Syria watch...

[raspberry-blower]

When you're getting the shit kicked out of you, I think you'll change your views on intervention pretty fast.
Is that really what it will take for you to comprehend the duty to help protect others ?

I have and will continue to intervene if I see someone being viciously assaulted in the street.

I have no intention of ever kicking someone's door down to get involved in a family argument.

The examples might be simplistic but that's the crux of it - many people in Syria support the current regime.

This is something NATO is fully aware of:
70% of Syrians support Assad

The FSA has no popular support in Syria, and is now largely an Al-Qaeda offshoot that has no intention of discussing peace until they are "winning". Currently, they have recently suffered major military defeats and are also engaged in bitter in-fighting.

Their general conduct - robbery and looting; imposition of strict Sharia Law; massacres of Kurdish and other ethnic minorities - has hardly endeared them to anyone inside Syria itself.

[Lord Beria3]

Agreed Raspberry (is this the first time I have totally agreed with a post of yours?!).

A good blog is this one as well...

http://mercouris.wordpress.com/2013/08/ ... stigation/

No one should be under any illusions that the attack on Syria which will take place shortly is illegal and is intended to prevent an impartial investigation by the UN inspectors of what actually happened near Damascus.

[Little John]

I am going to repeat this, as it is running the serious risk of dissap[earing on this thread, and has been completely obliterated from discourse in the MSM.

A hundred people are alleged to have been killed by some kind of gas.

Every day, in Syria and elsewhere, thousands of people are dying horribly from bullets and bombs. Not least, the thousand or so people who died in Egypt just the other week, where we know for a fact they were largely unarmed and where we know for a fact precisely who the culprits were. But, our MSM has conveniently gone quiet over that and our corrupt governments are equally silent on the matter.

What’s the difference?

The hypocrisy, the bullshit, the kind of credulous nonsense talked on this very thread by intelligent, educated people who should know better, is staggering.

I don't believe a single word that our governments tells us on this matter and anyone trying to argue that, this time, we really should trust them are, frankly, fools or shills. But, even if it's all true and Assads forces killed a hundred people with gas or by any other means, what the hell do people expect? It's a f***ing civil war!

I would have more respect if someone just came out and said, that the US is seeking to maintain and increase it strategic control of this region for all of the obvious reasons and that the bleaters over here would soon start complaining when their bloody lights went out and that the bottom line is that the maintenance of our system in the West is more important than any other consideration.

At least that would be telling it how it is. At least that would be honest.

[biffvernon]

Time to hear from the Pirate Party:

Dear friend,

The last few weeks has seen a deluge of news for our kind of politics - more mass surveillance revelations, the smashing of Guardian laptops, and not least the Manning sentencing. I couldn't help reflecting that Manning has been locked up longer than I have been Leader of the UK Pirate Party.

That Manning could get decades in prison for wanting to speak out, to blow the whistle, shows we are not ready to face the consequences of what we have done in the Middle East.

That is why I am so concerned by the threat of new military involvement, now in Syria. I know we value discussion, weighing evidence, and debate. But also the public expect us to be clear when we are faced with major decisions as a country. That's why I think we must be clear in saying no to unilateral military action.

That is to me the logical conclusion from our party principles and all we have said to date, it is the only response that I can give to the many questions and comments I have had over the last few weeks - questions that we need to ask of our elected representatives too.

We have no moral authority. We have no legal or international credibility, we seem more interested in working around the United Nations than working through it. But worst of all there is no credible plan that will actually help bring peace closer, or a Syrian state free from dictatorship. Quite the reverse, we will destabilise Syria, and the region further.

William Hague says that doing nothing is not an option,- that is not an argument for doing just anything. The government's own progress report on the Strategic Defence Review put it like this: "The crisis in Syria demonstrates the risk of escalating military activities that can cross borders". What we must do is to de-escalate tension, not ramp it up. We must take the difficult road of getting the UN to function, otherwise it is useless. We must seek a way that solutions for the Middle East come from the Middle East.

These are not easy choices. But unless we are consistent in opposing all dictatorship and all dodgy regimes, then all we have left is doing what the Americans tell us. I still hope Cameron, Hague and Miliband can make a different choice, the right choice. But if they don't, we need to be ready to speak out.

Loz Kaye
Leader Pirate Party UK

Sounds about right to me.

[clv101]

A hundred people are alleged to have been killed by some kind of gas.

Every day, in Syria and elsewhere, thousands of people are dying horribly from bullets and bombs. Not least, the thousand or so people who died in Egypt just the other week, where we know for a fact they were largely unarmed and where we know for a fact precisely who the culprits were. But, our MSM has conveniently gone quiet over that and our corrupt governments are equally silent on the matter.

What’s the difference?

The hypocrisy, the bullshit, the kind of credulous nonsense talked on this very thread by intelligent, educated people who should know better, is staggering.

The most credible data we outsiders have is that something like 322 (The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights) or 355 (Medecins Sans Frontieres) were killed in the sarin attack. This compares to 638 killed by Egypt's security forces the week earlier.

I don't think the simple fact that in Syria chemical weapons were used and in Egypt conventional weapons were used warrants the magnitude of difference in response, however, I do totally understand why it has. Chemical weapons have been deemed (rightly or wrongly) by all but seven of the world's countries as being totally unacceptable. Conventional weapons are regarded as acceptable.

Maybe this debate is analogous to how alcohol is legal and socially acceptable yet cannabis and ecstasy is illegal?

The world simply doesn't work on rational numbers.

[Billhook]

When you're getting the shit kicked out of you, I think you'll change your views on intervention pretty fast.
Is that really what it will take for you to comprehend the duty to help protect others ?

I have and will continue to intervene if I see someone being viciously assaulted in the street.

I have no intention of ever kicking someone's door down to get involved in a family argument.

The examples might be simplistic but that's the crux of it - many people in Syria support the current regime.

All tyrannies have their supporters, including those who get rich on stolen resources and those who just hope if they keep their noses clean that it will be someone else carried off in the night. (They must have done something to deserve being arrested . . .).

In the analogy you propose, if either of us can see violence and injuries occurring beyond a private boundary, I'd guess we'd call for the police to use whatever force is needed to put a stop to it ASAP.

In the far more complex ME, external force could be seriously counter-productive, attracting massed Jihadist recruitment from many nations in hopes of driving out both Assad and western soldiers. Hence the proposal that the one really useful contribution the west can make is in providing the crucial materiel and satellite intelligence for democratic rebel forces to break the regime's confidence.

Regards,

Lewis

[JavaScriptDonkey]

Who accused you of being a pacifist?

It would be more accolade than accusation.

So now you are saying you are not a pacifist but like being called one?

I do wish you would just say what you believe and mean sometimes instead of half saying things and not saying things.

[JavaScriptDonkey]

[. Hence the proposal that the one really useful contribution the west can make is in providing the crucial materiel and satellite intelligence for democratic rebel forces to break the regime's confidence.

Are they the ones that eat the hearts of dead soldiers or the ones that want to form a theocracy?

[Billhook]

JSD - your response is bizarre.

These are neither lunatics nor zealots -

they are ordinary people who found the courage to stand up against tyranny.

Far from being used by the west to advance PNAC goals, they've been starved of supplies to further their campaign.
Since the zealots have been far better supplied from Arab backers, there has,quite predictably,
been a flow of recruits towards those who can offer better prospects of successful actions.

I therefore call bullshit on the nonsense of the White House longing to see Assad ousted to expand US power in the region.
It has done sweet FA of significance to advance such a goal for two years, and has watched any such prospect recede.

Faced with a clear breach of international law on chemical weapons,
with massive propaganda framing the rebels as culpable (without a shred of evidence),
the US is forced to attack to maintain military credibility,
but is not able diplomatically (or at present physically) to do more than deliver "a few dozens of tonnes" of explosive
in a country that has seen scores of kilotonnes delivered.
And even that will coalesce international opposition to US imperial power to an unprecedented level, with unknown consequences.

And what are the prospects of any further intervention by the US after a 'deterrent' strike of cruise missiles is made
- without UN backing - without credible evidence of Assad's culpability - without a coalition of over 40 nations participating ?

In my view the timing of the sarin attack with UN inspectors 10 miles away could be expected :
- to focus allegations on the rebels and erode western public sympathy for their cause -
- to trigger a brief US missile attack as a face-saver for US power, that does not alter the military balance in Syria -
- that seriously damages the US reputation in media around the world,
and, crucially, makes any further US military involvement in Syria politically untenable.

But then maybe Obama is just longing to invade and watch his troops mix it with a new horde of Jihadis converging from across the ME ?
And if you believe that you don't deserve the name donkey - as these tend to be rather intelligent creatures.

Regards,

Lewis

[Billhook]

Chris -

"The most credible data we outsiders have is that something like 322 (The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights) or 355 (Medecins Sans Frontieres) were killed in the sarin attack."

IIRC MSF reported that hospitals they assist had received over 3,500 casualties within hours of the attack,
of whom 355 had died within a day or two.

By these credible numbers, the scale of casualties reportedly killed in their homes at between 1,000 and 1,500 looks disproportionately low.
Sarin is very very lethal.

Regards,

Lewis

[Billhook]

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/0 ... s-a28.html

Superb Marxist analysis on the current crisis and the reasons behind the war drive.

Beria - if that is a superb marxist analysis, I'd hate to wade through a poor one.

Regards,

Lewis

[vtsnowedin]

Time to hear from the Pirate Party:

Dear friend,

The last few weeks ….
…….". What we must do is to de-escalate tension, not ramp it up. We must take the difficult road of getting the UN to function, otherwise it is useless. We must seek a way that solutions for the Middle East come from the Middle East.

These are not easy choices. But unless we are consistent in opposing all dictatorship and all dodgy regimes, then all we have left is doing what the Americans tell us. I still hope Cameron, Hague and Miliband can make a different choice, the right choice. But if they don't, we need to be ready to speak out.

Loz Kaye
Leader Pirate Party UK

Sounds about right to me.

Do you think that is even remotely possible?

[biffvernon]

Who accused you of being a pacifist?

It would be more accolade than accusation.

So now you are saying you are not a pacifist but like being called one?

I do wish you would just say what you believe and mean sometimes instead of half saying things and not saying things.

I do wish you would read what I write rather than tell me what I have said.

I aspire to be a pacifist but recognise there may be occasions when I might act violently.

Good to hear that Ed Milliband has led the Labour Party into taking the right decision, at least temporally. Let's encourage him to follow it through with further wisdom.

[nexus]

I'm going to fess up to not having read this whole thread, so apologies if this has been repeated elsewhere, but if the evidence of chemical weapons use is strong enough then why can't an arrest warrant be prepared for the International Criminal Court in the Hague to call President Assad to account for war crimes? This would not endanger people on the ground and making things worse than they already are, plus if there is enough evidence then the west could use elite forces to take him into custody, minimising/preventing civilian bloodshed. The whole thing would then be dealt with legally. Nine other heads of state/government ministers have been indicted this way, so I don't see why it wouldn't be possible with Assad.

[Little John]

I'm going to fess up to not having read this whole thread, so apologies if this has been repeated elsewhere, but if the evidence of chemical weapons use is strong enough then why can't an arrest warrant be prepared for the International Criminal Court in the Hague to call President Assad to account for war crimes? This would not endanger people on the ground and making things worse than they already are, plus if there is enough evidence then the west could use elite forces to take him into custody, minimising/preventing civilian bloodshed. The whole thing would then be dealt with legally. Nine other heads of state/government ministers have been indicted this way, so I don't see why it wouldn't be possible with Assad.

We both know why. And it's got bugger all to do with chemical weapons.