Syrian civil war.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I definitely am not in favor of intervening, despite the chemical weapons shenanigans. Here's a few reasons why. 1. More people die in car accidents than chemical weapons attacks every day. 2. Weapons are weapons. The difference between a Death Star and a Stanley knife is purely one of scale of destruction caused. Considering that only a hundred or so people died I wouldn't take Assad's? attack seriously. 3. The people involved, and dying, are not us. They are warring tribes with no economic connections to us. They are them. The rebels aren't begging for assistance and swearing allegiance to the stars and stripes or the union jack. This is their war, not ours. Even if they have employed nasty weapons to fight it, they are fighting among themselves.

 

Arguments in favor would be the formerly stated 'healthy fear of America' argument and the refugee crisis and civilian deaths. Yes I am aware the chem attack killed civilians, but probably plenty of civs die in regular attacks, so the nature of the weapon does not concern me so much. The fact that civs are dying and being made homeless etc is far more concerning to me, as this makes the country unstable. The world has enough problems in peacetime without needing the side effects of war as well. And a fair few of the combatants are probably not happy there has to be a war either. 

 

The upshot of my thoughts is that until the ramifications of the war break Syrian borders into our world (and aside from the refugee crisis that hasn't happened yet) I would not intervene or get entangled in this mess. However naturally the father of Earth, America and it's Western allies, must preach what they feel right to, and I see no reason why we should not at least admonish any foolishness by these savage tribes with words, if not actions.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Now, according to the authority on the subject, Niccolo Machiavelli, option two is the favourable one, to a certain degree. You'll want to be dreaded, but you should never be so cruel as to anger your opponents instead of subduing them. The US could be seen as weak and/or uncaring, or triggerhappy imperialists travelling to the Middle East to crush yet another country disagreeing with their politics. Either way is going to scrape the US' reputation, but it's more practical if potential future enemies believe them strong and willing to attack, than weak and unable to follow up on their words.

 

If anything, I'd hope for a limited strike. A stern warning making loud noises, perhaps denting Assad's capabilities to a certain degree, but not enough to turn the tide of the war. The intended message goes along the lines of "Don't do that again, or we'll send more of these". Syria isn't Libya, they field an impressive anti-air force, and has a completely different demographic and geography than Libya. There isn't a favourable alternative to Assad there either, so toppling him outright would support the cause of people we've spent the past decade fighting and denouncing. Though, the use of chemical weapons should not go unpunished, no matter who does it against who. The world, or at least the western world, expect the US to follow up their statements and slap Assad on the wrist. If not, France might take up the task instead. They did well enough in Mali.

The author on that subject was a medieval scribe hoping to get back in favor with the ruling elite of Florance. Most of the things he said no longer apply to the modern world. 

 

For example, the idea that to be feared is better than to appear weak. Perhaps. But to be feared has grave political consequences. The US is already unpopular in the Middle East, which makes it extremely difficult for them to effectively operate and defend their interests in the Middle East. Going for the option that only makes you more feared is only going to make that worse. Furthermore, if the US once again goes at it without approval of the UN security council, they will not only get 'feared', but they will also get the reputation as America as some rogue cowboy who does whatever it pleases, and only uses international cooperation whenever it suits them. It will cause political isolation and in the long run will only weaken their political position. 

 

More importantly, a strike will do zero damage. The US has lost every element of surprise, they have given Assad the time to move and hide everything that he finds important for the survival of his regime, and as a result, when the bombs come falling, all they will do is damage already empty buildings. Just like in Iraq, when the US finally started its offensive, it hit almost nothing, because they were dumb enough to tell the exact date and time of when they would strike. So what happens? Not only does the whole fear thingy not really work out, because well, all the US really did was create a spectacular light show, at the same time the US does get its reputation for going to war without the approval of the international community, further isolating themselves. 

 

It is time the US stops giving a damn about what insignificant backwater countries do or do not do, and starts giving a damn about the countries that actually matter on the world stage. I mean, is a place like Syria really worth spending your political capital on? Or do you save it and use it for when you actually need something done in a country that actually matters in a far more direct way to your own interests. Syria is only worth your trouble once it starts gassing other countries. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

UN Inspectors depart.

 

The U.S. knows exactly where the gas weapons are warehoused.  An adroit strike to remove all such capabilities would do the trick.

 

Assad was told not to do that, so now we take away his lollipop.

 

Vlad I demands proof before the UN.

 

The Tzar of all the Russias demands the U.S. put its cards on the table.

[Cobraroll 138]

UN Inspectors depart.

 

The U.S. knows exactly where the gas weapons are warehoused.  An adroit strike to remove all such capabilities would do the trick.

 

Assad was told not to do that, so now we take away his lollipop.

 

Thing is, the chemical weapons are scattered in locations all across the country, many of them in bunkers deep underground. It would take a massive military operation and intense bombing of several facilities to destroy them, and even then they would probably miss a few grenades. Remember that the delivery systems of such weapons are quite ordinary artillery guns and rocket ramps. If the ammunition stays intact, so does the capability for it to be used.

 

Besides, bombing the sites would likely release a great deal of chemicals into the air. This is not optimal in the areas where the facilities are located near populated areas. Most of the gases are dual-components or more (meaning chemicals will have to be mixed immediately before use to be of any great danger), but any accidental mixing of those components (such as the bombing ot a storage facility) would still release various amounts of potent chemical weapons.

 

 

I still think that somebody needs to slap Assad - or whoever the perpetrator is - on the wrist for using chemical weapons, though. This war must not be allowed to create presedence for use of chemical weapons. If the world, by lack of action in Syria, signals that nothing will happen to whoever uses such weapons, what will happen the next time there is a rebellion? The next dictator, whoever that may be, might as well decide to gas the rebel bastions from the get-go, to minimize own losses and damage to infrastructure. Then he can send conventional forces in later to mop up whatever resistance remains, and thus end the rebellion swiftly and mercilessly. A few thousand civilians might die, but the "it was the work of the rebels, to trigger a foreign intervention" excuse will surely work again.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

Vlad I demands proof before the UN.

 

The Tzar of all the Russias demands the U.S. put its cards on the table.

 

Damn right. In fact Russia has been one of the few voices of reason, the US is jumping to conclusions and MSM is just lapping it up. Strange though that this article is not being mentioned by the MSM...

 

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

 

Also one of the authors of the article, Dale Gavlak, is a journalist who has resided in, and reported from, the Middle East for many years now. Plus she once worked for the BBC.

[LexusInfernus 908]

I still think that somebody needs to slap Assad - or whoever the perpetrator is - on the wrist for using chemical weapons, though. This war must not be allowed to create presedence for use of chemical weapons. If the world, by lack of action in Syria, signals that nothing will happen to whoever uses such weapons, what will happen the next time there is a rebellion? The next dictator, whoever that may be, might as well decide to gas the rebel bastions from the get-go, to minimize own losses and damage to infrastructure. Then he can send conventional forces in later to mop up whatever resistance remains, and thus end the rebellion swiftly and mercilessly. A few thousand civilians might die, but the "it was the work of the rebels, to trigger a foreign intervention" excuse will surely work again.

 

Well why is that a bad thing? Why is it okay for Assad to shoot people with regular bombs, but wrong to kill them with gas bombs? The end result is still dead people. And actually, if it helps him crush a rebellion quicker, isn't that better? It means things can go back to normal quicker. Of course, one could drag on the rebellion by restricting themselves to only conventional weapons, but that only means you extend the period of suffering. People will still die, possibly even more because the war goes on much longer, and a lot more private property gets destroyed as well. 

 

Besides, our approach to chemical weapons is mixed anyways. We never cared when Saddam gassed all those Kurds. Or when he was gassing all those Iranians. In fact, we actively supported him when he was gassing Iran. Not to mention the use of chemical agents by the US in Vietnam. Destroyed about 1/7th of Vietnam's foliage with Agent Orange, and later also used Agent Orange to poison crops. So really, the message we are trying to send here is that chemical weapons are totally fine as long as you are using them on people the US doesn't like. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Obama has to say "Please."

 

So off this goes to the very dysfunctional congress.  But not until at least September 9th.  Perhaps cooler heads (if any) can prevail here.  There are certainly enough war hawks in congress, but will the doves be able to sit on them?

 

One of the best ways to slap Assad might be to just quietly disappear about half his cabinet.  It should be possible to make it clear to him that he is not safe behind his mythical security screen.  Or maybe one could deliver a horse's head to his bedroom.  A canister of Sarin would be a nice present for his dressing table.

[katherman111 182]

So, Obama is going to rely on support coming from the senate and the house of representatives. Well I suppose he's going to take a nosedive just like Cameron. And for the first time in a long time it might be quite good he goes down with one of his plans (this one). Otherwise he's just going to be the democrat equivalent of George W. Bush.

 

Attacking the gouvernment forces will result in new gains for the rebels. Which is good if those gains are for the Free Syrian Army or any other secular democratic movement. But these gains will probably go to radical groups like the Al-Nusra Front or even Al-Qaida. Which will result in a rising islamic extremism in the region. And because these guys REALLY hate the West and their principles, don't be suprised when you see something like airplanes crashing in office towers and killing thousands of innocent mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, friends and family members. Remember Afghanistan ('79 - '96) and the origin of Al-Qaida

 

In 1966, Belgian artist "Boudewijn de Groot" (Litteral translation: Baudouin The Great) wrote a protest song titled "Welterusten Meneer de President" (Litteral translation: Good Night Mister President) in which he protested against the war in Vietnam and exactly all the responsibility US President Lyndon B. Johnson had to carry. 

 

The lyrics of the song translated to English:

 

Mister President, Good night

Sleep quietly in your beautiful white house

Don't think too much about all those distant shores

Were your boys are lonely far from home

 

Don't think about those 46 deaths

That mistake with that bombardment

And forget the fourth (the singer made a mistake, it had to be the sixth) of the ten commandments

You definitely know as a good christian

 

Do not think about all those young front soldiers

Lonely dying in the distant tropical night

Let that pale pacifict clique talk

Mister president, good night

 

Dream about the conquest, about the victory

Dream about your beautiful peace ideal

That has never been obtained by bloody murders

Dream that it will work out this time

 

Don't look at all those people who perish

How many women, how many children have been killed

Dream that you will draw the longer straw

And believe no word from the opposition

 

Bajonets with bloody hilts

Keep far from here guard at your command

For the glory and the honour of the Free West

mister president, good night

 

Don't scare too bad, when you see in your dreams

All those innocent victims

Yonder in the battle were killed

And ask you how long this will go on

 

And you will surely know by this time

That there are people who are sick of the violence

Who haven't forgot the blood and misery

And for those were a life still counts

 

Dream not too much about all those dead people

Sweet Dreams about conquest and power

Do not think about all those peace wishes

Mister President, good night

 

Now this may seem a bit of a silly song in some of your ears. think about it and read the lyrics carefully. See how much this song actually resembles to the leaders of the countries involved (or about to getting involved) in the Syria Conflict, in fact not just in the Syria conflict. But more as in all conflicts and wars and bloodshed ever to be foughten on our planet. Commanded by people far away in bunkers, palaces, castles, longhouses or caves, by those who never carried a gun, rifle, sword, bow or stone. Those who can easily speak of peaceful and bloodless victory, but as always do the opposite. Those who command to choke hundreds, thousand of people, doesn't matter if they're friendly or enemy, to death. While they breath the most finest perfume and the most pure oxygen, far away in their exquisite fallout shelters. Power is a horrible thing which transforms our planet into a horrible world, but without anyone having power we would live in a horrible world too. Just horrible in a different way. I wish we would live in a world as John Lennon describes in "Imagine". But it would be utter utter foolishness to actually believe that this is going to happen.

 

 

 

Why have we made it all so difficult for us?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Without a UN mandate any action against Syria is illegal.

 

In the eyes of the world, Obama would be just as bad as Assad.

 

I didn't think that John Kerry was a war hawk.

 

Secretary of state 'wants' a military attack?  What does that say about Obama?  Once you get the taste of blood ...

[AkemiAzula 280]

I'd rather roads and railways stayed intact. Gas seems a more civilized method if anything. I really don't see the logic in saying guns and knives are more 'humane' than chemicals, which are cleaner and leave useful infrastructure like railways intact. Buildings are not like people. You can not just grow a new one. 

[Cobraroll 138]

^The thing is, chemical weapons are classed as weapons of mass destruction. They kill indiscriminately, soldiers and civilians alike, without having to be targeted at them. If the wind blows in an unexpected direction, the damage will spread unexpectedly. Chemical weapons aren't like bombs or bullets, that go off and get done with it. Once the canister detonates, the affected areas may be dangerous for days, even weeks if the air is sufficiently still (like in basements). The same property that caused bans on cluster muntions or land mines.

 

Not to mention the quite horrible ways they kill. Though, the same can be said about many other weapons, depending on how the victim was hit.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The usual effect of war gas is suffocation.  It is indiscriminate and kills all life in the area.  In my book of absolute no-nos this ranks only just below using a biological agent like weaponized small pox.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Ideally we could invent a weapon that could in a clean manner destroy selected units. Some electric method based on smartphones... and user id. Hmm. If a government like Assad detected rebel activity in the force they could activate the antirebel machine and it would send out a death signal to the rebels devices, causing them to be cooked to death by microwave bombs.

 

Sorry but one of my favourite pastimes is thinking of ingenious solutions to logistical issues. Anyway it's good to see that common sense has so far kept us back from attacking Syria. As to how this will end I can't see the future very well. There is too much conflict (no pun intended) in this situation... However the pseudo-precedents would predict that if we don't attack Assad he should eventually crush the rebellion.

 

It is at that point that we need to step up diplomatic efforts to keep his regime in line with Western ideals and keep down the Muslim enemies of reason from replacing secularism. 

[LexusInfernus 908]

^The thing is, chemical weapons are classed as weapons of mass destruction. They kill indiscriminately, soldiers and civilians alike, without having to be targeted at them. If the wind blows in an unexpected direction, the damage will spread unexpectedly. Chemical weapons aren't like bombs or bullets, that go off and get done with it. Once the canister detonates, the affected areas may be dangerous for days, even weeks if the air is sufficiently still (like in basements). The same property that caused bans on cluster muntions or land mines.

 

Not to mention the quite horrible ways they kill. Though, the same can be said about many other weapons, depending on how the victim was hit.

Every weapon kills indiscriminately. Its the person pointing the weapon that tries to decide whether his weapon is going to kill a soldier or a civilian. Also, not all ordnance detonates nicely once they hit their intended target. A bombed out area hit by artillery shells or bombs dropped by airstrikes is also a dangerous area to walk around as it could be full with explosives that didn't go off properly. 

 

As for gas as a WMD. Well yeah, it is a lot more potent than regular weapons. But why do we only care about Assad when he uses more potent weapons but let him go about when he orders an artillery strike on a defiant neighborhood? Sure, it takes more shells to kill the same amount of people, but why is it okay to drop artillery shells and kill 1400 people, but wrong to drop a few gas canisters and kill 1400 people? And say you do take out Assads ability to use gas, he will just go back to blasting rebels with high explosive artillery shells, is that really such an improvement? 

 

Face it, these people are dead either way. Either he gasses them and if he can't do that he will drop high explosive shells in their neighborhood, which will just as surely kill them. And if they manage to survive that, they had the bad luck of living in an area controlled by protesters so you can be sure the Syrian secret police will pay the people there a little visit. And in case Assad loses, well then the war will simply rage on as its suddenly between Al Queda and every other rebel group, as well as fighting between clans on who is going to be the top dictator this time. 

[Easy Bakes 253]

 

^The thing is, chemical weapons are classed as weapons of mass destruction. They kill indiscriminately, soldiers and civilians alike, without having to be targeted at them. If the wind blows in an unexpected direction, the damage will spread unexpectedly. Chemical weapons aren't like bombs or bullets, that go off and get done with it. Once the canister detonates, the affected areas may be dangerous for days, even weeks if the air is sufficiently still (like in basements). The same property that caused bans on cluster muntions or land mines.

 

Not to mention the quite horrible ways they kill. Though, the same can be said about many other weapons, depending on how the victim was hit.

Every weapon kills indiscriminately. Its the person pointing the weapon that tries to decide whether his weapon is going to kill a soldier or a civilian. Also, not all ordnance detonates nicely once they hit their intended target. A bombed out area hit by artillery shells or bombs dropped by airstrikes is also a dangerous area to walk around as it could be full with explosives that didn't go off properly. 

 

As for gas as a WMD. Well yeah, it is a lot more potent than regular weapons. But why do we only care about Assad when he uses more potent weapons but let him go about when he orders an artillery strike on a defiant neighborhood? Sure, it takes more shells to kill the same amount of people, but why is it okay to drop artillery shells and kill 1400 people, but wrong to drop a few gas canisters and kill 1400 people? And say you do take out Assads ability to use gas, he will just go back to blasting rebels with high explosive artillery shells, is that really such an improvement? 

 

Face it, these people are dead either way. Either he gasses them and if he can't do that he will drop high explosive shells in their neighborhood, which will just as surely kill them. And if they manage to survive that, they had the bad luck of living in an area controlled by protesters so you can be sure the Syrian secret police will pay the people there a little visit. And in case Assad loses, well then the war will simply rage on as its suddenly between Al Queda and every other rebel group, as well as fighting between clans on who is going to be the top dictator this time. 

 

how bout we just stop killing each other?

or it that just too radical?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Syria asks UN to put brakes on US.

 

Yes, Syria is a member of the UN.  This is reminiscent of Haile Selassie at the League of Nations, another useless debating society. 

 

{rant}

Perhaps the UN needs to be renewed.  When members want to attack each other, and when they actually do, what can the UN do?  It is probably time for a new look.  How about a permanent UN Police Force.  To fund it, they can sell that crumbling palace in New York.

 

UNPF must have the peacekeeping mandate.  It should be fully armed, and with a mandate to shoot back if shot at.  This authority must lie with the local commander on the ground, not with the yappers back at headquarters.

 

If the UNPF had existed, the Syrian thing would not have gone very far.  Civil unrest should be the specialty of some segment of the UNPF.  Once weapons of war are used, the UNPF should step in, holus bolus.  Seems the nations of the world are unable to police themselves.

 

Cadre can either be drawn from available volunteer assignments from members or from the mercenary forces currently unemployed around the world.  Very strong security and personality checks must be made here.  Killers who delight in it must not be welcome.

 

Cadre should come from local population.  In fact, a kind of permanent force presence should be kept in all member states including (especially) the five permanent members of the security council.  Because this cadre would be extra-national, it is important that they be as apolitical as possible.

 

Full cooperation/communication with other UN agencies must be maintained, especially UNHCR.  Refugee evacuations need to be eliminated if at all possible.  People must not be frightened out of their homes by armed criminals.

{/rant}

 

French MPs to see evidence.

 

It would behove Obama to open the kimono for congress as well.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Why not just have a single world government and put aside all these archaic nationalistic notions... After all if two Americans can be as poles apart as say a liberal Macintosh user and a PC using white supremacist, why can't the world be governed by one unified council of elected statesmen?

 

The principle is the same as on a smaller scale. Greatest happiness of the greatest lot. Boringly easy to achieve, actually, when the right infrastructure is in place.

 

That'd end 'wars' proper. Then all incidents could be dealt with in the same manner as terrorism, local incidents.

[LexusInfernus 908]

{rant}

Perhaps the UN needs to be renewed.  When members want to attack each other, and when they actually do, what can the UN do?  It is probably time for a new look.  How about a permanent UN Police Force.  To fund it, they can sell that crumbling palace in New York.

 

UNPF must have the peacekeeping mandate.  It should be fully armed, and with a mandate to shoot back if shot at.  This authority must lie with the local commander on the ground, not with the yappers back at headquarters.

 

If the UNPF had existed, the Syrian thing would not have gone very far.  Civil unrest should be the specialty of some segment of the UNPF.  Once weapons of war are used, the UNPF should step in, holus bolus.  Seems the nations of the world are unable to police themselves.

 

Cadre can either be drawn from available volunteer assignments from members or from the mercenary forces currently unemployed around the world.  Very strong security and personality checks must be made here.  Killers who delight in it must not be welcome.

 

Cadre should come from local population.  In fact, a kind of permanent force presence should be kept in all member states including (especially) the five permanent members of the security council.  Because this cadre would be extra-national, it is important that they be as apolitical as possible.

 

Full cooperation/communication with other UN agencies must be maintained, especially UNHCR.  Refugee evacuations need to be eliminated if at all possible.  People must not be frightened out of their homes by armed criminals.

{/rant}

Aside from it being a blatant violation of UN articles as well as state sovereignty, I don't think anyone will be willing to cough up the billions, no wait, trillions, such a force would require on an annual basis. Selling that building in New York would certainly not cut it. 

 

Besides, member states are pretty good at policing themselves. What Assad is doing is just that, policing his own country. But yeah, its kinda hard to avoid open warfare when the people you are trying to police have access to assault rifles, RPG's and other explosive materials. 

 

Also, volunteers? Mercs? Hah, then you get those Blackwater PMC's. Because they are reliable. That aside, as apolitical such a force would be, how do you think Arabs would react to Americans on the ground, even if they are part of a UN taskforce? Yeah right, throwing the UN in like that would only be adding oil to a fire. 

 

Really the UN should never have its own permanent military. At least not while its organized the way it is organized. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Op. Ed. Piece by CBC's Brian Stewart.

 

If global communications were not so good, say at the level of 1940, this kerfuffle in Syria wouldn't even make the front page.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

UN Secretary General's statement.

[snick25 384]

It is time the US stops giving a damn about what insignificant backwater countries do or do not do, and starts giving a damn about the countries that actually matter on the world stage. I mean, is a place like Syria really worth spending your political capital on? Or do you save it and use it for when you actually need something done in a country that actually matters in a far more direct way to your own interests. Syria is only worth your trouble once it starts gassing other countries. 

 

 

Neville Chamberlain would be proud. I recall him saying something along those lines about Czechoslovakia in 1938...

 

 

In any case, the UN has once again proved itself as an irrelevant organization that does little to punish inhumane violations of international law. It needs to get rid of or change the structure of the security council, or it's all but useless.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Neville Chamberlain would be proud. I recall him saying something along those lines about Czechoslovakia in 1938...

 

 

In any case, the UN has once again proved itself as an irrelevant organization that does little to punish inhumane violations of international law. It needs to get rid of or change the structure of the security council, or it's all but useless.

 

Bad comparison really. Czechoslovakia was being absorbed by Germany, aka a country that matters. If Syria was getting invaded by say...Iran, then it would be completely different and it would be required for the US to step in. But little civil wars? Even when funded by outside parties? Irrelevant. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ While I tend to agree that the west has no business here, neither do the Russians nor the Chinese.  Current analysis indicates that France is ready to go with this, but then that is the country in which war gases were first used against it.

 

From a humanitarian point of view, Assad has needed a boot in the rear for a couple of years now.  Why should further atrocities cause so much excitement?  Gas 1000 people?  What about the other 99,000 dead in the last two years of conflict?  What about the destruction from the air by Assad's air force, of the vital infrastructure like hospitals?

 

The Russians are saying, rightly perhaps, that any evidence of gas deployment on the part of Assad has to be incontrovertible.  I think they are right in that.  Assad may not have known in advance that this was going to happen.  It would make sense if he were to execute a sacrificial general or two and claim innocence.  Assad still has widespread support among the people remaining in Syria, so what possible slap can be administered without simply cranking up the hate America factions?

 

Stay home, Mr. Obama.  Close your eyes again, like they have been for the last two years.  Your so-called intelligence operations have sunk presidents in the past and those idiots will do you in, even if you are a kind of lame duck. 

 

I am becoming totally sick of the sycophantic press in the west, by the way.

 

BBC take on this situation

 

The question is:  Once you have committed and act of war, how do you stop short of surrender?  External military action of any kind is an act of war between nations.  Do it, and Assad has a perfect excuse to declare war on the perpetrators and ask the UN to help repel them. 

 

The whole powder keg of the middle east could explode into a general conflict which could eventually encompass the entire world.  The Americans need to think that there is no such thing as a small amount of war.  It is the same a committing a little suicide.

 

Remember, America, after Hubris comes Nemesis.  If you guys cause WW III with this nonsense, whatever is left afterwards will hate your guts.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I think everyone should not be involved in Syria militarily beside, well, Syrians. However Russia and China I believe have interests of some description in the country of a non military form. 

 

I still think we should hold back from any form of actual military action. If you want to scold Assad for using gas (and consider Moose's statement about him blowing up hospitals from the air before you jump on that bandwagon) then 1. you need pretty darn good evidence he was the perpetrator and 2. you need to find a way of deterring future actions without actually starting a war proper.

 

We do not need another Iraq. 

 

Personally I'd continue diplomatic efforts. Compare me to Chamberlain if you will but I really doubt any good will come of getting involved in this mess.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Mark, wasn't it you that said Nobel Peace Prize winner Barracks O'Bomber wasn't going to take the US to war in Syria? Didn't you pooh-pooh my assertion to that only a couple of months ago? Now he even says he doesn't need UN backing. Funny, Bush never did that; he obtained UN approval for both Iraq and Afghanistan. Those WMDs we couldn't find in Iraq? The intel at the time said they went to Syria. Interesting how that is suddenly relevant again. Then there's the Syrian rebels taking credit for the whole chemical attack thing...

 

As an American and a patriot, I say anyone and everyone in office currently beating the drums of war need to be impeached and possibly imprisoned. Like, last week. Hard labor wouldn't be off the table, IMO.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Am I the only one that sees hypocrisy in that the US is planning to intervene because of chemical attacks, the same US notable for the use of Agent Orange in the Vietnam War?

[AkemiAzula 280]

ROFLyoshi raises an excellent point, one which I didn't fully think about, but which now presented here seems quite important. The US is speaking of punishing Syria for their use of chemical weapons, yet they themselves have used them in the past. Still times have changed since Vietnam. 

 

I still don't think Obama will go ahead by himself although if France or some other nations back him properly then he might. But it would be highly risky to his popularity. 

[LexusInfernus 908]

Mark, wasn't it you that said Nobel Peace Prize winner Barracks O'Bomber wasn't going to take the US to war in Syria? Didn't you pooh-pooh my assertion to that only a couple of months ago? Now he even says he doesn't need UN backing. Funny, Bush never did that; he obtained UN approval for both Iraq and Afghanistan. Those WMDs we couldn't find in Iraq? The intel at the time said they went to Syria. Interesting how that is suddenly relevant again. Then there's the Syrian rebels taking credit for the whole chemical attack thing...

 

As an American and a patriot, I say anyone and everyone in office currently beating the drums of war need to be impeached and possibly imprisoned. Like, last week. Hard labor wouldn't be off the table, IMO.

I think that was me. And great, I was wrong, I expected the US to play this smart. Good lesson for next time, always bet the US to play it like idiots. 

 

And please, the US did not get UN approval for Iraq. Nor did those WMD's exist. Colin Powell was lying the whole time to the UN. Hell, the 'source' of this intel turned out to be an Iraqi defector who got his ticket out of the country by telling everyone what they wanted to hear and some college student's paper. 

[Cobraroll 138]

^I think I read somewhere that Saddam boasted to have WMDs, to scare off his arch enemy Iran (which arguably has had an even rougher history with Iraq than the US did). He trusted the US to know he didn't really have them, but never stated so outright either. If he could make the Iranians believe that Iraq had WMDs, he could press them politically, or at least force them to think twice before attacking Iraq. Fake clues and hints of evidence were spread to fool the Iranian foreign intelligence. Too bad the US picked them up too, and chose to believe they were legit. Perhaps many people in the CIA knew it was a bluff, but they would have plenty of believeable evidence to show their politicians if they decided to go for the "he totally has nukes" story.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Iran+Iraq = pre-WW I Persia.  The divide is rather silly considering climate has made both into more desert than anything.  However, returning to the Obama dilemma:  Let's not forget he doesn't have to popular any more, he can't stand for re-election.

 

The Americans and the French need to cool it.  All belligerence will get them is yet more heaps of rubble.