Syria watch...

[Little John]

The entire issue should be framed differently from moral outrage and the pretence of protecting democratic and libertarian ideals. Instead, the following questions should simply be asked:

Does it make a difference to us, in terms of access to oil and other geopolitical considerations, who ends up in charge in Syria? If it doesn't make a difference we should stay the hell out of it.

For me it is all about moral outrage. I don't care much whether it makes a difference to us in terms of access to oil etc. That would be like in Billhook's case, walking by the bloke bleeding on the pavement because you did't have plans to trade stuff with him.

'Staying the hell out of it' is the long-standing policy of China. If, for the sake of argument, we pretend that Tibet is part of China, they have never invaded a foreign country and have always objected to other countries doing so. It's the walking by, eyes shut, approach to foreign policy (whilst grabbing whatever economic opportunities are available).

The problem of the military response to the outrageous immorality of chemical weapons use, is that our only response seems to throw drones in semi-random directions, which doesn't appear to be very smart and should be greeted with equivalent moral outrage.

So if we send a few of our lads over to spill some of their guts on the ground in addition to those of the poor bastards who live there, that'll make it better will it?

[biffvernon]

I wouldn't think so. Soldiers tend to make bad peace creators.

[Tarrel]

The entire issue should be framed differently from moral outrage and the pretence of protecting democratic and libertarian ideals. Instead, the following questions should simply be asked:

Does it make a difference to us, in terms of access to oil and other geopolitical considerations, who ends up in charge in Syria? If it doesn't make a difference we should stay the hell out of it.

For me it is all about moral outrage. I don't care much whether it makes a difference to us in terms of access to oil etc. That would be like in Billhook's case, walking by the bloke bleeding on the pavement because you did't have plans to trade stuff with him.

'Staying the hell out of it' is the long-standing policy of China. If, for the sake of argument, we pretend that Tibet is part of China, they have never invaded a foreign country and have always objected to other countries doing so. It's the walking by, eyes shut, approach to foreign policy (whilst grabbing whatever economic opportunities are available).

The problem of the military response to the outrageous immorality of chemical weapons use, is that our only response seems to throw drones in semi-random directions, which doesn't appear to be very smart and should be greeted with equivalent moral outrage.

I think we'd need to be morally beyond criticism ourselves before we could justify responding on "moral outrage" grounds. And we have a long way to go in that regard.

[biffvernon]

I don't think one needs to be an angel to have moral outrage, but moral outrage is not a license to wade in and kill people. We should be smart enough to find other means.

[Little John]

As you know the world is not even remotely equal, the same events in different places are met with totally different responses. Is this a pretext for a new war, yeah, I expect so. America (misguidedly in my opinion) needs to be fighting a war I'm not sure the US economy - as it is currently structured, could cope with a peaceful decade without US forces being involved in a conflict.

However, based on what I've seen, filtered through my world view, I think it is far more likely that the sarin was launched by Assad's forces than the rebel fighters, or as a Westen false flag.

Just because we were spun a line regarding Iraqi WMDs in 2003 doesn't mean that the Syrian attack wasn't as it's being reported.

And we were told that the Taliban were "freedom fighters" back when we were fighting a proxy war with the Russians and were told that Saddam was our "friend" when he was selling us the cheap oil and were told that Gaddaffi was our "friend" when it served the West's strategic interests and were told that the culprits of 9/11 were from Afghanistan when every single terrorist, on those planes, to a man, was Saudi and we have been told that America may merely reduce their military "aid" to Egypt when the recent massacres by the murderous military junta took place.

Of course, none of this means we should be anything other than utterly trusting of the pronouncements of our authorities does it?

I could go on, but frankly it seems quite ridiculous that it should need pointing out that our authorities lie to us on a more or less constant basis and that they use puerile, faux-moral-outrage as the primary psychological weapon in that endeavour.

[clv101]

I could go on, but frankly it seems quite ridiculous that it should need pointing out that our authorities lie to us on a more or less constant basis and that they use puerile, faux-moral-outrage as the primary psychological weapon in that endeavour.

Yes, I totally accept all that, and yet still think the official Western account is more likely than the alternative rebel or false flag explanation. I'm not just blindly accepting the BBC narrative - I'm judging it to be more the most likely narrative.

[Little John]

Yes, I'm considering all that, and yet still think the official Western account is more likely than the alternative rebel or false flag explanation. I'm not just blindly accepting the BBC narrative - I'm judging it to be more the most likely narrative.

Even assuming an acceptance (which I frankly find incredible anyway), critically or otherwise, of such a narrative, why does this mean we should be committing resources, including human lives, to it?

[biffvernon]

I don't think we have made such commitments (yet). And if it comes to human lives then I'd say we shouldn't, but should search for a different approach.

[Little John]

I don't think we have made such commitments (yet). And if it comes to human lives then I'd say we shouldn't, but should search for a different approach.

What does "search for a different approach" mean Biff? I'm not trying to be argumentative, but that just sounds like well-meaning waffle. A "different approach" could mean the use of cruise missiles fired from submarines and the use of drones to drop weapons from 3 miles up. No need to put boots on the ground then. You in favour of that different approach?

[clv101]

Even assuming an acceptance (which I frankly find incredible anyway), critically or otherwise, of such a narrative, why does this mean we should be committing resources, including human lives, to it?

Which narrative concerning what happened last week do you find more likely?

As to what 'we' do in response to the event, that's a totally separate question. I think it's very important not to conflate the issues of what actually happened, with what (if anything) should be done about it.

I don't know what should be done about it. Maybe we are actually pretty powerless to do anything positive in the short term.

[Little John]

Even assuming an acceptance (which I frankly find incredible anyway), critically or otherwise, of such a narrative, why does this mean we should be committing resources, including human lives, to it?

Which narrative concerning what happened last week do you find more likely?...

I think the question is irrelevant because such a massacre, irrespective of who did what and where, is merely a small part of a larger civil war going on in Syria (people tend to die in civil wars, often in not very nice ways) and I think that the Syrian civil war is merely a small piece of much larger narrative of a philosophical civil war between the forces of medievalism and secularism in the Muslim world, and I think we need to keep the hell out of it.

But we can't

Because of the oil.

[clv101]

Even assuming an acceptance (which I frankly find incredible anyway), critically or otherwise, of such a narrative, why does this mean we should be committing resources, including human lives, to it?

Which narrative concerning what happened last week do you find more likely?...

I think the question is irrelevant...

Okay, that's actually why I got interested in this thread, UE specifically not accepting the western narrative.

Are you saying there's nothing particularly noteworthy about using chemical weapons, killing a thousand people with sarin shouldn't be regarded differently than killing a thousand people with conventional arms?

I don't give very much weight to the 'war for oil' narrative. It simply doesn't work as well as buying the stuff (like China does).

[clv101]

Ha, UK Parliament is to be recalled a couple of days earlier... so MPs can get them and their family's return travel expenses paid!

[Little John]

Which narrative concerning what happened last week do you find more likely?...

I think the question is irrelevant...

Okay, that's actually why I got interested in this thread, UE specifically not accepting the western narrative.

Are you saying there's nothing particularly noteworthy about using chemical weapons, killing a thousand people with sarin shouldn't be regarded differently than killing a thousand people with conventional arms?

I don't give very much weight to the 'war for oil' narrative. It simply doesn't work as well as buying the stuff (like China does).

It's not as simple as that, the oil is "bought" and "sold" on the back of larger strategic machinations. Not least, the issue of oil supply security in the event of global hostilities breaking out between any of the major players. Therefore, who is in charge and who is friends with whom is massively important vis a vis the oil.

And I am saying precisely that it matters little the medium of death and destruction save for, perhaps, the extent of suffering involved in the method and also the longer lasting environmental fallout. In the end, though, it matters little to someone who has been killed by Sarin or by a bullet because, in both cases, they're dead. The US has been implicated in the deaths of at least a 100,000 civilians in Afghanistan ad God knows haw many in Iraq. But, since they were all killed by explosives or bullets, that's all right then?

It's bullshit, is what it is.

[JohnB]

If this is to be believed, it's all a British plot anyway
http://nsnbc.me/2013/06/16/dumas-top-br ... ab-spring/

To me the only thing that matters is what happens to the ordinary people, and whatever action is, or isn't, taken should be in their best interests. Of course there's no profit in that, or opportunity to boost their egos, for the psychopaths and other crazies who make the decisions.