Assad and Syria as a big conspiracy

First topic message reminder :

The arab league has tepidly dealt with the syria problem. It is a big problem and a human rights violation at least, as well as terrorism! The army terrorises the people. If Obama wanted to get some votes back he would get stuck in there. There will be very little over turning of the state when they are removed from power, like the first month of the iraq war, then pull out. Let the people build it up again. Of course this might not become reality, what with the us and syria, so the people need a plan.
 
In such a corrupt world, they would need little encouragement to find illegal arms. With these arms they could fight a civil war. If the arab leauge is serious about the terrorism they could avoid, they could either intervene, or sell weapons to the civilians or defectors. Of course nurturing terrorism is not 'cool', so they would need to do something to thwart it.

A position in the military history department of some university smart enough to hire you on the spot awaits you.

LOL! I'd have to get my doctorate first ... a dream at this point.

NATO wasn’t taking care of business like business should have been taken care of.

The only real mistake NATO made was to not vary their flight paths, probably because no one believed those ancient SAM sites the Serbians were using could actually detect, much less destroy, an F-117. Of course, if they had known about the spies, that would have helped, too.

Obviously if the Serbian Colonel had developed some special technique to detect and bring down stealth aircraft, we would have lost more than one F-117. It would also be very likely that Iraq would have gotten wind of it and we would have lost stealth aircraft there, too. Instead, he's keeping it a secret. Sure, buddy ... like I believe that.

I've seen the listing for that Smithsonian show you mentioned but I haven't gotten around to watching it. I'll probably DVR it at some point.

Take care.

Video said to be from Homs showed 13 victims of an apparent mass execution.

Bold type added by me....

What is the proof that those 13 apparent victims were from the rebel side?

Could they not just as easily be government supporters executed by the rebels?????

Or could they have just been the bodies of people killed in other attacks just collected together to make it look like something it isn't????

The Assad regime will soon run out of "rebels" to kill, and will turn in upon itself, having nobody else left to blame. There will be a Night of the Long Knives "et voilá" peace will miraculously return, supervised by the Arab League.

As expected by skeptical observers, including me and several scholarly friends, UN “peace keeping” in Syria has proven itself to be a sham. When one of the world’ finest diplomats was unable to mitigate Assad’s murderous violence against his own people, that might have been a clue to the more naïve that the UN is a clawless, toothless, tiger, an empty-deck CVN (carrier).
 
O Turkey, a NATO member, is getting a bit hot under the collar at the goings-on within its southern neighbors borders. Maybe something’s brewing at Turkish military command, and that something might spark NATO peacemaking activities in a country held hostage by its internal usurper for far too long.
 
Power to the People.

Turkey won't do anything because it wants to become a member of the EU, so it doesn't want to tick off the Europeans by taking any unilateral actions against Syria.

And the UN representing itself has always been clawless and toothless. Truth be told, the only time Peacekeeping is effective is when the US is allowed to go in as the US and not part of the UN.

There's something about the Kurds brewing, to do with Assad's persecution of them, which of course wasn't a patch on Saddam's genocidal gassing of his Kurds. Turkish Kurds have also been wanting a separate state from Turkey.

It isn't clear which side they will decide is to their advantage. Turkey is right to be concerned about developments near its borders.

If you watch 'Russia Today' you get to see a different perspective on the 'Rebel' forces, which include Al Qaeda, Muslim extremists and Western contributors. The people of Syria are in a nightmare situation, persecuted at every turn.

But the West needs to be able to establish monitoring positions in Syria in order to know what Iran intends. I guess the plan is to destabilize first and then go in to help sort out the mess.

British politicians have not accepted as sufficient proof the Security Services' intelligence material on last week's chemical weapons attack in Syria, alleging there was no doubt that such an attack had taken place, that it was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had been behind it, and that there was "some" intelligence to suggest that was the case.

There has to be a further House of Commons vote authorising British involvement before PM Cameron can use the "Royal Prerogative" which Blair had used to invade Iraq ten years ago.

Observers assumed that we had received intelligence from the Americans which could not be revealed, but the curious thing about that is that no such evidence has even been revealed in the USA to a limited group of Congressmen who were briefed.

So nobody seems to know why Obama is emulating Bush in the current case of Syria. Is it just that he thinks he has painted himself into a corner with the "red line crossed" references to chemical weaponry?

oftenwrong wrote:-
it was "highly likely" that the Syrian government had been behind it, and that there was "some" intelligence to suggest that was the case.

Maybe the intelligence was that our despicable Tory-dominated government sold Assad chemicals that can make nerve gas. Then, when in all probability he used them, Cameron couldn’t wait to bomb the hell out of him!
 
In January, ten months after Syria’s bloody civil war began, export licences were granted to UK firms to sell chemicals (potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride) to Syria which are capable of being used to make the nerve gas sarin. That's believed to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1,500 people, including 426 children.
 
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/britain-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-2242520

I hadn't realised this - to be frank, the news is making me feel sick.
I am SO ashamed of my government

Nothing to be ashamed about boatlady. Anything can be dangerous when put the wrong use. This is simply left wing rhetoric (anything to gain a badly needed moral spine).

http://www.potassiumfluoride.com/uses.html

http://uk.ask.com/question/what-is-sodium-fluoride-used-for

Some on here shouldn't be allowed to post from certain papers.

I am ashamed that, in my name, my government allowed the sale of potentially lethal chemicals and weapons to a regime known to have taken aggressive action against it's citizenry.

I'm also ashamed that, when these materials are used to harm and kill innocent women and children, the best response they can come up with, again in my name, is to inflict further suffering and death and further inflame an already very nasty and violent situation, without even any very clear evidence about who is responsible for the outrage.

I accept your point that Sodium fluoride has less harmful uses, but then, so does TNT - and I wouldn't want to be behind selling THAT to Assad either. Even guns have fairly peaceful uses (clay pigeon shooting is a local sport where I live), but again selling guns to someone with a history of using them inappropriately is at best stupid, at worst cynical and unprincipled - and I definitely can't think of any circumstances when I would be in favour of selling long range missiles or any of those other 'boys toys' that are produced simply as killing machines and have NO harmless use.

In my name, my government has approved and actually encouraged the sale of all these items to a range of more or less violent regimes - and that makes me ashamed.

It's possible that here we're all reacting a bit emotively, and there's definitely a bit of point scoring going on between the various shades of political opinion; however, the ethical point I think remains - that selling potentially harmful materials and products to a government known to be as feral as the Assad regime is WRONG - and seeing it done in my name by my government makes me feel ashamed.

As to which newspapers can and should be quoted on here - perhaps you could consider giving up quoting from the Mail, the Sun and the Telegraph if you're so concerned with unbiased reportage.

  http://t.co/bwuIiYCkpU
 
Little piece from the Guardian on this issue
 
"It will be a relief that the chemicals concerned were never actually delivered. But, in light of the fact the Assad regime had already been violently oppressing internal dissent for many months by the beginning of 2012 and the intelligence now indicates use of chemical weapons on multiple occasions, a full explanation is needed as to why the export of these chemicals was approved in the first place. This is important if confidence in the export licence process is to be maintained."

Anything can be dangerous when put the wrong use. This is simply left wing rhetoric (anything to gain a badly needed moral spine).

tlttf. No doubt you believe, like most right-wingers, that it’s okay to sell anything to anyone as long as someone makes a fast buck out of it; where’s the morality in that, you hypocrite?
 
We all know that most chemicals have more than one purpose. I suppose you’ll be telling us next that Assad ordered them to use as rat poison in his various palaces.  

 

Some on here shouldn't be allowed to post from certain papers.

That looks suspiciously like a criticism of our moderation policies being posted on a thread yet again. Be very careful, you’re drinking in the last-chance saloon as far as this forum is concerned.

Where is the positive proof that the 'chemical' attacks were carried out by the Syrian government?

We now have John Kerry stating he know exactly how much 'Sarin' Gas Assad has stored.......Didn't we have that before the second Iraq war with a US government member stating clearly the size of Hussein's WMD arsenal was?

Who has the most to gain for a chemical attack.....the Syrian government or the Rebels?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

It is a strange logic that imagines the answer to Syria should be air strikes, missiles, etc - this would undoubtedly involve killing ordinary innocent Syrian civilians. How, exactly, would that be suitable retaliation against the Assad government? It seems more likely it would be doing to innocent Syrian civilians just what Assad has apparently been doing. And it could result in more deaths of Syrian civilians than Assad's regime have culled or dreamed of.

It's a bit like saying 'we don't agree with you killing your own people so we are going to launch missiles etc and kill many more of your people'.

I guess when Assad slaughters innocents it is odious, but if and when the US, and whoever else, slaughter innocents they will be classed as casualties of war.

Don't think you're wrong - seems good sense to me, what you say

sickchip wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong.

Okay ... here's the correction.

Cruise missiles and airstrikes aren't launched indiscriminately into population centers. This isn't WWII where the US is going to send a thousand B-17s to carpet bomb Damascus. The targets will be of military use to the Assad regime -- airfields, tactical ballistic missile sites, SAM sites, radar installations, etc. There's no reason why innocent Syrians would be manning these facilities.

sickchip wrote:I guess when Assad slaughters innocents it is odious, but if and when the US, and whoever else, slaughter innocents they will be classed as casualties of war.

Actually, just the opposite is usually true. I've often said that America must be the only nation that uses real bullets when fighting a war because no one seems to care who dies just as long as an American didn't pull the trigger. When the USSR invaded Afghanistan, when China invaded Tibet, when the French invaded the Ivory Coast, when the Indians and Pakistanis clashed over Kashmere, when the Russian Federation decimated Chechnya ... yeah, the list is pretty extensive. At any rate, when these other acts of aggression (or defense) took place, the world really didn't care all that much. There were a few isolated protests. Some flag waving. Some college campuses had little rallies.

But when the US went into Iraq, the world took to the streets like never before. Protesters by the tens of millions flooded the streets of major cities all over the globe to denounce America. Some nations like Indonesia even lifted their bans on public protests just to allow their citizens to get out there and hate on America.

So I ask ... as I have always asked ... why the double standard?

if and when the US, and whoever else, slaughter innocents they will be classed as casualties of war.

I think the point may have been - not to castigate the US exclusively, but any large power that 'intervenes' militarily in the affairs of another country.

Britain, Russia, Japan and several others as well as the US have been guilty in my view of using the concept of 'collateral damage' to whitewash the (often unintended) slaughter of innocents in pursuit of some military or political goal.

'Targetting' missiles to hit 'strategic' targets just means you think you may not be killing civilians - the people who die in any military action are still some mother's sons, still some children's fathers, still on occasion some mother's daughters or children's mothers.

What's happening in Syria is an outrage - killing more Syrians may not be the answer.

The whole world's perception of intervention in Syria would change if the USA were not involved in any way.

boatlady wrote:I think the point may have been - not to castigate the US exclusively, but any large power that 'intervenes' militarily in the affairs of another country.

"The affairs of another country" is a rather bland description for a government using chemical weapons on its own populace. What I find absolutely astounding about this logic is how the nation that intervenes to try and save lives is castigated far, far more harshly than the nation that just gassed to death thousands of its own citizens. I mean, does that truly make any sense to you?

boatlady wrote:Britain, Russia, Japan and several others as well as the US have been guilty in my view of using the concept of 'collateral damage'

I've studied military history and the "art" of war for a long time. Not because I'm some sort of warmonger but because I understand that warfare is the greatest catalyst for change in the human condition. One thing I learned very early on is that no nation can wage a war without inflicting "collateral damage." It is absolutely impossible. I've also learned, much to my dismay, is that sometimes war is a necessary thing, for if there is no danger of war at the end of failed diplomacy, there would be no impetus for any government to make compromises or concessions.

boatlady wrote:'Targetting' missiles to hit 'strategic' targets just means you think you may not be killing civilians - the people who die in any military action are still some mother's sons, still some children's fathers, still on occasion some mother's daughters or children's mothers.

Yes, that is true. Even Hitler, Himmler, Goebbles, and Eichman had mothers and some even had wives and children. Should we have, then, stayed our hand when confronting the Nazis? Or, to put it another way: Should we not prosecute criminals if they have families? Yet the truth is that hitting military installations may or may not inflict casualties on civilians, but the likelihood of killing a bunch of women and children taking cover beneath an SA-2 Goa surface-to-air missile battery is not all that high. Those who join the military of any nation, be they sons, fathers, daughters, or mothers know they are being hired to wage war and possibly die in the process.

One thing is very clear. The only thing that has prevented the use of weapons of mass destruction by any nation who has them (including the USA) is the repurcussions from the international community. I'm not talking about WWIII or a nuclear holocaust, however. I'm talking about limited use such as that in Syria. IF the international community stands by and does nothing -- which is the likely scenario without US leadership -- it sends a clear message to every tin pot dictator that they are free to use WMDs against their own people without fear of intervention or retaliation by the rest of the world. In short, inaction in Syria signals to the world that the use of WMDs is an acceptable option and I shudder to think how many more will die as a result.

Shirina,
I guess on this topic you have more knowledge and expertise than I have.

I really don't know the answer to these problems any more than anyone else.

Intervening 'to save lives' to me doesn't sound like sending missiles in - it sounds more like sending the diplomats in, trying to get humanitarian organisations on the ground, providing medical treatment, food etc.

Intervention seen solely in terms of missiles seems to me to be unlikely to save lives.

It may be that I'm naive and totally wrong about this - but I do feel there's always another solution than going out to kill strangers - even if there isn't I'm not sure that anyone has yet looked hard enough for that alternative solution.

Of course, we may end up once again getting embroiled in another Arab world mess, and of course, that may turn out to be the least worst solution to this dilemma. Up to now, I'n not convinced.

One only has to recall our strategic victories in Korea, Suez, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan to see a picture emerge.

Maybe even allowing Syrians to evolve their own chosen future.  They've been where they are longer than we've been where we are.

Emotive issue, as yet though chemical weapons have been used, nobody has proof (or they're keeping it close to their chests) as to who has used them. Anybody that believes a "precision" strike can remove specific sites without some fallout on surrounding areas lives in a fantasy world. If the decision to use them goes ahead and there is no "boots on the ground" follow through, how can the rebels win. If we don't want the rebels to win why are we going to be involved at all. We did such a fine job in Iraq, Afghanistan:scratch:  and Libya there's much to be proud of?

The fact is that Assad, and his immediate circle, know for an absolute certainty that they will be torn apart by the mob if they don't "win".
In such circumstances, genocide may be deemed preferable, if not inevitable. Ask Libya's Ghaddafi. Oh! You can't can you?

Actually, just the opposite is usually true. I've often said that America must be the only nation that uses real bullets when fighting a war because no one seems to care who dies just as long as an American didn't pull the trigger. When the USSR invaded Afghanistan, when China invaded Tibet, when the French invaded the Ivory Coast, when the Indians and Pakistanis clashed over Kashmere, when the Russian Federation decimated Chechnya ... yeah, the list is pretty extensive. At any rate, when these other acts of aggression (or defense) took place, the world really didn't care all that much. There were a few isolated protests. Some flag waving. Some college campuses had little rallies.

But when the US went into Iraq, the world took to the streets like never before. Protesters by the tens of millions flooded the streets of major cities all over the globe to denounce America. Some nations like Indonesia even lifted their bans on public protests just to allow their citizens to get out there and hate on America.

So I ask ... as I have always asked ... why the double standard?

There are no double standards Shirina. If you look at all the examples you have given above you will notice that the conflicts are between neighbouring countries, usually over disputed territory. As for the French and the Ivory Coast? (also officially called Côte d'Ivoire) which is a former French colony dating back to the 19th century
The Russian invaded Afghanistan following the CIA funding the Taliban (Ironic I know) to try and oust the Soviet friendly goverment of the day, probably in retribution for the soviet support for deposing the Shah of Iran a year earlier in 1978

So the difference is that the US (and UK) get involved in areas of the world that are nowhere near your/our boarders. We have very little knowledge of the cultures or in some cases, who are the good guys and bad guys. Sometimes we just have to butt out. Certain disputes and conflicts have been going on...on and off for centuries, long before the USA even existed. Perhaps there needs to be UN task force led by the Russians or Chinese to help the native Americans regain their lands following the almost genocidal extinsion of their race by the white settlers across your country...Tell me why not Shirina? Perhaps surgical air strikes on US miltary instilations should be sanctioned by the UN following your countrys use of Napalm on innocent women and children during the Vietnam war..Isn't the use of these chemical weapons crossing the red line according to Obama. What's good for the goose..and all that

In truth the public do not have the appetite for another conflict in a land that we know very little about, especially its politics and tribalism. There will be no good gained from the US or the UK getting involved here...when are we going to ever learn the lessons of our past failures????

blueturando wrote:So the difference is that the US (and UK) get involved in areas of the world that are nowhere near your/our boarders.

So, the world wouldn't mind if America invaded Canada?

Hmm, I think put in that context, surely you see why your reasoning isn't all that sound.

blueturando wrote:Perhaps there needs to be UN task force led by the Russians or Chinese to help the native Americans regain their lands following the almost genocidal extinsion of their race by the white settlers across your country...Tell me why not Shirina?

Well, even though your argument is a non-sequitur, I'll run with it just for kicks.

Reason 1: America isn't engaged in a civil war with the Native Americans nor is the US government using chemical weapons against them. Even though the animosity between nations and between factions within a nation in the Middle East may have existed before America, the wars and violence are still taking place. Therein lies the key difference and the primary reason why your argument is a non-sequitur.

Reason 2: What happened to the Native Americans, for good or ill, was inevitable. There was no way -- NO way -- that any industrialized nation or group of nations would ever leave an entire hemisphere alone so that a primitive collection of hunter-gatherers could run wild. It simply was NOT going to happen. Even today, should a Chinese or Russian led coalition come here to North America, they would just take the hemisphere for themselves. They certainly wouldn't hand it all over to a few million Native-Americans.

Reason 3: Where does all of this end? Should the Russians and Chinese also kick the majority of Brits off the island and hand it back to the Celts and Welsh? Should the Russians and Chinese then head to Australia and kick the whites out of there, too, and hand it back to the Aboriginees? Wait, wait, we're not done! Then the Chinese and Russians can sail on over to Central and South America to kick out all those of Spanish ancestry and hand it all back to the Incans and Aztecs. Of course then the Chinese will have to turn on the Russians and kick them out so that their lands can be given back to the Mongols. Naturally, you can see with crystal clarity where I'm going with this.

Now, back to the Middle East ... heehee, I always get a bit amused when Brits snarl at America when it intervenes in the Middle East considering we're simply cleaning up the horrific pooch screw that Europe (mainly the Brits) left us with. There wouldn't even be a Syria if not for the French. It was created as a French colony. In fact, nearly all of the nations in the Middle East were artificially created by the British and French so they could have them as colonies. Since these boundaries were set up without any regard to the various religious and political factions that pre-existed in the region, we have this constant internecine fighting that has ultimately led to this chemical attack.

In fact, if Europeans and Asians hadn't been so warlike and constantly fighting, America would never have become the military superpower it is today and would likely be a pacifistic nation content with its isolationism. As I've said often, America is Europe's Frankenstein's Monster.

blueturando wrote:Perhaps surgical air strikes on US miltary instilations should be sanctioned by the UN following your countrys use of Napalm on innocent women and children during the Vietnam war

Oh, here we go. You claim there's no double standard yet here you are proving it. Yeah, let's hold America accountable for every bomb dropped, every bullet fired in every war since 1776, but hey, let's ignore everything that Britain has done in the name of its Empire. Oh, did I say empire? Oh, I DID, didn't I ... something America never had nor ever strived for. Lucky for you and the world at large that America didn't decide to conquer the world in 1945 because it very well could have. By the way, Vietnam was yet another European clusterf**k that America had to clean up. If it wasn't for the French insisting that Indochina remained a colony after WWII ... well, I'm not going to school you on your own continent's history. Too much typing. What I WILL say, however, is that you just demonstrated the double standard endemic in the thought process of some Europeans in regards to America. The next thing you'll be telling me is that Americans had no right liberating Nazi concentration camps (we should have simply left the prisoners in the hands of the Waffen SS) because of some past incident in America's history.

There's a part of me who thinks America should withdraw every soldier, every tank, every plane, every ship back to the United States and just let the rest of the world go straight to hell. Perhaps China will move into the power vacuum and Europe can deal with their human rights violations and their censorship and their growing military might. Since Europe (not the USA) receives most of its oil from the Middle East, we can let YOU protect your own damned oil and try to keep the region stable. YOU can send your vastly depleted Royal Navy out there to keep the sea lanes open. YOUR nation can spend itself to death trying to maintain a military good enough to deal with it all -- it'll be like the golden days of empire with Britain trying to protect its interests and colonies all over the globe. Have fun with that.  

Oh, and then we Americans can sit back and criticize every stray bullet, every bomb that misses, every dead civilian caused by a Brit. Yeah, we can do that because we're not the ones doing the bulk of the fighting. Armchair quarterbacking is the easiest thing in the world to do.

blueturando wrote:There will be no good gained from the US or the UK getting involved here...when are we going to ever learn the lessons of our past failures????

We wouldn't be invading the place -- only sending a message to Assad that the use of WMDs will not be tolerated. Remember Munich? Remember the League of Nations which sat by with its finger up its arse as Tojo invaded Manchuria and Mussolini invaded Abyssinia and Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia? Look what happened due to the inaction by the major world powers of the day -- it sent a message to all three dictators that the West would do diddly squat so Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo were free to do whatever they wished. Mmhmm, and inaction in this case will send a message to everyone with a capsule of anthrax that it's a-okay to use them. That is one lesson I would rather learn BEFORE it happens, wouldn't you?

What happened to the Native Americans, for good or ill, was inevitable

Really?
And if that was inevitable - not the most commendable bit of your great nation's history - I wonder why the process going on in the Middle East is in a different category?
Is it because the US says so?

Since these boundaries were set up without any regard to the various religious and political factions that pre-existed in the region, we have this constant internecine fighting that has ultimately led to this chemical attack.



Granted - we in the West, and specifically in Europe, have arguably set the scene for much of the strife and violence - arguably a reason to but out and let the nations involved sort out their own solution - while remaining ready on the sidelines to facilitate humanitarian aid and diplomatic solutions.

We wouldn't be invading the place -- only sending a message to Assad that the use of WMDs will not be tolerated.

I seem to remember some such argument about Iraq

As I said before, I don't know the solution - but I'm convinced this is a very complex situation, and one in which doing the wrong thing is going to be very much worse than doing nothing.
I'm not convinced either that a lot of mud slinging and blaming will help the debate. We can all, if we look into our country's history, find things to be deeply ashamed about. The trick would be to learn from those mistakes and move forward in a positive way.

There is a single person to whom all these remarks should be addressed. The single person who over-rides all activity by the Assad regime is Russia's President, Vladimir Putin.

Convince him of your argument, and you can put all the soldiers back in their box.

How true - that's why it's important to continue to seek a diplomatic solution - definitely don't want US and Russia head to head militarily

Just to add my bit. I have no problem with the US and the UK taking action against those who used the chemical weapons. I rarely agree with Putin but must ask, " just who did use the weapons?". We are swamped each day with this and that politician saying " we have proof that sarin was used ". OK!, we agree that it was used but who used it?.  Many people forget that the " rebels " captured a Syrian Airforce Base on which there would have been weapons stores containing every type of weapon that you hang under an airplane. Now, we know that Aq and their associated colleagues would never think of killing innocent peoples to get their point over or to stir the muddy waters. Ed was right when he said that you should examine the evidence before you make your decision and Scumaron tried to look hard knowing that Obama would back him up. If Assad was daft enough to think he could get away with it then hit him but if this is another AQ trick to involve the Great Satan and the little satan and brand us as muslim killers then be careful. Just thinking out loud.

This may sound like a deviation from the thread's topic, but I think there is a direct relevance to Britain's laws concerning the Death Penalty.  We don't have one.  Trial Juries are required to bring in a murder verdict if they are convinced "beyond all reasonable doubt" but we still don't execute convicted murderers, a significant number of whom have had to be released from Prison upon the discovery of fresh evidence - sometimes years later.

The same applies to the attribution of guilt to combatants in Syria.  We can be convinced by "evidence" to take a certain course of action, but what do you do if subsequent "evidence" is contradictory?  How do you undo a surgical air-strike?

So, the world wouldn't mind if America invaded Canada?

Not Canada, but what about Mexico? The country seems to be in a mess right now with multiple killings of various people (innocent and not so innocent) carried out by drug cartels and corrupt officials, masses of illegal drugs crossing the boarder each year. Now the US getting involved here would be much more understandable.

Dont get me wrong Shirina, I AM a fan of the US and we all have episodes in our long past history that we would rather forget, but the recent history of both our countries leads me to believe that any miltary action at this stage in the middle east would only be a bad idea for all concerned...unless you could convince me otherwise?

boatlady wrote:And if that was inevitable - not the most commendable bit of your great nation's history - I wonder why the process going on in the Middle East is in a different category?
Is it because the US says so?

Okay, history lesson time.  

Let's look at the US Civil War. The three major European powers at the time - Britain, France, and Germany - wanted America to be split into two nations. Otto von Bismarck, the German Chancellor, openly said as much as he feared America would become the dominant world power if left alone (and he was correct). The result is that Britain tried to aid the southern Confederacy against the North. The UK sent observers and advisors to the Confederacy and worked with General Longstreet. More importantly, the British sent millions of Enfield rifles to the south, running guns up through Mexico (then controlled by France under Emperor Maximillion) and into Texas in order to avoid the Union naval blockade. In fact, gun enthusiasts often talk about the war between the British Enfield and the American Springfield rifles.

Only one thing stopped the British from openly siding with the South -- the Emancipation Proclamation. This was an otherwise useless document since it made slavery illegal in areas Lincoln did not control. What it DID do is elevate the issue of slavery to the forefront of the American Civil War. If Britain came in on the side of the South, she would be defending the institution of slavery and that is something the British people would never tolerate.

The point of this is to show that major powers almost always get involved in the civil wars of smaller powers. Major powers want their chosen side to win; they often see civil wars as a segue to influence the leadership of the region or to take control of it themselves. We can debate whether this policy is good or bad until those proverbial cows come home, and good arguments can be presented on both sides. However, the truth of warfare is that nations will always intervene in the affairs of other nations -- and believe me, America's affairs have been intervened many times. Not with guns and military invasions, of course, but through other means. Perhaps the most well-known in recent times is the Soviet Union's influence on American labor politics which is fertile ground for the communists.

Political boundaries are nothing more than lines on a map. The reality is that we all live on one planet, and as the world "shrinks" due to instant communications and quick travel, it becomes ever more difficult to pretend that the raucus your neighbor is causing doesn't bother you.

boatlady wrote:arguably a reason to but out and let the nations involved sort out their own solution - while remaining ready on the sidelines to facilitate humanitarian aid and diplomatic solutions.

But where do we draw the line? Should we have left Nazi Germany to its own devices and allowed the Holocaust, for example? And if not, then how many have to die before there is a decision to intervene?

Look at it this way: Many Europeans get all up in arms whenever an American bomb strays off course and kills civilians. Yet the Assad regime has massacred over 100,000 civilians (deliberately) since the Syrian civil war began, including, ostensibly, a chemical attack. What if Assad killed a million? Two million? Ten million? Is there a magic number that must be reached before action is taken to prevent more deaths? Again we find ourselves in a situation where no one really cared overmuch about dead civilians when it was just Syrians killing each other. However, the moment America even talks about getting involved, suddenly everyone is worried about how many "innocent lives" will be lost by an American surgical strike. This is the double standard I'm talking about.

I know that "Dubya" Bush squandered much of America's credibility with his ridiculous invasion of Iraq. But I DO think that if the international community sits on its laurels while WMDs are being used against civilians, well ... I don't know. I just find something rather immoral about that. Humanitarian aid only helps people AFTER they've been gassed but it doesn't prevent more chemical weapons from being used.

boatlady wrote:I seem to remember some such argument about Iraq

Iraq was always going to be an invasion. Bush never advertised Iraq as a "series of punitive airstrikes" only to send in a quarter million American troops.

boatlady wrote:but I'm convinced this is a very complex situation, and one in which doing the wrong thing is going to be very much worse than doing nothing.

Sure, I agree, and I would be far more concerned if America decided to actually try to put an end to the war or to go after Assad as we went after Saddam Hussein. Yet I do feel that the international community (not just the US) has to send a message saying that WMDs are not an acceptable form of warfare. If you want to fight a civil war, go right ahead, but if you start pressing those big red buttons, the rest of the world is going to come after you. That's how it ought to be. Otherwise, why not just use tactical nukes or biological agents right from the start and not bother with conventional war? The international community should be united in this matter regardless of which side one is on, whether cheering for Assad or for the rebels.

“Sometime they’ll give a war and nobody will come.”
Carl Sandburg (1878-1967)

I see there is another thread on the subject of Syria, but I view this one as far different, and this would disrupt that thread to post this there.
 
The secret about Syria is rather obvious when we look.
 
Bashar al-Assad was educated in Britain and his wife Asma al-Assad is a British citizen, and Assad's older brother the Syrian heir-apparent was conveniently killed in an auto accident = Bassel al-Assad.
 
Of course this is a conspiracy theory, but it makes sense of the confusing events of today.
 
Assad being a Western spy or implant or puppet is why both Britain and the USA are resisting any military action against Syria, because our gov's want and support Assad.
 
Then why does Russia support Assad? because Russia gets huge profits from military and commodities sales to Syria, and Russia is another white Euro people who shares the Western view that the best of Syrian is a dead Syrian.
 
President Obama is pressured by the evidence of the use of chemical weapons, but nothing else, as his other (and bigger) pressure is to support Assad.
 

oftenwrong wrote:Soon after the death of Bassel, Hafez Assad made the decision to make Bashar the new heir-apparent. Over the next six and half years, until his death in 2000, Hafez went about systematically preparing Bashar for taking over power. Preparations for a smooth transition were made on three levels. First, support was built up for Bashar in the military and security apparatus. Second, Bashar's image was established with the public. And lastly, Bashar was familiarized with the mechanisms of running the country.

To establish his credentials in the military, Bashar entered in 1994 the military academy at Homs, north of Damascus, and was propelled through the ranks to become a colonel in January 1999. To establish a power base for Bashar in the military, old divisional commanders were pushed into retirement, and new, young, Alawite officers with loyalties to him took their place.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bashar_al-Assad

Well I hate to nit-pick, but this gives me little choice.

As in this post is saying NOTHING.

You do not tell if you agree or disagree, or if that is posted as an affirmation of the subject? or are you trying to add some other aspect?

As such the comment is completely incoherent.

And I do not mean any disrespect as I welcome any input or discussion here, but your post is just indistinguishable - FYI.