israel (surprise!!!!) a tool for zionist lizard people from Sirius. The crazy is going on and on while nothing actually happens. Is this whole circus a cover-up for something we should really talk about?! Some other event, somewhere else in the world?

Now people in every small town are outside with torches and candles and guitars and signs and drums and they are praying, meditating, singing, whatever, for piece as if it had an actual effect on the current NON-HAPPENINGS. People are going crazy all over the world, they spend their weekends out picketing and praying and stuff.

I have unsubscribed from EVERY sources of news because they haven't provided with actual news in like 3 weeks, and caricatures and pictures of demonstrations are not news. And it's getting kind of old. I'm not neutral, I'm tired of this nonsense.

[OkToBeTakei]

Is like... anything happening? Because my newsfeed and timeline is flooded with this Syria nonsense. Now Obama is the devil, a puppet for Israel (surprise!!!!) a tool for zionist lizard people from Sirius. The crazy is going on and on while nothing actually happens. Is this whole circus a cover-up for something we should really talk about?! Some other event, somewhere else in the world?

Now people in every small town are outside with torches and candles and guitars and signs and drums and they are praying, meditating, singing, whatever, for piece as if it had an actual effect on the current NON-HAPPENINGS. People are going crazy all over the world, they spend their weekends out picketing and praying and stuff.

I have unsubscribed from EVERY sources of news because they haven't provided with actual news in like 3 weeks, and caricatures and pictures of demonstrations are not news. And it's getting kind of old. I'm not neutral, I'm tired of this nonsense.

Well you should probably be grateful nothing is happening. Why yes there is a lot of other 'somethings' this 'circus' can and will effect in the world.

I'm very sorry you are tired of this 'nonsense' unsubscribing to news sounds like a good plan. You can turn it back on when the exciting stuff like bombs and death happen.

:shock:

[OkToBeTakei]

I have nothing of value to add, but I did want to leave this link here: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/04/opinion/o ... in-arabic/

She is really quite something :lol:

[gardenvarietycitizen]

"...zionist lizard people from Sirius."

Maybe it's time to switch to XM...

(sorry! Had to!)

[walnut]

Maybe it's time to switch to XM...

(sorry! Had to!)

Ha! Gotcha. That was a good one.

Kidding apart, we listen to a lot of radio channels. They broadcast real news. Not the major or the commercial ones. Small, private channels. That's how we get real news while the world just keeps tangoing around.

[RosyDaisy]

The point being missed here is that intervention would only facilitate replacing one oppressive regime with another. Democracy is not the goal of the rebels. That in itself is enough reason to stay out, unless of course we Americans love to create wars we can't pay for.

Another point being missed is that Syria is being used as a distraction from our own problems here in the U.S. Maybe my priorities are fucked up. But it is also seriously fucked up when we are so quick to go to war (one that we can't pay for by the way) but not help out our own citizens and have a our own fundamentalist regime battling (on state and national levels) to take over.

[OkToBeTakei]

Hmmmm

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/syria-agrres-h ... ml#oa5EHpF

The Syrian regime has accepted a Russian proposal to turn its chemical weapons over in return for avoiding strikes from the US, according to state television, but the claims are being treated with scepticism.

Russia floated the idea after Mr Kerry, in an apparently throwaway remark, said the only way for Syria to avoid attack was to hand over all of its chemical weapons within a week. Russia is understood to be against the idea of a UN resolution binding Syria to the handover.

President Barack Obama, who has pledged to delay a military strike if Syria's chemical weapons are put under international control, still plans to make the case for Congress to authorise military action as an option. Congressional aides say votes may not be cast in the Senate this week.

Iran said it supported the handover plan and offered to help the Syrian government put the weapons under international control. China has also said that it backs the plan.