Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Tchocky]

From everything I've seen it's by Assad. The only suggestion at rebel use is the idea that it doesn't help Assad.

Not going to pretend I know exactly who used what, but I'm not seeing any convincing evidence that anyone but Assad it's responsible.

If it was an underling then all the more reason. Force Assad to get his forces in line, make the point that wholesale gassing isn't on. Whole thing sucks.

[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.

[Skybird]

CNN had a brief and sober list of four simple questions with their as simple answers. After all, the whole thing is not really any complicated, in a way.

Members of Congress demanded that President Barack Obama consult with them on Syria. They just got their wish. The responsibility for Syria policy will now be shared. Here are four questions that might be weighed wisely before the missiles fly:

1. What will it accomplish?

A war between Bashar al-Assad's regime, Hezbollah and Iran on one side and al Qaeda-style Islamic radicals on the other is a fight in which the United States has no dog.

Hurting the Assad regime inevitably means helping the rebels. True, some of the rebels are nicer than other rebels. It's also true that the nasty rebels are the faction likelier to dominate if the Assad regime falls.

In June, the nasty rebels and the nicer rebels came to violence over control of strategic checkpoints in northern Syria. The conflict ended with the nasty rebels assassinating one of the top leaders of the nicer rebels and consolidating control over the disputed territory.

So much of the debate about Syria is a debate about "how"? We are in real danger of skipping over the more important questions: "Why?" and "For whose benefit?"

2. What comes next?

A two-day barrage of cruise missiles will not tip the balance of the Syrian civil war against the Assad regime. It took seven months of bombing plus substantial military assistance to Libyan rebels to topple Moammar Gadhafi's friendless regime. Al-Assad has a tighter grip on power and more international allies.

Odds are that after the boom-boom ceases, the civil war will resume. Syrian government forces will likely continue to commit atrocities (although maybe next time by some means other than poison gas). The rebels will very likely continue to lose.

The world will have watched the Assad regime shake off an American punch -- and all the questions we face today about U.S. "credibility" will revive in more intense form.

The United States is contemplating cruise missile strikes today in large part because of the failure of prior interventions on behalf of the rebels: first food and medical aid, then communications devices and other battlefield support, then small arms. If this intervention fails to force al-Assad to quit, the next intervention will have to be bigger again.

3. What will it cost?

A Syria campaign is being advertised as comparatively cheap in money and American lives. We're promised "no boots on the ground." But there's another cost in danger of being overlooked: the opportunity cost.

The president, the secretary of state, the secretary of defense and other top officials have only so much time and energy. If they commit to resolving the Syrian civil war, inevitably they give second shrift, or third shrift, or worse to many other concerns of arguably greater importance to the region and the world.

Egypt, for example, seems to be heading toward the same civil strife as Syria. Who is developing the plan for helping to prevent that outcome? How much high-level support and attention are they getting?

4. Is there another way?

Obama administration officials argue a strike against Syria will deter Iran. But firing cruise missiles at army facilities in Syria seems a very roundabout method of stopping a nuclear program in Iran. Some may hope that the United States is drawing Iran into a protracted, expensive proxy war. But the United States already has two anti-Iran proxy wars in inventory, Afghanistan and Iraq, and neither has gone well.

What has gone well, by contrast, is the U.S. campaign of economic pressure on Iran. Who would have dared predict in 2002 that Iran would still lack a nuclear weapon 11 years later and without a U.S. military attack? Yet so it has happened.

If you want to deal with Iran, deal with Iran. And if you want not to be drawn all the way into a Syrian civil war between factions none of them friendly to the United States, then the best way to avoid being drawn is: don't take the first step. And if you have already inadvisedly taken the first step, at least beware the second, third and fourth.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/03/op...html?hpt=hp_c2

Without simplifying one can indeed say: it is so simple.

[Tchocky]

An entire series that avoids the word "chemical".

Not exactly worthless but certainly beside the point. You would get more mileage on how the vote in Congress will effect the 2016 primaries.

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

From everything I've seen it's by Assad. The only suggestion at rebel use is the idea that it doesn't help Assad.

Not going to pretend I know exactly who used what, but I'm not seeing any convincing evidence that anyone but Assad it's responsible.

If it was an underling then all the more reason. Force Assad to get his forces in line, make the point that wholesale gassing isn't on. Whole thing sucks.

I haven't seen anything that says it was by Assad. I've heard claims but no evidence at all. What has convinced you in particular?

[Tchocky]

Hearing it from French, German, UK, and US sources over the same couple of days saying they were convinced. I figure after Iraq no intelligence analyst worth his/her salt would have failed to learn the lessons of 2002/3.

Again, not one thing in particular but several in concert. I'd prefer more concrete information coming from those who advocate action. Doesn't seem like it's coming. I will say that those placing this alongside the intelligence effort on Iraq have an awful lot to remember about those days.

Ah, it'll all turn out badly no matter what. That's the worst part.

[Skybird]

Civilian massacre is civilian massacre. Whether it is done by gas, white phosphorus, machetes and mutilations and leaving the victims to bleed to death, or machine guns, is not relevant: dead is dead, suffering is suffering, and massacre is massacre. And do not mention the Geneva Convention again, I think I said clearly enough what I think of it.

BTW, in those parts of the world they do not fight by the rules of the Hague Land Warfare charter or the Geneva Convention anyway. You can voice your important protest against that violation, if it offends your civilised sentiments, okay. I'm sure they will consider your protest thoroughly and then make up their minds.

[Tchocky]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Civilian massacre is civilian massacre. Whether it is done by gas, white phosphorus, machetes and mutilations and leaving the victims to bleed to death, or machine guns, is not relevant: dead is dead, suffering is suffering, and massacre is massacre. And do not mention the Geneva Convention again, I think I said clearly enough what I think of it.

Hardly. You can't pretend that killing people with guns and bombs is the same as using sarin gas. That's the kind of thinking usually confined to religious fundamentalists.

True, dead is dead. I don't see anyone arguing anything else. But if you want to control a neighbourhood there is a difference between shelling and shooting your way to control and gassing the entire place.

BTW, in those parts of the world they do not fight by the rules of the Hague Land Warfare charter or the Geneva Convention anyway. You can voice your important protest against that violation, if it offends your civilised sentiments, okay. I'm sure they will consider your protest thoroughly and then make up their minds.

And we should always set ourselves to the lowest common denominator. As long as somebody else does it first.

Christ.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Civilian massacre is civilian massacre. Whether it is done by gas, white phosphorus, machetes and mutilations and leaving the victims to bleed to death, or machine guns, is not relevant: dead is dead, suffering is suffering, and massacre is massacre. And do not mention the Geneva Convention again, I think I said clearly enough what I think of it.

BTW, in those parts of the world they do not fight by the rules of the Hague Land Warfare charter or the Geneva Convention anyway. You can voice your important protest against that violation, if it offends your civilised sentiments, okay. I'm sure they will consider your protest thoroughly and then make up their minds.

In this case I agree. If we in and bomb, it will be a joke. Already reports of the radical rebels capturing christian towns, torturing, burning churches, etc.

I hope congress will say no, be smart, but seems congress has always been stupid. Ready a book on the American Revolution, while Washington and his army were starving on the Delaware, congress issued a decree, a day of fasting for the nation and army.

[MH]

Originally Posted by Armistead

In this case I agree. If we in and bomb, it will be a joke. Already reports of the radical rebels capturing christian towns, torturing, burning churches, etc.

I hope congress will say no, be smart, but seems congress has always been stupid. Ready a book on the American Revolution, while Washington and his army were starving on the Delaware, congress issued a decree, a day of fasting for the nation and army.

The position USA is in right now is outcome of last years zigzagging and lacking leadership in ME politics.
Its to show that USA still has the will to act in ME to protect its intrests

When it comes to Syria... if world did not wait for almost 3 years there would be less extremist running around ... now it may be much too late.

[tonschk]

Originally Posted by mapuc

I have lost all track of what is true and not true in this Syrian crisis.

Markus

This is the purpose of the wars, make the criminals pose as the good guys and make the good guys looks like they are criminals, the CRIMINAL george bush And the CRIMINAL barack obama know very well how to tell LIES and Excuses to start a war and CRIMINAL invasions

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Hardly. You can't pretend that killing people with guns and bombs is the same as using sarin gas. That's the kind of thinking usually confined to religious fundamentalists.

True, dead is dead. I don't see anyone arguing anything else. But if you want to control a neighbourhood there is a difference between shelling and shooting your way to control and gassing the entire place.

What makes the moral difference is whether the mass-killing is militarily necessary (you strike a military relevant target), or not (you intentionally target neutrals, noncombatants who do not side with and assist nobody indeed).

I personally see more reason to protest against the event itself or the use of cluster ammunition in civilian areas. Sarin is gone after 30 minutes. Clustersubmunition can kill or mutilate years after the conflict ended. As already said earlier, bombing a school with what apparently was white phosphorus does not really make for a nice and civilised death either. And all the other niceties that are possible to use.

The event is being protested against because it were civilians. If the dead would have been Assad.loyal soldiers or AQ members or radicals, then using gas to acchieve the objective to kill militarily relevant targets - enemy fighters - either is a working tactic, or it is not. You chose the weapons that maximise the effect on the enmy and minimises the risk for own troops. The air force and Navy will do it like this in the coming strikes whenusing robot ammunition from distances where the Assadistas cannot do anything about it. Is that fair… ? Fairness has nothing to do with it, but sober calculation. The Serbs accused the Americans to be cowards for not confronting them man against man on the ground - and people were laughing about that demand. Rightly so.

Intentionally committing atrocities against the civilian population is a moral violation that should be condemned. But then, it also happens in war. War brutalizes minds. Thats why we do not call it a picnic in the woods, but call it war. The massacre now serves no military relevant purpose. And that is the point. Whether they committed the atrocity by going from housedoor to housedoor and using machetes or pistoles, or white phosphor, or gas, is not relevant. Even if they would have committed the murders while politely talking and smiling at their victims, it would not be one bit better.

[MH]

With chemical weapons a few morons can wipe out entire neighborhood in right conditions.

The Truth About How The US Will Save Syria

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by MH

With chemical weapons a few morons can wipe out entire neighborhood in right conditions.

With artillery or machine guns you can wipe out entie neighbourhoods - and nobody will even care!