if you bomb us shall we not bleed

[Limehouse]

I never used the term 'leftist ilk' that's from the article I quoted.

I'm having a hard time understanding how someone can think they are so knowledgeable and fail to discern something that simple.

Really, stuff like that statement amazes me.

I do not 'think I am so knowledgeable' - I have simply been expressing my opinions. I am sorry if I misquoted you and I beg you to excuse my stupidity.

[Phil H]

When did Americans arrive at the conclusion that a personal crusade must triumph over sovereignty?

We, in this country, have always had these missionary elements who are so far up their own arses they really think they can save the world.

But, the United States? You always had more sense than that.

Someone doesn't know their history! Surely the French and the Spanish intervened on the American side. Indeed, it was they that won the way - at sea.

As for the Syrians having to ask for assistance - who would be their voice pray? Much of the opposition has been crying out for aid for two years?

Who pray would have spoken up for the jews in Germany in the 1940s?

Sorry that argument is just KANT!

CHRIS: what evidence is there that the military action you're advocating (whatever it is) would save any lives at all?

Saving life is only one factor - and if the Syrian regime can be compelled to draw back, lives MAY be Saved - no certainty I agree. BUT there is certainty that lives are being lost every day through Syrian government action - and no option is without consequences.

But there are other factors and the "red line" the message to other countries and regimes is also important.

Phil

[Beowulf]

The point of the other article was to accuse Romney of likely to get us involved in a war in Syria, so you would vote for Obama, who would NEVER do such a thing.

Seems funny that was the Obama team strategy only a little over a year ago when there were no chemical weapons being used to create even a reason for the U.S. to go there.

That to me is suggestive that the Obama team was already considering such a war, without the chemical weapon provocation.

Here is an article that brings up a reason to go in that is far more believable.

The words below are not mine they are from the article and I'm not quoting the entire article, it's long and worth reading.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

"Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern

Massacres of civilians are being exploited for narrow geopolitical competition to control Mideast oil, gas pipelines

On 21 August, hundreds - perhaps over a thousand - people were killed in a chemical weapon attack in Ghouta, Damascus, prompting the US, UK, Israel and France to raise the spectre of military strikes against Bashir al Assad's forces.

The latest episode is merely one more horrific event in a conflict that has increasingly taken on genocidal characteristics. The case for action at first glance is indisputable. The UN now confirms a death toll over 100,000 people, the vast majority of whom have been killed by Assad's troops. An estimated 4.5 million people have been displaced from their homes. International observers have overwhelmingly confirmed Assad's complicity in the preponderance of war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Syrian people. The illegitimacy of his regime, and the legitimacy of the uprising, is clear.

Experts are unanimous that the shocking footage of civilians, including children, suffering the effects of some sort of chemical attack, is real - but remain divided on whether it involved military-grade chemical weapons associated with Assad's arsenal, or were a more amateur concoction potentially linked to the rebels.

Whatever the case, few recall that US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. "The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."...

[Beowulf]

Beowulf, it is a great shame that you use the term 'leftist ilk' because. personally, I think the issue is beyond party politics...

I never used the term 'leftist ilk' that's from the article I quoted.

I'm having a hard time understanding how someone can think they are so knowledgeable and fail to discern something that simple.

Really, stuff like that statement amazes me.

[Fleetwood Mac]

That's life.

No, it's not.

Life is building a family.

What you're doing isn't 'life'. It's convincing yourself you're a virtuous human being who thinks he's saving humanity.

Mate, there have been far greater minds than those who stalk the corridors of Casebook, and they have puzzled over the human condition from morning til night. They haven't found a solution to the world's ills, and by this reckoning I doubt you will.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Barack Obama and the rest of their leftist ilk

Funny, from a British perspective they seem quite to the right.

I suppose the Tea Party is quite a socialist gathering to some US citizens though. (Sarcasm)

Phil

Don't think so.

Contrary to popular conception, the British Conservative Party are to the right of the American democrats.

[Fleetwood Mac]

3. What makes it right for one country to take military action against another?

4. When you have seen the aftermath of combat on women and children after so-called "surgical strikes" come talk to me.

5. Who decides "just war" and on what grounds is a war "just"?

Nail on the head.

It is well documented that the Iraq affair displaced millions of people and left children without mothers.

Also, who are we to judge. You gotta laugh - we can't even get our own house in order. I suppose these grandoise notions of saving the world provide a ray of light in an otherwise mundane existence.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Whatever merits there are in the idea of intervening in Syria, I just don't trust Obama not to make a complete mess of it.

Ginger,

What happened to the United States?

When did Americans arrive at the conclusion that a personal crusade must triumph over sovereignty?

We, in this country, have always had these missionary elements who are so far up their own arses they really think they can save the world.

But, the United States? You always had more sense than that. Where did it all go wrong?

[Fleetwood Mac]

So in the interests of humanity we do nothing?

Phil H,

Surely you must be tired of attempting to galvanise your left-wing cohorts into saving the world by means of empty rhetoric?

No man, nor beast, has ever dedicated so many words to an utterly pointless notion.

[crberger]

"And if you think China and Russia forces for good - pull the other one. They are acting out of self interest."
Everyone acts out of self-interest; especially the manufacturers of drones and missiles.

The good guys also commit atrocities, so please don't bring tell me that there is a good side or a bad side. Did you miss the photos of rebels executing soldiers?

Since you brought up WWII, I suggest you look at the evidence of the Katyn Forest, that was an ALLIED atrocity and let's not forget Yezhovshchina '37-38.

This is an internal matter, Syrians have a right to ASK for help, but not to have some western bully decide the matter.

[Chris]

You can't make an omlette without breaking eggs! Cliche's apart, aren't people already dying because of the poison gas? the shelling? The air strikes? As i observed earlier, in my book if a thousand have to die that 100,000 live that is not an unreasonable calculation in my book.

Since you won't answer, I can only keep asking - what evidence is there that the military action you're advocating (whatever it is) would save any lives at all?

[Phil H]

Barack Obama and the rest of their leftist ilk

Funny, from a British perspective they seem quite to the right.

I suppose the Tea Party is quite a socialist gathering to some US citizens though. (Sarcasm)

Phil

[Phil H]

PATHETIC!!!

Do we have all the facts? pretty much. probably as much as we'll ever get.

How do we protect the noncombatants? Why care! Kill 'em all! (Sarcasm) More properly - you cannot wholly but you can try. Is Assad protecting them against his admitted conventional strikes?

What makes it right for one country to take military action against another?

Well have a look at WWII - Pearl Harbor? Consistent belligerence by Germany 1936ish to 1939? Not a causus belli - but would the Holocaust have been a just reason?

Just suggestions.

When you have seen the aftermath of combat on women and children after so-called "surgical strikes" come talk to me.

You can't make an omlette without breaking eggs! Cliche's apart, aren't people already dying because of the poison gas? the shelling? The air strikes? As i observed earlier, in my book if a thousand have to die that 100,000 live that is not an unreasonable calculation in my book.

Who decides "just war" and on what grounds is a war "just"?

these days usually the UN (Security Council). the question is, what happens when you get a blockage at the UN?

And if you think China and Russia forces for good - pull the other one. They are acting out of self interest.

Sorry I am not weeping - I feel angry. there are no easy solutions so you have to consider the difficult complex ones. That's life.

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Clutching a viper to the bosom...or coming up with fleas?

Since pragmatism has been raised...

I did read that a good many of the Syrian rebels are in fact allied to Islamic terrorist groups...an irony the US government might wish to seriously consider before commiting to military action...are there not parallels here to Persia as was, the Shah and the current regime?

John Kerry rationalises in the New York Times that only 15 to 20% of the rebels are "baddies"...From where, I wonder, does he pluck his statistics? And of what relevance are they anyhow...

If he needs to pluck a real parallel from history he could try the rebels the Nazis faced in occupied Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece and Italy during WWll...the allies gratefully funded them all, and a perhaps 15% to 20% minority of the truly active groups were communist...yet it was largely these groups who tucked away their arms and garnered their resources so effectively for the post war period...and then quietly attempted to slaughter their rivals, the majority, who'd actually been doing the fighting...

If the US (or any other) government wishes to be truly pragmatic, I'd respectfully suggest they butt out...

There may or may not be very good reasons for intervention in Syria...I couldn't, (or wouldn't) say, but please...don't let's start quoting a form of pragmatism that has no historic basis...

All the best

Dave

[crberger]

1. Do we have all the facts?

2. How do we protect the noncombatants?

3. What makes it right for one country to take military action against another?

4. When you have seen the aftermath of combat on women and children after so-called "surgical strikes" come talk to me.

5. Who decides "just war" and on what grounds is a war "just"?