Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Nobody is saying that any of the options are any good.

That doesn't mean that they're all the same - some are better than others and doing nothing is the wrong choice in my view.

You're wrong, they're no good options, better or worse. I know chemical weapons are bad, but they account for few deaths overall. A mass attack could open Damascus to attack and chaos. This is a CW, someone has to lose. If Assad goes, then the rebel groups will go to war with each other.

We can't get involved, because it's a lose lose for us. It will lead to another war, unless Obama just wants to prick attack for a political purpose. The only real answer is for a war, take out Assad, then take out the radical rebels. It would be long and costly like Iraq.

We don't need it. If we don't attack, maybe when it gets bad the UN or world will involve itself in the region, let us stay out of it....we're broke.

[Tchocky]

I love the argument that because nobody stopped Saddam in the 80's we have a responsibility to do nothing now.

It's a moronic argument that avoids thinking about the current situation.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I love the argument that because nobody stopped Saddam in the 80's we have a responsibility to do nothing now.

It's a moronic argument that avoids thinking about the current situation.

Not to mention the fact that it had absolutely nothing to do with my statement about official policy and why the administration took action in the first place. It was like a very juvenile game of one-upsmanship.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

I love the argument that because nobody stopped Saddam in the 80's we have a responsibility to do nothing now.

It's a moronic argument that avoids thinking about the current situation.

This ^

[Tchocky]

Goes without saying

[Tchocky]

August - real life intruded, forgot to respond to your last.

All good points, to properly remove Assad's CW capability would take more resources than anyone can prudently commit to something that truly isn't their fight. I'm holding to the hope there is a distinctive effect to strikes. Make it cost anyone to do this kind of thing and hope the other crackpots get the message.

Again, nowhere close to perfect but still better than nothing.

Skybird - you say that doing nothing to counter Saddam in the 80'S was tacit approval.

If that applied then, it applies now.

[Skybird]

Active assistance is not just approval. Morally it is the same as if doing the act oneself. The US has no moral highground to claim. It accuses Syria of what it has previously done itself.

Obama has no mission here. He has pulled it down to internal powerpolitics only, to limit the damage he brought about himself by showing too big a mouth.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Morally it is the same as if doing the act oneself. The US has no moral highground to claim. It accuses Syria of what it has previously done itself.

What utter nonsense
A thief can still tell a thief that stealing is wrong.
The only person with no ground at all is Skybird, after all his twisted idealism means that in conflicts slaughtering civilians or using chemical weapons is perfectly acceptable as there should be no laws at all covering these things.
By Skys own moral standards Saddam was right to gas the Kurds and the west was also right to help him as there is nothing wrong in those actions in his dreamworld.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

August - real life intruded, forgot to respond to your last.

All good points, to properly remove Assad's CW capability would take more resources than anyone can prudently commit to something that truly isn't their fight. I'm holding to the hope there is a distinctive effect to strikes. Make it cost anyone to do this kind of thing and hope the other crackpots get the message.

Again, nowhere close to perfect but still better than nothing.

I disagree. Doing nothing is vastly preferable than making an ineffectual military strike that doesn't accomplish anything besides civilian casualties.

[Tchocky]

Exactly. If you do the wrong thing thirty years ago you lose the right to do anything now.

For the eighth time - that's a moronic argument.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Exactly. If you do the wrong thing thirty years ago you lose the right to do anything now.

For the eighth time - that's a moronic argument.

The Japanese claim to have worked up their past role in WWII is intentionally doubted, for they deny certain crimes their troops committed until today, hide them, ignore them, or relabel them as something positive, from mass killings in conquered territories to massraping women.

America until today poses as the moral messiah and loses no word about its active assisting of gassing the Iranians. Not the ideal moral position to start a moral lecture from.

And there are other such stories. The funding of contras by selling drugs to the blacks in America back then. The lies of 2003. And we do not know how many other black ops that no doubt took place. Not to mention the active funding of regimes that finances terrorism, like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

As long as these things are still done, and done acts are not openly admitted and worked up, America has no credible moral position to argue from.

And argument that I already made ten years ago in the forum war about the Iraq war. Obama's moral credibility is in shambles. He is about limiting the damage to himself. And that is the only real imperative of American "policy" now. He shouldn't have taken his mouth that full last year. What he is about to do now, is giving support to terrorists, radical fanatics and right those people that America claims to wage a war against, this ominous war on terror, and who themselves represent groups and parties that on their behalf also have declared they see themselves at war with America.

And the real reason why we are here today, right at this point, so far has not even been mentioned in this 900+ postings long thread. If the West would not have encouraged the Arab "spring" and the Syrian uprise as well, and would not have silently supported the opposition with money that was channeled to them via dark channels, the uprise would have come to an end after some months at the latest, and the war since long would be over already, and many people would still be alive, and AQ and other radicals and fundamentalists would have no foothold in syria, and Iran and Hezbollah likely would not have risen their profile in syria that much, too. Syria would not have been any more democratic, but that is unimportant. More important would have been that it still would have been stable, predictable, and AQ and radical djihadists having no strong platform there.

It was idiotic and reality-denying wishful thinking and daydreaming by Western escapists who enabled this conflict to go for so long and lasting until today.

But of course, we have had good intentions. We only meant it oh so well, didn't we. We had hopes. We supported democracy.

Write all these precious excuses on a leafs of paper and sell it as toilet paper. Wiping anuses at least is more a useful purpose than all this wonderfully working diplomacy and fantasizing and reality-denying and hiding one's own share of moral guilt. It's not too long ago when Assad still was a darling when it came to selling him the ingredients for the weapons one now is complaining about. After all, money does not stink.

[Oberon]

I think that you would be hard put to find a nation on this planet that would be able to throw stones without being in a glass house.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I think that you would be hard put to find a nation on this planet that would be able to throw stones without being in a glass house.

Ohhhh yesss...

Not that it stops them trying nevertheless...

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Ohhhh yesss...

Not that it stops them trying nevertheless...

Each action has a reaction. I'd say that there's more to this strike proposal than the morals that have been presented to the international community and their public. Whilst I think we can all agree, more or less, that the use of chemical weapons is a terrible thing, no matter who uses them, supplies them, or makes them, I do find it hard to believe the reasoning is purely based around a moral standpoint for reasons that have already been mentioned.
However, the argument that binds hands due to history is a hard one to make function in this bipolarised world, because of the self-interest of nations. Whilst, again morally, it would be a good world that had all nations turn their swords into plough-shares, all of us here know that this is something that is not likely to happen, it's human nature. So where does that leave us? With selective deafness and memory, due to necessity.

At its most base level, this mission is a show of American force, a fireworks display over Damascus, a message in multi-million dollar hardware that chemical weapons are bad, m'kay. No other nation in the world (except France, who is hoping for a Sarkozy/Libya poll ratings effect) wants to send this message, even Obama doesn't really want to send this message, he's not deaf, he can see that most of the populace doesn't want to strike Syria, and that's one of the reasons he threw it at Congress, to share the blame if and when this happens. I do not think that he will act without Congressional approval, not publically anyway, special forces might get sent instead of missiles, and maybe a drone or two might creep around Syrian airspace, but he won't act without Congress, because it would be shooting a hole in the carefully crafted boat that he's made out of the red line fiasco.
At the moment, no matter what Congress decides, Obama sheds some of the blame. If Congress says yes, then the blame is shared equally between Obama and the Congresspeople that voted in favour. If Congress says no, and another gas attack occurs, then Obama can go ahead with the mission anyway, and blame Congress for putting politics ahead of people. Either way the Republicans end up being painted in a bad light. If he goes ahead and bombs Syria after Congress voted no and before the next chemical attack then he basically paints himself as a warmonger who doesn't listen to Congress, and whilst that's what many people may think of him already, he doesn't want to write that in stone.
So it really comes down to Congress, and if American people on here want one thing or another from this vote, then I urge them to do as August has done and write to their senator. It might not affect their actions one way or another, but at least you tried, and at the end of the day what did it cost you? Internet usage, a postage stamp, the worst thing he or she could do with it (or their secretary as is more likely) is throw it in the bin.
I think Cameron made the right move to put it to Parliament, even if he didn't get the vote he expected and threw a small tantrum in the process, but by sticking by the decision of Parliament he will likely pick up some votes from people disillusioned by the Blair wars, and the current Labour civil war, it may not do much for him internationally, but it's done him some good domestically. Until the next crisis anyway.

Politics, as we all know, be it domestic or international, is rarely about acting in the interest of others, there is usually always a catch somewhere along the line, always a hidden meaning behind an action.
I personally don't think it's oil related, in regards to Syria, but it might be related to sending a message to another nation, be it Russia or Saudi Arabia. We shall see, after all there's absolutely sod all (us non-Americans anyway) can do until the outcome of the US Senates vote, which I will be hoping to catch live when it takes place later this week, presumably any time after Wednesday, having listened to most of our Parliaments debate on it, I hope to catch as much as I can of the US Congress debate, to compare our political systems.

Until then, no matter how much we chase each other in circles on this thread about the morality, effectiveness or ethics of launching a military strike on Syria, we will be no closer to a definitive answer since we are not the ones making the decision.

[Tchocky]

So the Americans are on the hook for the UK supplying precursor chemicals? Get it together.