if you bomb us shall we not bleed

[Errata]

I think that's a good enough foreign policy move for me Now, hopefully the guy in charge will come to that conclusion.

Bomb, don't bomb, it all gets scrubbed in a few years. Syria is damnably hard to hold onto. So if we want to try and take out their chemical weapons capacity, sure it might give the other side the edge. Or if both sides are doing it it will probably come out a wash. We might not get the government we want over there, but we will have saved people, sent a message that this will not be tolerated, and whatever else happens... this too shall pass.

[Beowulf]

...if we don't like how it turns out wait five years. It will change. This isn't Saudi Arabia where governments stick around for a ridiculous amount of time. It's Syria. It's entirely possible that whoever wins won't even have enough time to unpack before the next revolution comes around.

I think that's a good enough foreign policy move for me Now, hopefully the guy in charge will come to that conclusion.

[Errata]

Off the idea it's all about oil, (I admit it's an unfounded suspicion) on the other hand we need to know how this escalation is likely to influence extremist radical fighters active in Syria, not overly concerned with limited demonstrations of US power.

What will Hezbollah and Hamas and al-Qaida-affiliated fighters do when our show of force is over?…

Will an attack intended to slap Assad’s wrists while defending Obama’s credibility make expansion of the conflict more or less likely?

And most importantly, the president must explain more thoroughly exactly how America’s national security interests would be served.

Completely fair questions. And important ones. But here is my view. It may be fatalistic, but what will come will come. Syria has been unstable for 100 years, and I don't see anything changing that. If I had to choose which terrorist group to support, I'd go with Hamas as a US citizen, because they don't have much to do with us. On the other hand, if Hezbollah takes over, that would mean an eventual war between Syria and Israel, one that Israel would win, and that might take care of some of the nastier elements in Syria.

But I'm not a fan of nation making. I think we have proved quite thoroughly that it doesn't work. It doesn't work in a spectacular fashion. I'm content with Syria sorting itself out without intervention, because in 20 years they will be right back in a civil war, and everything will change again. Which would also be the case if we backed some government or another. Syria is an Etch-a-Sketch. Even a masterpiece doesn't stay for long. From a US perspective, there is no good winner. And even if there was, it will be overthrown in the next decade or two. So I don't see the point in choosing sides and altering the balance.

But you don't get to gas people. That requires immediate and exacting justice. We have already seen how if we let one country get away with it, other countries will start doing it. And maybe people don't care so far away, but it's not like Mexico is stable, or even remotely in control, so when they start gassing people in Mexico, and people in Texas and California start getting sick or dropping dead, we are in a poor position to object if we didn't object the 20 times it happened previously. Staying on the moral high ground has the advantage that if we need the high ground, we're already there. We don't have to slog up that mountain in a time of need.

Stop the gassing. And let the chips fall where they may. First of all they will anyway, and secondly if we don't like how it turns out wait five years. It will change. This isn't Saudi Arabia where governments stick around for a ridiculous amount of time. It's Syria. It's entirely possible that whoever wins won't even have enough time to unpack before the next revolution comes around.

[Beowulf]

Off the idea it's all about oil, (I admit it's an unfounded suspicion) on the other hand we need to know how this escalation is likely to influence extremist radical fighters active in Syria, not overly concerned with limited demonstrations of US power.

What will Hezbollah and Hamas and al-Qaida-affiliated fighters do when our show of force is over?…

Will an attack intended to slap Assad’s wrists while defending Obama’s credibility make expansion of the conflict more or less likely?

And most importantly, the president must explain more thoroughly exactly how America’s national security interests would be served.

[Errata]

[QUOTE=Beowulf;274398]

...Syria is in a peculiar position where they have so much nothing, more nothing from us would go unnoticed... QUOTE]

Nothing but oil you mean.


"...the Damascus regime still controls one of the largest conventional hydrocarbon resources in the eastern Mediterranean....

Syria possessed 2.5 billion barrels of crude oil as of January 2013, which makes it the largest proved reserve of crude oil in the eastern Mediterranean according to the Oil & Gas Journal estimate, besides Iraq....

Russia, the chief backer of the Assad regime, is the only remaining international partner still helping develop Syria’s oil and gas resources in the past year."

True enough, but a: None of that makes it's way down to the common people of Syria and b: Russia pays for a lot of that in trade. Weapons mostly. And only Russia buys from them, so Russia is setting the value of the oil, not Syria. Syria has the resources to be a moderately wealthy nation (their location makes it unlikely that they would be hugely rich) but they've been screwing it up for 100 years. Syria as a nation has a huge crude reserve. Syria as a population is very poor. Which probably has a lot to do with the whole revolution thing. It usually does.

[Beowulf]

[QUOTE=Errata;274370]...Syria is in a peculiar position where they have so much nothing, more nothing from us would go unnoticed... QUOTE]

Nothing but oil you mean.


"...the Damascus regime still controls one of the largest conventional hydrocarbon resources in the eastern Mediterranean....

Syria possessed 2.5 billion barrels of crude oil as of January 2013, which makes it the largest proved reserve of crude oil in the eastern Mediterranean according to the Oil & Gas Journal estimate, besides Iraq....

Russia, the chief backer of the Assad regime, is the only remaining international partner still helping develop Syria’s oil and gas resources in the past year."

[Errata]

In general, soldiers go to war for their countries. There are exceptions, such as the Spanish Civil War where volunteers fought for ideologies. And there are mercenaries who fight for themselves. But normally soldiers fight for their countries.

We actually originally went to war to help Poland, though it's also true that it would have been in our interests if we could have helped Poland. Which we couldn't - but there you go.

I actually believe in a certain gratitude to countries whose actions helped me, even though their primary aim wasn't to help me. The USA only entered the war when they were attacked. Even then, they didn't declare war on Germany - Germany declared war on the USA. But I still feel grateful to America. Ditto with the Soviet Union. I loathe and despise Communism. But I am still grateful to the 25 million or so who lost their lives, even if the last thing on their minds was Britain. True they didn't enter the war until they were attacked. So what?

I am grateful to the soldiers. And I regret than any lives had to be lost. And to their immense credit, when the soldiers were surprised by the camps their immediate instinct was to help, even though for people that emaciated the help could do more harm than good. It would be very tempting to just leave those people there. They didn't do that.

But what it boils down to for me was that it was a lot like the first time I saw one of my friends getting hit by a parent. And I ran over to him and put myself in front of him and told his dad to beat on someone his own size (since I was a very tall child). It probably did not help the situation since I was all of 11 at the time, but that was my instinct. So for the life of me I don't understand people who just walk by and say nothing when parents hit their kids. I mean, I studied psychology so I understand it's uncomfortable and that people would rather ignore situations than get into confrontations... I understand it, but I don't get it. Never will.

And I don't get people standing by and watching large groups of people getting abused. I stand by and watch other things... sometimes with a certain grim amusement. But this is an issue I have been working with since I was 13. I can't stand it. I don't know how others can stand it. It enrages me.

So while I am grateful to the individuals who risked everything for us (all of us) I'm not going to sit here and pretend that the governments of the world were doing us any favors. They didn't care. Still don't care. And I'm tired of this fantasy that people have that their governments do care. If they cared they would do something about it. I don't even mean go to war. Syria is in a peculiar position where they have so much nothing, more nothing from us would go unnoticed. They need positive punishment not negative punishment. But negative punishment can be extremely powerful, and extremely easy. But we can't be bothered. We don't want to interfere. We don't want to potentially cost ourselves lives, allies, trade. We watch dozens of governments beat millions of their own children, kill millions of their own children, and we slurp at our Starbucks and walk away. Because doing something about it would be "awkward".

[Ginger]

Ah, I see.

So, the idea is to show absolutely no respect for Syria's sovereignty, exercise no conscience whatsover for the people who will be displaced and killed in the event of military action - all because it's the wrong man making the decisions, which equates to political point scoring.

You're still not really reading what I posted, are you?

[Robert]

In general, soldiers go to war for their countries. There are exceptions, such as the Spanish Civil War where volunteers fought for ideologies. And there are mercenaries who fight for themselves. But normally soldiers fight for their countries.

We actually originally went to war to help Poland, though it's also true that it would have been in our interests if we could have helped Poland. Which we couldn't - but there you go.

I actually believe in a certain gratitude to countries whose actions helped me, even though their primary aim wasn't to help me. The USA only entered the war when they were attacked. Even then, they didn't declare war on Germany - Germany declared war on the USA. But I still feel grateful to America. Ditto with the Soviet Union. I loathe and despise Communism. But I am still grateful to the 25 million or so who lost their lives, even if the last thing on their minds was Britain. True they didn't enter the war until they were attacked. So what?

[Errata]

You may want to remember that countries such as the US and Britain liberated some of the death/concentration camps. And these countries, moreover the people/soldiers of these countries, didn't owe 'you' anything.

It is scandalous to say 'the US let it happen to us' as if somehow the people of the United States are culpable. Clearly, you have the logistics of a United States army getting half way across the world.

You should think about what you're saying, Errata, because a lot of blood was spilt on the way to liberating those death camps and there weren't many around who had the capability and the willingness to help 'you'. Seems only the United States, Britain and the Commonwealth.

They didn't owe us anything? We're human beings. As were the Congolese, the Boers, the Hutu, the Cambodians. China has executed 80 million of it's citizens in the past 70 years. The rape of Nanking, the atrocities in Darfur, two separate genocides in Russia, Somalia, Yemen, and we don't owe human beings who are being categorically and methodically slaughtered anything? They are people. They have lives, loves, families, dreams... and who the hell decides that they have to go to a death camp? Who gets to decide what is a good enough reason to murder not just people, but an entire culture?

We weren't the first, we weren't the last. We weren't even the biggest. The US knew about the camps in 1938. Britain knew since they were first built. Did either country rush out to liberate them? They did not. In fact there was a concerted effort by members of Roosevelt's cabinet to keep an information about the Jews away from him. To the point of reassigning Jewish counselors to different buildings. So let's not pretend that either country hopped on their white steed and went galloping to the Jews rescue. Or the Gypsies, the Catholics, the homosexuals, the mentally and physically handicapped. Neither country cared. Let's not pretend that their involvement in the war had anything to do with the camps.

You know how far down the list of priorities liberating the camps were? Despite the fact that both countries had accurate intelligence as to where many of these camps were, every time a camp was liberated, the soldiers were surprised. No on told them that was happening. No one told their commanding officers. In fact no one told Eisenhower, who had several frantic exchanges with Washington trying to figure out what was going on. And Washington told him exactly what those camps were for. He was instructed not to make them a priority. more than 3/4 of the camps were liberated after that, and every single time it was a surprise. Every single time they had not been informed that camps were nearby, nor were they told what to do about them, or how to even take care of these people. And the US and England knew where they were. How hard would it have been to send a simple set of instructions? "By the way, if you come across one of these camps, do this" Never happened. So it's hard to argue that soldiers were giving their lives to liberate camps when they didn't even know the camps existed. And they were so eager to help survivors that the one who made it to England the British declared them enemies, rounded them up, and put them in concentration camps in Canada and the Isle of Wight. With German POWs.

The US let it happen. So did England, Canada, Australia, hell Argentina and South Africa, and Jamaica. The world let it happen. Nobody cared. Nobody cared what happened in the Congo, nobody cared what happened in Cambodia, nobody cared when during the Congo Civil War both sides were hunting and EATING pygmies. And that was 10 years ago. We swear "Never again", and we are outraged when we hear about and we think that it's wrong but WE DON'T DO ANYTHING. Do you know how many genocides we have intervened in? One. Do you know how many there have been since WWII when Genocide was banned? More than a hundred.

So for the love of god, let's not pretend that great nations and armies give a **** about genocide. They may think it's a shame, but not enough of one to get off it's collective ass and do something about it. Certainly none of them give a **** if the victims aren't white.

And even so, nobody it talking about "gee maybe we should intervene in Greece" because apparently concentration camps are okay if you are a member of the EU.

[Beowulf]

Somewhat incongruous to see US so keen to uphold the UN rules on no chemical weapons...

The ban on chemical weapons was affirmed in the 1925 Geneva Protocol, and in World War II neither the Allies nor the Axis deployed chemical weapons on the battlefield. The ban has more or less endured since. Only a handful of countries -- including Syria -- have refused to sign the treaty prohibiting their use.

Not everyone has signed that 1993 treaty, however. Syria, North Korea, Egypt and Angola are notable omissions. North Korea has chemical weapons, we're not heading in there. When Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran in the 1980s, the only international reprisal was a weakly worded condemnation from the UN.

Hussein used chemical agents again as part of his campaign against the Kurds earning Iraqi General Ali Hassan al-Majid the nickname “Chemical Ali”.

So, the thing is, where are they getting the chemical weapons? "The Soviet Union has supplied chemical agents, delivery systems and training. Syria is also “likely to have procured equipment and precursor chemicals from private companies in Western Europe.” According to a report, Syria doesn’t yet appear to have the capacity to produce the weapons entirely on its own, relying on outside help for precursors."

and that is a big thing. What is the whole picture here. The U.S. is in debt, the Democrats claimed it's from 'Bush's war in Iraq' and here the U.S. is going to possibly get into a war again? I don't believe we can go in get rid of the weapons and get out so easily. Why wouldn't they just get more from Russia again, who only stands to make a profit.

They say Russia and U.S. relations are cooling, well, I can believe that!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/05/everything-you-need-to-know-about-syrias-chemical-weapons/

[brummie]

Somewhat incongruous to see US so keen to uphold the UN rules on no chemical weapons,no genocide and no war on innocent populace. The same US that caused thousands of horrible deaths over decades by indiscrimately spraying populated areas of Vietnam & Cambodia with Agent Orange? The same US that has since 1972 has used its UN veto more than any other country usually to protect Israel from UN censure over its occupation of arab lands and its use of white phosphorous in Gaza? and the same US that is the only nation to use atomic weapons to kill 10's of thousands of civilians? I don't feel inclined to take any lectures on morality from there thanks.

[Fleetwood Mac]

And all I can tell them is that the US let the same thing happen to us 60 years ago. And I don't know why.

You may want to remember that countries such as the US and Britain liberated some of the death/concentration camps. And these countries, moreover the people/soldiers of these countries, didn't owe 'you' anything.

It is scandalous to say 'the US let it happen to us' as if somehow the people of the United States are culpable. Clearly, you have the logistics of a United States army getting half way across the world.

You should think about what you're saying, Errata, because a lot of blood was spilt on the way to liberating those death camps and there weren't many around who had the capability and the willingness to help 'you'. Seems only the United States, Britain and the Commonwealth.

[Errata]

The point is, something's up. Mia Farrow, a very liberal democrat has on Twitter for over a year been begging Obama to go into Syria, long before this 'chemical weapons' crisis.

North Korea has a huge stockpile of chemical weapons, no one is interested. They have starved their people. No one is interested in THEIR atrocities.

There is something to gain, and I think it is riches, if the U.S. goes into war in Syria.

They want Assad out and control of the oil.

"...the Damascus regime still controls one of the largest conventional hydrocarbon resources in the eastern Mediterranean....

Syria possessed 2.5 billion barrels of crude oil as of January 2013, which makes it the largest proved reserve of crude oil in the eastern Mediterranean according to the Oil & Gas Journal estimate, besides Iraq....

Russia, the chief backer of the Assad regime, is the only remaining international partner still helping develop Syria’s oil and gas resources in the past year."

http://www.ibtimes.com/syrian-oil-ga...s-help-1402405

Mia Farrow doesn't care about oil. She cares about human rights violations, which let's face it, are aplenty in Syria. They are also aplenty in North Korea, but we can totally win against Syria, and we're not sure about North Korea. So it's not a mystery. We pick battles we know we can win.

To be honest, I'm the person who says we should go in every single time. I wanted to go into Rwanda. I wanted to go into the Sudan. I wanted to go into China, North Korea, I thought we should have been in Bosnia a few years earlier. Not because I am a fan of war. I'm not. But if we can go into Vietnam over phantom fears of Communism and to hep out France who screwed up yet again... SURELY we can go in to prevent genocide. Right? There are international rules we all agreed to abide by when we joined the UN. Syria included. No chemical weapons. No genocide. No war on the innocent populace. These are good rules. We want people to obey these rules. We love these rules. So when people break these rules, the consequences should be swift, sure, and absolutely effective.

We are communities, we are cities, states, countries, sure. As as those things we can ask ourselves "why do I care what happens in Syria?". But we're also human, and theoretically have the abilities of both empathy and projection. We should be looking at this and saying that this is never okay, that we cannot stand by and let this happen. We can't. We do it so effing often it's unreal, and look where it's gotten us. We should also be looking at this and asking ourselves what happens ten years down the line if we let Syria get away with this? In 1992 there was a terrible bombing attack in Yemen. Despite the fact that it targeted US servicemen (poorly), we decided it wasn't our business. Almost ten years later the same bombers flew planes into the Twin Towers. Almost 20 years ago we decided that Saddam Hussein gassing Kurdish refugees in the North wasn't our business, despite the fact that we promised the Kurds we would keep them safe. Where are those weapons now? Oh look! Syria!

I have looked Kurdish refugees in the face when they asked me why on earth we would let something like that happen to them. And all I can tell them is that the US let the same thing happen to us 60 years ago. And I don't know why.

[Limehouse]

Ah, I see.

So, the idea is to show absolutely no respect for Syria's sovereignty, exercise no conscience whatsover for the people who will be displaced and killed in the event of military action - all because it's the wrong man making the decisions, which equates to political point scoring.

An interesting point. It is no secret that I am a fairly active left-winger, but I honestly set aside my political leanings when it comes to an issue like Syria - as I did when it came to the invasion of Iraq. For me, whoever is advocating such military strikes, even if it was Tony Ben (as if!) would be strongly condemned by me.