Sanity has to start somewhere

Dear Don,

In the UK and the USA [for two notable examples] the general populations have supported interventionist military actions in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya [for some examples] for what they believed were humanitarian reasons.

The trouble is that it only makes any sense to interfere if there is a hope in hell of improving things in the long term, and I don't mean a fifty year military occupation to underpin this.

In Bosnia the result was a success. In the subsequent cases I fear that nothing good may be seen to have come from it.

There is no moral imperative to act if the actions cannot make things better as in Bosnia. Unfortunately politicians have rarely seemed to go into these things with a consideration of the end game. Only in Bosnia was the end clear at the start. Only in Bosnia were these interventions, therefore, morally justified. Other methods should have been tried such as diplomacy, as I suggest above.

It is just possible that in the UK the general population has worked this out quicker than the politicians ...

ATB from George

To which I would add that these people have been fighting for literally centuries, it is not going to stop no matter what anyone does...let alone a country in Israel's back pocket, which is the one thing pretty much all factions of Islam can agree on.

Plus the "humanitarian" angle is just a smokescreen (read: bulls**t) - this is all about extending American hegemony.

(Good)Will Hunting had it right 14 years ago - 2.41 mins of sanity

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8rQNdBmPek

Dear George and Mark,

As I indicated above I am no expert on the UN Charter. However, druing the course of this week I have noticed a general consistency in BBC news reports that makes me wonder if you are right about the UN not inteferring in the internal affairs/geonocide of nations.

I used to trust the BBC news to be reasonably accurate, or at least not deliberately broadcasting porkies. In other words, if Putin says "yes" in Russian, I trust the BBC to translate that as "yes" in English and not mislead us by translating "No". In this repect, I still do trust the BBC.

On this basis, I have noticed the BBC has consistently commented that Russia and its "followers" at the G20 summit have this week said that without UN Security Council approval, any American led attack on Syria would be illegal aggression. The implication that I draw from this is that with UN Security Council approval, such an attack would be acceptable. Now, appart from the fact that no such Security Council approval would ever be forthcomming due to Russian and Chineese vetos, I have re-considered my opinion and reverted to my original view that the UN can sanction intervention in the internal conflicts of a nation, even if this is at variance with the UN Charter.

Whether intervention in the case of Syria would do any good or not, is a separate issue.

Cheers

Don

Dear Don,

I am absolutely no expert on international law or even whether it is possibly acceptable under international law for a country or small alliance of countries to attack another for humanitarian reasons without a UN mandate.

But I am capable of free thought.

It seems to me that Cameron rushed this, just as Blair and Bush rushed the Iraq thing.

I am afraid I do not trust our leaders at all on this. Not Labour, not Liberal, not Tory.

I'd like to see some evidence that was agreed on as being untainted, true, corroborate, and so on. Otherwise I could not be in support of HMG authorising action such as bombing on Syria.

It will only stiffen the resolve of Assad, and bring more people behind him as it will be seen as an attack on Syria and not just Assad's administration. Unless the bombing of military installations was to be so total as to ensure many thousands of civilian deaths, then it cannot possibly pull the fire out of Assad's repressive machinery.

And though it may sound somewhat pathetic, I have to say that I cannot imagine that there any heir apparent regime that might replace Assad if he were overthrown as the result of massive intervention that would be any less bad than what is there now either for Western interests, or the general population..

There is only one way the World can show its disapproval of this regime's actions, and that is via sanctions against arms sales, and other trade, economic sanctions including locking of assets held outside Syria by the individuals who are in government there. Then the pain would be with those who are so wrong, rather than the very blunt instrument of bombardment.  Sanctions and diplomacy over time.

The aim must be to curb the excesses of Assad  rather than replace his regime altogether. Sanctions and diplomacy have worked in other cases, and could work again if the efforts are truly concerted. Bombing Syria will have the reverse effect in the short run and quite probably l;ead to a new and equally odious regime taking over ...

Many are the cases where we deplore the actions of foreign governments, and it seems to me that China, Russia, North Korea,and Zimbabwe are all likely candidates for action in the past, and yet it becomes clear that the West will only act when it perceives its own economic, rather than moral interests are at stake.

It is time for some serious talking behind closed doors with the leaders of China and Russia, so that concerted pressure may be brought on the Assad regime to moderate its repression. Not bomb the country, as this method is not less horrible [innocent people die] than Assad's actions against the same sort of people.

Mr Putin made some ill-advised comment on the UK, and this rather shows that the process of forming a concerted approach will take time and statesmanship on the part of the Western leaders to achieve. That does not mean to say that the effort should not be made, and made exhaustively. Even if it fails, then I still think it is none of our business in the UK to involve ourselves in non-mandated [by the UN, including Russia and China] military adventures in Syria, though without question it is correct for the UK government to make clear its disapproval, and take all possible armament, trade, and financial sanctions possible in the meantime

ATB from George

Cheers

Don

Dear Don,

We seem to agree more than not, but there is one little point I'd like to make if you permit...

Talking to the Russian and Chinese leadership must be softly softly, in total secrecy, as I said, behind closed doors. There could hardly be a more public and unsuitable place to thrash these things out than the G20 summit.

That was never going to be conclusive.

What is certain is that the West alone cannot influence the situation decisively or for the good. It cannot be done without a consensus - however unlikely - that takes in the West and the Russians and Chinese. If it is sorted out, then a Nobel Peace Prize ought to be handed out.

I am incredibly pessimistic about this. And just as certain that the West meddling in Syria without a concerted plan that actually totally involves Russia and China could potentially lead to WW3 without doing any good at all for Syrian people.

ATB from George

"I agree, but the West wasn't proposing regime change, just punishment for a crime."

Horse manure - this is ALL about regime change, just like Iraq, just like Afghanistan, just like Kosovo...

And just like Iran will be next.

Besides, who will punish the USA for its war crimes?

Now the American emperor has decreed through his henchman of state, that he can go in and bomb Syria, even without congressional approval, even without UN and international approval, and even over the wishes of his people.

Shameful.

Shameful indeed. I agree with all you say. 

Sanity at last and problem solved !

Rusian proposal that Syria puts its chemical weapons in the hands of international monitors and then has them destroyed.Seems like Syria has agreed.

No need for an American/French punative strike.

Phew !

Cheers

Don

More importantly, have the Americans agreed to the proposal. I doubt they'll be to chuffed with Putin calling the shots.

If it's in their national interest to bomb Syria, they will.

Just as well that the UK will not be involved in what must now appear empire building rather than a useful contribution to a peaceful outcome.

I hardly expected the Russians to make this eminently sane proposal.

It should be seized with all energy by all civilised countries.

ATB from George

On the face of it, a good proposal that holds out the prospect of avoiding military action.

But I can't help feeling that the timing of the proposal by the Russian foreign minister and the positive response by his Syrian counterpart is a bit too close and suggests it is choerographed. In other words, is this a genuine break-through or it is Russian & Syrian game-playing to further undermine the US position?  If the former, good. If the latter, it's a clever move but the game will go on.  For example, will the US accept Russian assurances that all chemical weapons have been handed over and destroyed/secured or will they want to be satisfied through their own or UN inspections?  

The Amerikans are already backtracking...

The Russians only Mediterranean navel base is in Syria. They are desperate to keep Assad in power.

Or, look at it a different way, it would suit America if an anti Russian regime took over Syria, the Russians only Mediterranean navel base is in Syria.

So nothing to do with the humanitarian aspect then?

I am sure no sane person ever really believed it was ...

But the conflagration that could ensue if the USA attacks Syria could produce results hardly imagined, or easily imaginable ...

It is a like a child with a box of matches in a hay-barn.

ATB from George

Syria is but a stepping stone for the US and Israel on their way to Iran. 

Whoever controls the flow of energy from the Middle East and Central Asia will be the economic superpower of the future. Assad became a problem for the West when he said "No" to a gas pipeline from Qatar through Syria, Turkey, and on to Europe. This project would end the Russian monopoly in supplying gas to Europe. Qatar was so enraged by Assad, that they gave $3Billion in "aid" to anti-Assad fighters.

The US is also trying to maintain the greenback as the only currency of trade in the world oil markets, and recently Iran has been selling it's oil in other currencies. Same thing with the Russians and Chinese. This is an extreme threat to the US economy, so this will eventually lead to "shock and awe" over Tehran.

Lots of tragedy to come it seems. There are some very big hitters with their irons in this fire...

BBM

It could end up making the Cuba Crisis look like a tea-party in comparison.

Much brinkmanship to come methinks ...

ATB from George

Latest version of Obama's war plans for Syria...

 Obama Plans 'Shock and Awe' in Syria | Common Dreams

So much for "just a few missiles".

BBM

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) was renamed the Foreign Policy Initiative (FPI) when Obama became President. Both versions of this neoconservative Zionist think tank were founded by William Kristol and Robert Kagan. These two cnuts and their ilk, have been advocating for regime change in various sovereign ME countries since the mid 90's. Kristol and Kagan are more concerned with the affairs of Israel than of the United States. 

US foreign policy has been strongly influenced by the PNAC and the FPI since Clinton was in office. Now they are pressing for war in Syria, and soon, Iran.

Here's an article Kristol wrote on the FPI website regarding the upcoming vote on Syria in the House of Representatives...

The Right Vote | Foreign Policy Initiative

The point of no return has been crossed and the inertia of the Amerikan war machine will not be stopped by anything. Not even major concessions from Russia and Syria with regard to chemical weapons.

The US/Israel have much grander plans in mind...

BBM

Washington doesn’t merely lack the legal authority for a military intervention in Syria. It lacks the moral authority. We’re talking about a government with a history of using chemical weapons against innocent people far more prolific and deadly than the mere accusations Assad faces from a trigger-happy Western military-industrial complex, bent on stifling further investigation before striking.

1. The U.S. Military Dumped 20 Million Gallons of Chemicals on Vietnam from 1962 – 1971

Vietnam estimates that as a result of the decade-long chemical attack, 400,000 people were killed or maimed, 500,000 babies have been born with birth defects, and 2 million have suffered from cancer or other illnesses.

2. Israel Attacked Palestinian Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2008 – 2009

White phosphorus is a horrific incendiary chemical weapon that melts human flesh right down to the bone.

In 2009, multiple human rights groups, including Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and International Red Cross reported that the Israeli government was attacking civilians in their own country with chemical weapons.

The Israeli military denied the allegations at first, but eventually admitted they were true.

3. Washington Attacked Iraqi Civilians with White Phosphorus in 2004

In 2004, journalists embedded with the U.S. military in Iraq began reporting the use of white phosphorus in Fallujah against Iraqi insurgents. First the military lied and said that it was only using white phosphorus to create smokescreens or illuminate targets. Then it admitted to using the volatile chemical as an incendiary weapon.

4. The CIA Helped Saddam Hussein Massacre Iranians and Kurds with Chemical Weapons in 1988

CIA records now prove that Washington knew Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons (including sarin, nerve gas, and mustard gas) in the Iran-Iraq War, yet continued to pour intelligence into the hands of the Iraqi military, informing Hussein of Iranian troop movements while knowing that he would be using the information to launch chemical attacks.

And a real good (I think) breakdown of the current Obama "War Tour"

http://www.counterpunch.org/20...h-bullshit-on-syria/

Some guys here are trying to paint a distorted picture of Israel like it is interested in toppling Bashar al-Assad and pushing the US to attack Syria.

Few points:

Historically, the Syrian border (during the Assads rule) has always been the quietest border among the four Israel is sharing with its Arab neighbors, including the two countries Israel had signed a peace agreement with (Egypt and Jordan).

Israel was very close to reaching a peace agreement with Assad the father and only a few hundred meters (of where the border should pass after the return of the Golan Height) separated the two side's positions.

There were also serious negotiation taking place with Bashir (mediated by Turkey) before their civil war started.

All chances of a peace agreement will go out of the window with a regime change and if the country splits. I think that most Israelis share my view, preferring a peaceful end to the civil war without any military interference from the outside by anyone and with Syria maintaing its unity despite all its minorities.