Syrian civil war

[Guard Dog]

 

 

He has been gaining some strategic advantages but the rebels are still entrenched in parts of Damascus and since that's the capital city and important  Chemical weapons would be a painless method of getting rid of them. Painless but controversial and of course abhorrent

The same day UN inspectors arrive and that's the perfect excuse for the West, already gunning for him, to step in after the requisite videos of dead children and crying adults, etc. Seems a really weird decision to make.

 

Ah well, hope this adventure just costs from the TLAMs.

 

 

Malc it sounds like you are doubting that Assad is behind the attacks, remember he doesn't care about Canada or the Canadian people. I heard one of his favourite meals is Roast Moose, sorry to upset you but you need to realize he is a bad person

 

The problem is the rebels are bad people too. there are no good guys here. The longer they kill each other the better off the world will be in the long run.

[Gorgon]

 

It had completely passed me by that the US is going to revert to its tried and tested bombing diplomacy. Given what's at stake though I don't see how the Syrian leadership would be able to  concede very much. 

Sarcasm? The Obama admin hasn't stopped bombing. There's been more drones strikes under Obama than Bush. That's going to continue no matter who wins the next election, unless the country actually wakes up and votes in a 3rd party candidate, but that's not happening anytime soon.

 

Drone strikes are basically assassinations. Air campagins to achieve a political goal are something else and have been a favorite tool for the US over the years. 

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

He has been gaining some strategic advantages but the rebels are still entrenched in parts of Damascus and since that's the capital city and important  Chemical weapons would be a painless method of getting rid of them. Painless but controversial and of course abhorrent

The same day UN inspectors arrive and that's the perfect excuse for the West, already gunning for him, to step in after the requisite videos of dead children and crying adults, etc. Seems a really weird decision to make.

 

Ah well, hope this adventure just costs from the TLAMs.

 

 

Malc it sounds like you are doubting that Assad is behind the attacks, remember he doesn't care about Canada or the Canadian people. I heard one of his favourite meals is Roast Moose, sorry to upset you but you need to realize he is a bad person

 

The problem is the rebels are bad people too. there are no good guys here. The longer they kill each other the better off the world will be in the long run.

 

 

 

 

 

He has been gaining some strategic advantages but the rebels are still entrenched in parts of Damascus and since that's the capital city and important  Chemical weapons would be a painless method of getting rid of them. Painless but controversial and of course abhorrent

The same day UN inspectors arrive and that's the perfect excuse for the West, already gunning for him, to step in after the requisite videos of dead children and crying adults, etc. Seems a really weird decision to make.

 

Ah well, hope this adventure just costs from the TLAMs.

 

 

Malc it sounds like you are doubting that Assad is behind the attacks, remember he doesn't care about Canada or the Canadian people. I heard one of his favourite meals is Roast Moose, sorry to upset you but you need to realize he is a bad person

 

The problem is the rebels are bad people too. there are no good guys here. The longer they kill each other the better off the world will be in the long run.

 

 

The consideration here GB is that the global community cannot allow the usage of Chemical weapons, also not all the rebels are Islamic extremists. Many of them are just people who are opposed to Assad and wanted more political freedom

[Gorgon]

There isn't likely to be a consensus on intervention based on the use of WMD. You know seeing as how the US lied about that the last time around. 

[BruceVC]

There isn't likely to be a consensus on intervention based on the use of WMD. You know seeing as how the US lied about that the last time around. 

 

No matter, countries can still intervene in another country if there is human rights abuses without the UN Security Council voting to support it.

 

They won't be breaking international laws, its called the Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention and I feel its valid in the case of Syria

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_intervention

[Azarkon]

Bypassing the UN is perilous, especially when the UN commission is due to give a report in a few days. I feel that were the US to go in guns blazing in support of the rebels and there ends up being evidence that the rebels also used chemical weapons, then we're in another Iraq WMD situation.

 

Mind you, it doesn't matter geopolitically because the US has never needed international support to do whatever we want, but for the Democrats, it's not an opening they want to give the Republicans - ie the idea that Obama is no different from Bush.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Azarkon

[obyknven]

 

There isn't likely to be a consensus on intervention based on the use of WMD. You know seeing as how the US lied about that the last time around. 

 

No matter, countries can still intervene in another country if there is human rights abuses without the UN Security Council voting to support it.

 

They won't be breaking international laws, its called the Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention and I feel its valid in the case of Syria

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_intervention

 

It's looks like invasion without declaring of war. Maybe you forget, but WW2 begin from such thing's.  

[Zoraptor]

Oh dear Britain votes against action.

 

How will William Hague cope, having to go cold turkey on his stentorian verbiage binge? Not really surprising given the rather laughable vague and evidence lacking 'intelligence' document released- though at least turnitin suggests it wasn't a plagiarised intelligence document this time.

[ShadySands]

I've heard that only 9% of the US citizen approve of the planned attack on Syria. Democracy at its best. 

 

Yep

[Blodhemn]

 

 

It had completely passed me by that the US is going to revert to its tried and tested bombing diplomacy. Given what's at stake though I don't see how the Syrian leadership would be able to  concede very much. 

Sarcasm? The Obama admin hasn't stopped bombing. There's been more drones strikes under Obama than Bush. That's going to continue no matter who wins the next election, unless the country actually wakes up and votes in a 3rd party candidate, but that's not happening anytime soon.

 

Drone strikes are basically assassinations. Air campagins to achieve a political goal are something else and have been a favorite tool for the US over the years. 

 

Assassinations that kill innocent people and rightfully stirs up turmoil locally amongst other things. Seems people on the outside only care about conflict when it gives them something to talk about for the day.

[Gorgon]

The outside of what. Are you on the inside ?

[Malcador]

Oh dear Britain votes against action.

 

How will William Hague cope, having to go cold turkey on his stentorian verbiage binge? Not really surprising given the rather laughable vague and evidence lacking 'intelligence' document released- though at least turnitin suggests it wasn't a plagiarised intelligence document this time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23862114

[BruceVC]

Oh dear Britain votes against action.

 

How will William Hague cope, having to go cold turkey on his stentorian verbiage binge? Not really surprising given the rather laughable vague and evidence lacking 'intelligence' document released- though at least turnitin suggests it wasn't a plagiarised intelligence document this time.

 

 

 

Oh dear Britain votes against action.

 

How will William Hague cope, having to go cold turkey on his stentorian verbiage binge? Not really surprising given the rather laughable vague and evidence lacking 'intelligence' document released- though at least turnitin suggests it wasn't a plagiarised intelligence document this time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23862114

 

 Labours decision is a disgrace and there influence on the Conservatives around this vote is concerning. Hopefully they can have a second vote when the UN inspectors present the report

 

Also don't read too much into Labours intransigence. This is more to do with playing politics than not believing there should be some punitive strike against Assad

[Zoraptor]

It wasn't just Labour, they don't have a majority- obviously, since they aren't the government. They're not obligated to toe the line in important decisions just because the PM has been shooting his mouth off. Vote failed, democracy in action, honour the democratic decision!

 

(and yeah, I suspect positions would be reversed if the vote had been different, but there is nothing fundamental stopping another vote later, except for the embarrassment Cameron has suffered already. If the action were fully approved that would not be true, and it would go ahead as a matter of course.)

[BruceVC]

It wasn't just Labour, they don't have a majority- obviously, since they aren't the government. They're not obligated to toe the line in important decisions just because the PM has been shooting his mouth off. Vote failed, democracy in action, honour the democratic decision!

 

(and yeah, I suspect positions would be reversed if the vote had been different, but there is nothing fundamental stopping another vote later, except for the embarrassment Cameron has suffered already. If the action were fully approved that would not be true, and it would go ahead as a matter of course.)

 

Fair enough, I do honour the democratic process. So I won't say anything more. Lets see what happens when the report comes out. I was never advocating military action until we see that report anyway

[Gorgon]

 

 

There isn't likely to be a consensus on intervention based on the use of WMD. You know seeing as how the US lied about that the last time around. 

 

No matter, countries can still intervene in another country if there is human rights abuses without the UN Security Council voting to support it.

 

They won't be breaking international laws, its called the Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention and I feel its valid in the case of Syria

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_intervention

 

It's looks like invasion without declaring of war. Maybe you forget, but WW2 begin from such thing's.  

 

The world has kinda moved away from formal declarations of war since WW2. A declaration doesn't quite have the ommph of panzers rolling into Poland, and after all it accomplishes the same thing. 

 

Hitler had his bases covered. He burned down his own border posts and scattered corpses in Polish uniforms intending to show them to the world press. No one cared by that point though.

[pmp10]

Hitler had his bases covered. He burned down his own border posts and scattered corpses in Polish uniforms intending to show them to the world press. No one cared by that point though.

If people didn't care nobody would bother to orchestrate such a charade.

It was just clear enough that full-scale invasion started way too soon.

[Walsingham]

I may regard Miliband as a spineless nerd, but HM Loyal Opposition tend to fall in step on defence stuff. In this instance HM Gov failed to make the case to the people, and Labour acted accordingly. That's their job.

 

It seems from the dossier shown to the BBC that two key points mobilised the government:

 

1. That there have been 14 'credible' instances of Assad using chemical weapons already

2. That the rebels could not have deployed chemical weapons on the scale indicated in this attack

 

While neither argument is very powerful, it does suggest we are going to see more attacks on a comparable scale. Maybe less, but we should expect them.

 

If we do, then the 'anti-war' lobby better stand up and acknowledge its involvement. Just because I am always furious at their moral hand-washing.

[BruceVC]

 

 

1. That there have been 14 'credible' instances of Assad using chemical weapons already

2. That the rebels could not have deployed chemical weapons on the scale indicated in this attack

 

While neither argument is very powerful, it does suggest we are going to see more attacks on a comparable scale. Maybe less, but we should expect them.

 

If we do, then the 'anti-war' lobby better stand up and acknowledge its involvement. Just because I am always furious at their moral hand-washing.

 

I was also very interested around what Cameron was saying to motivate his cause and both those points are very relevant, especially the first one. I hope people like Zor read to make it clear that this was not the first time Assad used Chemical weapons and its obvious  he has been pushing the boundary to see what he can get away with. Sadly it appears if there is no action this time he will continue to use this strategy as a means to defeat the rebels, but I guess some people will be only prepared to condemn him when we have thousands more civilians killed by Chemical weapons

[Drowsy Emperor]

Oh dear Britain votes against action.

 

How will William Hague cope, having to go cold turkey on his stentorian verbiage binge? Not really surprising given the rather laughable vague and evidence lacking 'intelligence' document released- though at least turnitin suggests it wasn't a plagiarised intelligence document this time.

 

Good thing there are still some decent people in the British parliament. 

 

I've been following the whole chemical weapons nonsense. Some random dead people, who may have died of god knows what and a room with a few rusted cans of whatever. Yeah, a real potent arsenal... if the wind blows in the right direction. 

 

Its the same story all over again. If there was something to really hold against Assad apart from him being independent of the US the media would have been all over it from day one. 

[Walsingham]

That's right, DE. I'm sure the dead people have US power relations at the top of their list of interests.

[Drowsy Emperor]

Kinda reminds me of Saddam Hussein's grand WMD arsenal.

 

Seriously, can't the Washington spin doctors come up with something new?

 

The whole UN system is collapsing and it will all end in a major war when the US finally attacks an important country right next to China or Russia and they're left with no choice but to intervene.

[Drowsy Emperor]

That's right, DE. I'm sure the dead people have US power relations at the top of their list of interests.

 

There are dead people on both sides and many of them died by US army donated weapons. Many more will die when the cruise missiles start flying. Empty moralizing is empty, because none of this is, or has ever been, about the well being of the people.

[pmp10]

 

That's right, DE. I'm sure the dead people have US power relations at the top of their list of interests.

 

There are dead people on both sides and many of them died by US army donated weapons. Many more will die when the cruise missiles start flying. Empty moralizing is empty, because none of this is, or has ever been, about the well being of the people.

 

And here is were you are wrong.

Stopping chemical weapons use is about the well-being of the Syrian people. 

 

Or at least it was when that option was still on the table.

By now it's blindingly clear that no effective intervention will come from the west and endless bickering in UN over reports and security council meetings only prolong the inevitable. As sad it is - given that the best way to handle the conflict is to let Assad gas-away unchecked.

But we are far too hypocritical for that.

Edited August 30, 2013 by pmp10

[Drowsy Emperor]

 

 

That's right, DE. I'm sure the dead people have US power relations at the top of their list of interests.

 

There are dead people on both sides and many of them died by US army donated weapons. Many more will die when the cruise missiles start flying. Empty moralizing is empty, because none of this is, or has ever been, about the well being of the people.

 

And here is were you are wrong.

Stopping chemical weapons use is about the well-being of the Syrian people. 

 

Or at least it was when that option was still on the table.

By now it's blindingly clear that no effective intervention will come from the west and endless bickering in UN over reports and security council meetings only prolong the inevitable. As sad it is - given that the best way to handle the conflict is to let Assad gas-away unchecked.

But we are far too hypocritical for that.

 

 

In fact, you're wrong. No one knows who exactly used chemical weapons. Assad is winning the war with conventional weaponry and has less reason to use chemical weapons than the rebels, who desperately need to get the US involved.  This is corroborated by the US sending its fleet, as a military operation is planned, as a rule, well before the troops are sent.

 

What this means is that a while ago the analysts in Washington decided that the war cannot be won in the current state of affairs and that intervention would be needed.

 

Some sort of pretext is needed for it to make the decision appear as though it was made in just moral outrage. And how very kind of Assad to play along and bring out the chemicals just when the US is ready to intervene. 

 

Its a story as poorly fabricated as Iraq. Assad want's to rule these people and you can't rule people whose children you gassed to death. Its politically counter productive, stupid and short sighted to use a weapon that is only really efficient against civilians,if they're your civilians.