Bruce, I'm a card-carrying and oath taking patriot, but I'd certainly concede that states use force to suppress dissent and unrest. Britain couldn't have existed in its present form without the use of force. The question is degree of force and focus of force. I mean at a fundamental level the police keep order on pain of being ****ted on the head with a stick.

 

The typical objection to the use of the kind of force being applied in Syria is proportionality and targeting. i.e. Targeting kids and non-combatants. This - to my understanding - does exceed what is necessary to maintain a government. But there is a school of thought which holds that it is PRECISELY this level which maintains shaky governments. Can't say I agree with them, but you can see the point. After all, the fact rthat we don't use it all the time in the UK is arguably down to reasonable standards of living and a homogenous baseline culture.

 

I think the thing with Syria is that they looked at Sri Lanka and thought "If we can hit our internal dissent hard enough and brutally enough _and are done before any pressmen show up_ then the international comunity will do sod all." You can hardly blame them given that Sri Lanka's barely had a slap on the wrist.

Bruce, I'm a card-carrying and oath taking patriot, but I'd certainly concede that states use force to suppress dissent and unrest. Britain couldn't have existed in its present form without the use of force. The question is degree of force and focus of force. I mean at a fundamental level the police keep order on pain of being ****ted on the head with a stick.

 

The typical objection to the use of the kind of force being applied in Syria is proportionality and targeting. i.e. Targeting kids and non-combatants. This - to my understanding - does exceed what is necessary to maintain a government. But there is a school of thought which holds that it is PRECISELY this level which maintains shaky governments. Can't say I agree with them, but you can see the point. After all, the fact rthat we don't use it all the time in the UK is arguably down to reasonable standards of living and a homogenous baseline culture.

 

I think the thing with Syria is that they looked at Sri Lanka and thought "If we can hit our internal dissent hard enough and brutally enough _and are done before any pressmen show up_ then the international comunity will do sod all." You can hardly blame them given that Sri Lanka's barely had a slap on the wrist.

 

I agree with most of what you are saying, but I have never suggested that the West doesn't use force. And yes I am talking about the degree and focus of force in the last 30-40 years that the West has used to achieve military objectives. Compare this to what Gaddafi and Assad did and you'll see the difference

Sorry but you need to go back and study the facts around the Libyan conflict, you are misinformed. The siege of Misrata was real and the town would have been reduced to rubble and all occupants killed if the West hadn't intervened

Yeah, and the nett effect? Instead of (as well as for most practical purposes) Misrata being flattened it was Sirte and Bani Walid, and instead of Gaddafi doing the flattening it was the rebels. More of the same, just different flags for the victims and the west helping in doing the flattening in a smug glow of moral superiority; more dead civilians who should have been protected equally under the terms of the UNSC resolution that the west wrote.

 

Secondly there hasn't been a single historical case I can think of  in the last 40 years where any Western country has decided they are going to destroy a whole town with no regard to the inhabitants.

Fallujah. Yeah, there was some lip service given to how civilians were being allowed to leave but the lack of independent and international observers gave the lie to that bit of fiction, and if you happened to be male you'd get packed off to be part of a nude recreation of Khufu's resting place. Collective Punishment, use of chemical weapons (shake 'n' bake, phosphorus in built up areas as a weapon; both war crimes) and a legacy of massive numbers of birth defects and other mutations. Jenin, too, plus other examples in Lebanon- Sabra and Chatila most prominent. I guess My Lai misses out on the 40 years part.

My Lai was a terrible tragedy, but the soldiers involved in making that happen were tried and prosecuted.  The government can be held responsible for the initial attempts to cover it up, but it's not like the White House ordered the attack on those villagers.

My Lai was a terrible tragedy, but the soldiers involved in making that happen were tried and prosecuted.  The government can be held responsible for the initial attempts to cover it up, but it's not like the White House ordered the attack on those villagers.

They made the disastrous decision to go to Vietnam in the first place, they ran the war in the most improper way possible and they are for all intents the leaders. They bask in the victories and they take all the blame. Ultimate responsibility.

My Lai was a terrible tragedy, but the soldiers involved in making that happen were tried and prosecuted.  The government can be held responsible for the initial attempts to cover it up, but it's not like the White House ordered the attack on those villagers.

Yeah, fair objection- My Lai was more an inevitable consequence of people being put in an intolerable situation than direct policy. Rolling Thunder II (? IIRC it was even marginally within the forty year timeframe) would have been a better equivalent anyway as it was pretty much explicitly designed to kill so many people in Hanoi and surroundings that NV had to go back to the negotiating table.

 

Secondly there hasn't been a single historical case I can think of  in the last 40 years where any Western country has decided they are going to destroy a whole town with no regard to the inhabitants.

Fallujah. Yeah, there was some lip service given to how civilians were being allowed to leave but the lack of independent and international observers gave the lie to that bit of fiction, and if you happened to be male you'd get packed off to be part of a nude recreation of Khufu's resting place. Collective Punishment, use of chemical weapons (shake 'n' bake, phosphorus in built up areas as a weapon; both war crimes) and a legacy of massive numbers of birth defects and other mutations. Jenin, too, plus other examples in Lebanon- Sabra and Chatila most prominent. I guess My Lai misses out on the 40 years part.

My first thought was Detroit.

Victory is near

http://youtu.be/N1iiM4u23lU

BTW, anyone willing to stand up and say that they wanted the Iraqi rebels to try exactly this? Working out rather well, isn't it?

Beloved by West Syrian rebels use chemical weapon.

 

The incident at Khan al-Assal in the northern province of Aleppo killed more than two dozen people. Both the government and rebels have blamed each other for what they say was an attack involving chemical weapons. Both sides also deny using chemical weapons.

 

Moscow's U.N. ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, said Russian experts visited the location where the projectile struck and took their own samples of material from the site. Those samples, he said, were then analyzed at a Russian laboratory certified by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

 

"It was established that on March 19 the rebels launched an unguided Basha'ir-3 projectile towards Khan al-Assal controlled by the government forces," he said. "The results of the analysis clearly indicate that the ordnance used in Khan al-Assal was not industrially manufactured and was filled with sarin."

 

"The projectile involved is not a standard one for chemical use," Churkin said. "Hexogen, utilized as an opening charge, is not utilized in standard ammunitions. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that it was armed opposition fighters who used the chemical weapons in Khan al-Assal."

 

Churkin said he had informed U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of the Russian findings. Ban is scheduled to meet Ake Sellstrom, the Swedish scientist heading a U.N. team established to investigate allegations of chemical weapon use in Syria, in New York this week.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/07/09/us-syria-crisis-chemical-russia-idUSBRE9680YZ20130709

Sadly, even if it is true, since Russia supports Assad, the findings will be dismissed by everyone who doesn't.

I don' think they've been dismissed out of hand. That same report shows up in hundreds of other places.

 

However, since as Oerwinde says, Russia has a clear commitment to the regime I hardly think they are in any position to wear any halos.