Sanity has to start somewhere

Amen - I am embarrassed at the war mongering from the USA - both parties (oh, the Republicans put up a minor fuss this time, they sure as bleep didn't when their guy did it...of course back then, neither did the Democrats either.)

With this country's worthless lot of politicians, where you stand almost always depends on where you sit.  Never on principal.  I'd like to see Obama or Bush send their daughters into combat.

Worthless POS both of them.

Dr. Mark

Given your strong feelings, I assume you regularly vote and participate in party politics in this country. If so, I would appreciate your sharing the names of those whom you voted for in the last presidential, senatorial, and congressional elections in which you participated. I will find your insights helpful in avoiding the pitfalls of voting for incompetent politicians.

Thanks in advance

I'm not impressed with Cameron. He states a position on a Monday, and by Friday of that week has to back down. This has happened almost weekly since the last election.

This week Miliband had a political gift-horse presented on a plate. And he took it. Syria had nothing to do with Labour's actions this week, it was party political politics at its worst, aimed at making Cameron and the conservatives look prats - not difficult these days.

So what about the use of chemical weopons ?

Obama drew a line in the sand some months back. Stupid mistake IMHO - never draw lines. Nations act like naughty children. They are duty-bound to cross the line. Just a little at first, but progressivley more and more. Just to torment the line-drawer

Chemical weapons were used - I have no doubt (but no independent proof)

I don't know who used them

The UN weapons inspectors will take forever to investigate (remember Hans Blix ?)

But we should await the Inspectors' findings

Let's assume the inspectors are "certain" Assad used the weopons...........(assume the other side if you prefer, or a third agent, whatever)

The UN will dither and disagree over what to do.

Should the West take unilateral action, aimed at punishing and preventing the use of such weopons ?

Should the West speak up and say "this shouldn't happen"

Should the West ignore what is happening in Syria (and even prohibit the reporting of events)

Cheers

Don

Yes Don and whilst all the pontificating goes on further genocide or certainly massacre will take place.   Now was probably the wrong time for a Military intervention - some further evidence should be awaited - but the House of Commons failed yesterday not only in rejecting the Government proposal but Labour's amendment as well.

Cameron's difficulty in the vote was not so much the opportunism of  Miliband but the failure to manage the MPs of his own party, too many of whom stayed away from the House, abstained or voted against. And I'm sure the Iraq experience was another factor which eroded confidence of many MPs of all parties who might have been pro the motion.

In any event, I think the argument of the West's leading politicians is a bit illogical in all this eg

• Drawing 'red lines' if chemical weapons are used.  They seemingly have already been used by this regime previously so does Assad have to use a certain quantity of chemical weapons to cross that line?
• Implying that the resultant military action will be a one-off and a punishment. How does attempting to take out the regime's remaining chemical weapons constitute a punishment rather than taking action against the people who authorised their use?
• Why does killing many thousands of civilians with conventional weapons not cross the red line whereas killing about one thousand with chemical weapons does? 

I can understand the sense of moral outrage, and the probable feeling among Western leaders that their electorates expect them to do something but I just can't see how firing umpteen cruise missiles at anything in Syria can improve the appalling situation there and relieve the plight of so many of its civilians. 

MDS

Because the Americans and British have no qualms about killing civilians with conventional weapons. They killed tens of thousands with conventional weapons in Iraq, therefore it's quite acceptable.

If I remember correctly, the justification for mounting air strikes against Gaddafi was the fact he was killing his own countrymen. That apparently was a big no no, but again, killing people from another country is quite acceptable.

Does anybody know if we have stockpiles of chemical weapons.

Why do we have no apparent qualms about killing more than 30,000 people per year in North America alone with motor vehicles. Because convenience. And because we don't know them (usually).

Why pick on motor vehicles?

How many are killed by supposedly legal but ultimately un-needed guns.

Re first question because you have some one man crusade against said vehicles.

Sure Clay, here ya go:

We're a bankrupt, crumbling, empire...and these self-serving parasites that you apparently worship are driving the whole thing into the ditch.  You & I don't have a choice in anything, it's all the illusion of a choice.  And we don't even get the courtesy of a "reach around."

And the rejoinder to one of your possible next questions is 1992.

About the same by guns in the US  - 30,000 per year. The majority suicides, though.

Gun crime is not as random as motor vehicle accidents, so I don't feel threatened by gun crime as much as I feel that motorists are likely to carelssley or negligently kill me.

It's not one man crusade against cars. I'm not against cars per se. But in my humble opinion the majority of people use them without due consideration of the impacts on their health, safety, lifestyle, finances, the environment or the inconvenience to others they cause etc. etc. 

What i'd like to know is:

How did he ever get to be in charge with eyes that close together?

Debs

"Poor Obama" is a very good column pointing out some of the absurdities and catch-22s facing the ones in the west intending on attacking Syria:

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/ho...s/avnery/1377860226/

Debs,

He got to be in charge because his brother, Bassel al-Assad who was being groomed to succeed the father president from young age, was killed in 1994 in a car accident (driving at high speed to the international airport to catch a flight to Germany). 

I agree 100% +++ something needs to be done.  My gut instinct is that the proposed military action is the “right” way, however a problem in my other mind is a very large question of what military action will actually achieve, it will most likely deepen the devastation, push the rat further into the corner & probably bring in other countries into a wider & more dangerous regional conflict.  But whats the alternative other than do nothing.  

Then what is US & allies proposing to do???   Any rookie solder will tell you the 1st thing is to identify your enemy, plan clear & concise objectives & that must include a final & exit objective.

So who is the enemy???  The Syrian regime may be one enemy, but on the other side are organisations that have been attacking the “west” for years, so which side is the enemy? Atrocities have been carried out on both sides,  the Syrian regime have carried out other potential war crimes besides using chemical weapons,  but so has the other side, one radical group has even released their own videos.

What are the objectives???  Taking out the chemical & military assets is not relieving the civilian population - the stated primary reason for the proposed action.

What’s the end game???  What if the military action worsens the regime attacks on civilians?  What if Iran joins in, will this bring in Israel?  What if/when Assad is no longer in power, who will replace him & what will the west do if a free vote of the Syrian population elects a radical government?    

Rocky roads ahead methinks.   

Mike B - I think you have summarised the difficulties of military intervention very well.  Much as it goes against the grain of the emotional feeling that 'something must be done', the 'something' requires some hard-headed objective thinking, including a clear view about the desired outcome and contingency planning. Unless and until that is done diplomatic and economic pressure is probably the best way forward.   

MDS

http://newsthump.com/2012/08/0...led-to-be-americans/

Indeed.

Anyone who doesn't vote has no right to complain about the actions of politicians. If you don't participate don't complain when someone does something on your behalf you don't like.

And don't forget, people died to give you the right to vote.

steve

I only partly agree with this.

If there was a box marked, "None of the above," then fair enough about complaining about the eventual choice of a vote ...

But if the "none of the above" vote is the largest then there should be a new election with none of the original candidates standing.

That would sort out those who regard the electorate as nothing other than the fools who vote for politicians. What we need is far more independent MPs and Councillors.

Glad to see Cameron so misjudge it though.He is going to have to be much more careful from now on. A good thing, I am sure.

ATB from George

A cracking idea, George, but I suspect that in practice we'd have ballot after ballot, struggling to find any group of politicians capable of forming a government that could get legislation passed. And in meantime the country would have to be run by unelected officials.

MDS 

Sorry PP - I refuse to participate in a sham.  If it helps you to sleep better at night to believe that you have some control over your destiny, then by all means I encourage you to vote as much as your heart desires.  You want to see these politicians get worried? (Because right now they never are.)  Let them hold an election where no one votes.  Even though voter turnout is no where near 100%, it is enough to let them know that more people than not are buying into their BS.

As for our "war" plans, they are illegal according to our own US laws as it stands (and has been the case going back for some time now with our other interventions), and also against the UN charter.  But since the USA has the most powerful military, they apparently don't have to abide by those principles.

Funny how we only worry about "humanitarian intervention" when it suits our economic needs (read: oil) and/or the interests of the Zionists.  No one in the US government cares what Robert Mugabe and his thugs do down in Zimbabwe.  We still don't know who exactly used the sarin gas, but Kerry blathers on.  (A man so inept he lost to the buffoon GWB.) People got killed with chemical weapons?  Let's potentially start WW III - that won't hurt anyone.

Plus interesting how our war crimes don't count.  Drones killing civilians every month (if not week) and they tried to bury the events that Manning exposed.  I guess our civilian kills are good ones. while those we don't support have bad ones. 

Plus, we kind of have a record of intervening for a reason, only to have that reason be shown to be spurious later on.

Lastly, we can't afford it.  We are literally bankrupt already.  It's just a matter of when and in what form we default.

I feel quite certain that history will ultimately not view us kindly...especially once we don't get to write it.

The collapse of the USSR left the US in the unenviable position of being the world's only "super power".  Some here feel this entitles the US to lead our allies into war, with the goal being regime change, democracy and nation building.  Noble goals in theory perhaps, but it hardly ever seems to work out well in reality. Does that mean the US should become isolationist, and sit idly by while horrible dictators commit atrocities and civil wars rage? Maybe...

The problem is that there is no right answer -- intervention will always be criticized, as will inaction.

Recall it was not just US that drew a line in the sand at using chemical weapons after WW I (1925 Geneva Protocol). 98% of the world's population also signed on to the OPCW in 1997.  The entire world abhors their use because it is impossible to target enemy soldiers without also targeting civilians.  Yes, the same argument could be made for cruise missiles. Perhaps it is a question of degree? Don't know. It sure would be a wonderful world without any WMDs, but that does not seem likely to happen.  Reducing nuclear arsenals was a step in the right direction, as was the banning of chemical weapons.  I don't think those points can be argued. So it raises a fundamental question:  what should we (meaning the civilized nations of the world) do if one of these bans is deliberately broken?

I see three options:  1) do nothing and ignore it, 2) intervene with full military might, overthrow the offending regime, invest in rebuilding and ensure democratic elections are held asap, or 3) something in between.  Few feel they can sit on their hands and watch these atrocities play out on youtube every day. But even fewer are up for another Iran or, even worse, Afghanistan.  So we continue to weigh these choices in the middle, all of which are bad, and none of which seem to promise any lasting, positive impact.

So what should we do?  Turn off the TV and pretend it isn't happening? Send a message to Assad that using chemical weapons to win a civil war is...ok? The US intelligence services claim to have intercepeted a Syrian military commuination discussing the use of chemical weapons, and we'll see what the UN inspectors come back with. But what if the UN also concludes that Assad's forces knowingly used chemical weapons? If Russia and China continue to say "do nothing", then what would you do if you were Obama?  If you say nothing, could you then live with Assad using chemical weapons again and again? What would you do if you were Netanyahu, and chemical attacks started wafting over your northern border?

Not a lot of good choices here folks. It reminds me of Bosnia. How bad did that have to get before blue helmets were finally on the ground?  I wonder what, if anything, it will take for Russia and China to concur that intervention in Syria is similarly justified?

My own opinion is that weakening Assad to the extent that the Syrian opposition "wins" is not a good idea. This would be an exact repeat of Afghanistan.  Perhaps, like the Balkans, partitioning along ethnic/religious lines could be an answer, but that would require a lot of UN troops on the ground, and a lot of good, young people from all over the world would die in the process. But I still think it is the least ugly on a list of even uglier options, and I suspect it is where we will wind up.  The bad news is that it will take another year or two, and countless lives lost, to finally get there.

ATB.

Hook

Think Italy, and yet the Olive munchers there will live as long as the human race ...

What no one seems to want to address is, before the incident, Assad was winning the war, and by more than a little.  Our numbskull-in-chief draws the "red line in the sand"; now who has the incentive to create a chemical incident & draw the US/NATO into the fray?  The side that is winning, or the US-backed rebels that are getting their arses handed to them?  John Kerry is reminding me more and more of Colin Powell before the Iraq mess.

There is no question that something happened, that much is clear.  WESTERN observers have noted some interesting inconsistencies in the images being plastered all over the internet.  For example, in many/most of the pictures, there are only children.  Where are the adults?  The people treating those who have been poisoned are not wearing protective garb, as would be necessary so as not to suffer from the toxin as well.

And recently declassified CIA documents show that the US stood idly by knowing full well Saddam Hussein was preparing to use chemical weapons during the Iran/Iraq war. (And in fact supplied satellite intelligence to him for most effective deployment, thwarting a big Iranian offensive.)  But that was OK I guess, because we were backing him....well, at least in that decade.

And let's not forget that the US government has already once accused the Assad regime of a chemical attack, an accusation that was shown to be false by a UN investigator as the attack was actually launched by the US-backed rebels.

How many additional Syrians (and others in neighboring countries if things get out of hand) have to die so people like Kerry can make their point?

The west clearly bears an indirect (at least) responsibility for the events in Syria. They had plenty of opportunities to curb the the scale of fighting and increase the chance of negotiations between the warring parties by imposing an arm embargo and a complete ban on interference by outsiders (with the exception of humanitarian aid).

Instead, they allowed allies like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar who dream of toppling the Assad regime, to finance, train and arm extremist Sunnis who turned the whole theatre into a vicious sectarian war.

It is not clear today who is responsible for most of the atrocities committed in Syria; the Syrian arm forces or the 150,000 Jihadist roaming the country.

Is Obama hoping that Congress will get him off the hook, rather like Parliament got Cameron off the hook ?

Cheers

Don

IMHO, when the UN weapons inspectors report on who deployed the chemical weapons, and assuming their report provides a very high degree of certainty, then the UN should authorise a punitive/punishment strike against the said perpetrators of that crime. This is not the same as America declaring war on Syria.

And the UN should mandate that strike be carried out jointly by the USA and Russia.

Of course, the Weapons Inspectors report will be less than clear, UN will never mandate such a strike and the Russians have vested interests that prevent them acting impartially.

As i've said before, the UN is past its sell-by date. The moral compass of the world rsets with the West but is clouded by party-politics and corporate greed. And I wouldn't trust the Russians, the Chineese or the Iranians to bring peace and harmony to this planet.

Cheers

Don