The Syrian "Revolution": A Farce from Beginning to End

[billvon]

So what? What does that have to do with whether the Syrian people deserve to be helped?

They do deserve to be helped. We can start by helping them stop these people:

==================
Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official
By Shaun Waterman
The Washington Times
Monday, May 6, 2013

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.
================================

 

[billvon]

We're kinda suck between a rock and a hard place right know.

True dat. There are no good solutions.

 

[billvon]

"Limited police action" means ground troops, right?

No. It was not a description of a specific action. It was a description of the goals of the US post WWII - limited involvement after WWII. The US wanted to stop the advance of the USSR so they came up with the "limited police action" doctrine. It was a way to sell a limited war to a war-weary country; they promised minimal involvement, quick and painless actions that would slow the USSR but not cause US casualties or require the sort of sacrifices the US had to deal with during wartime.

Sounding familiar yet?

Purposeful strawman?

You keep using that word. That word does not mean what you think it means.

That's conspiracy theory nonsense, but I'd love to see you try to find a mainstream source to corroborate it.

See latest admission by the US a few posts above mine.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Let's say for the sake of argument that I accept your characterization of the US's use of the atomic bomb. So what? What does that have to do with whether the Syrian people deserve to be helped?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I accept your characterization that what is going on in Syria is NOT THE RESULT of another NATION or NATIONS meddling in Syria's affairs. So what? What does that have to do with how destroying the country will serve to help the Syrian people?

 

[dumbest man on earth]

We're kinda suck between a rock and a hard place right know.

Would kinda suck being stuck there you now!

 

[Russ_Watters]

Oh, haven't you heard? We just admitted it.

"We"? Only a government source can be "we". A retired colonel (in a curiously timed new conspiracy theory) doesn't qualify as "we" and the Daily Mail doesn't qualify as a mainstream source. Mainstream means reputable.

 

[Russ_Watters]

I wouldn't disagree, but I would propose a counterpoint for further consideration:

• At what point does the collateral damage of the American way of warfare exceed the salvation of a people?​

I suggest we use a convenient, salient number from recent news: the 100,000 who have already died.

If we're not putting people on the ground, this is just an exercise in killing that should not be undertaken.

Why not? It worked out reasonably well in Libya.

Yes, we can certainly kill a lot of people because it looks good, and thus avoid the use of ground troops in Syria. But at that point, I'm not sure why we would be going, anyway.

Can we put the French on point?

Again, on both questions/points: see Libya.

 

[Russ_Watters]

Yes, your prominence, up in the front, at the Podium - I have a few questions :

1. Do you believe that it is alright for a Government's Military to use Chemical Weapons on OTHER nations civilian populations - yet a Military that is alleged to have used Chemical Weapons on IT'S OWN CIVILIAN POPULATION should be immediately condemned?

Even if we assume the first part is true, it doesn't have any relevance to the second. They are completely separate issues. So the answer to the question is Yes, it is right to immediately condemn a country for using chemical weapons on its own civilian population. I'm shocked and appalled that I need to actually state something so morally obvious. Counter-questions: why do you think that one country's bad actions excuse another country's bad actions? Specifically, why do you think that the US doing bad things makes it morally acceptable for Syria to do bad things?

2. Do you believe in the ego-centric "Do as I say, not do as I do" style of leadership?

No. Relevance?

3. What tenet, law, belief, religion or edict gives ANY GOVERNMENT or NATION the RIGHT TO MEDDLE IN THE AFFAIRS of ANY other?

1. The UN charter/human rights declaration/Geneva Conventions.
2. The Moral Imperative.
3. What forbids it? Countries have been doing what they feel like because they can forever. What's different now?

 

[Russ_Watters]

They do deserve to be helped. We can start by helping them stop these people:

==================
Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

Just to be clear: you are aware that that's not the consensus opinion of the world community for that event, much less last week's event, right?

 

[Russ_Watters]

No. It was not a description of a specific action. It was a description of the goals of the US post WWII - limited involvement after WWII. The US wanted to stop the advance of the USSR so they came up with the "limited police action" doctrine. It was a way to sell a limited war to a war-weary country; they promised minimal involvement, quick and painless actions that would slow the USSR but not cause US casualties or require the sort of sacrifices the US had to deal with during wartime.

Sounding familiar yet?

Completely, yes. And all of those actions involve ground troops and, the Cold War and its doctrine ended 20 years ago. So why not just come right out and say it one way or another: Yes or No: Do you believe Obama intends to commit ground troops to this action?

You keep using that word. That word does not mean what you think it means.

Yeah, it really does. You are intentionally misleading by claiming things you know to be different are the same.

 

[Russ_Watters]

So what? What does that have to do with how destroying the country will serve to help the Syrian people?

Who said anything about destroying the country? Are you not clear on what Obama is proposing?

In any case, you didn't answer the question. I asked if the Syrian people deserve to be helped. It is a yes or no question. Asked another way: Do the Syrian people deserve to be gassed? If no, do they deserve help in stopping it from people who are capable of helping?

 

[billvon]

Just to be clear: you are aware that that's not the consensus opinion of the world community for that event, much less last week's event, right?

Yes. I also remember "simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

 

[billvon]

Asked another way: Do the Syrian people deserve to be gassed?

No.

Do they deserve to be killed by our weapons?

 

[billvon]

duplicate deleted

 

[Russ_Watters]

Yes. I also remember "simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction."

One being wrong doesn't make it reasonable to assume the other is. In any case, because the mainstream position is that the Syrian government is using the chemical weapons, it shouldn't be hard for you to grasp why it is the Syrian government that the international community wants to go after.

I'm curious though as to why you are so adamant about taking a position you know is not mainstream. Is it simply a matter of choosing to believe the opposite of what the US government says, simply because of your distrust for it and resulting assumption that it is always lying, even if 3rd parties (other countries) independently hold the same opinion?

No.

Do they deserve to be killed by our weapons?

No, but the question implies you think we are going to kill a lot of civilians. Maybe you are confused about what Obama intends to do. You do understand he isn't planning on carpet-bombing Syria, right? He's going to attack military targets only. You know that, right? Yes, a small number of civilian casualties are likely, but nothing compared to the number already killed.

You didn't answer my questions about comparisons to Libya, so I'll provide the stats. The worst-case estimate of how many people the coalition forces killed is 1,100 (from Libyan sources; an order of magnitude higher than what Western sources could confirm). Best estimate is that about 10,000 other combatants and 5,000 civilians were killed in the 7 months of the civil war itself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Libyan_civil_war#Deaths_caused_by_Coalition_forces

1,100 to counter 15,000 is a pretty good trade. Even better if it is more like 100 to counter 15,000.

Our action in Syria is likely to be of similar magnitude, except that the casualty rate is already an order of magnitude higher.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

Even if we assume the first part is true, it doesn't have any relevance to the second. They are completely separate issues. So the answer to the question is Yes, it is right to immediately condemn a country for using chemical weapons on its own civilian population. I'm shocked and appalled that I need to actually state something so morally obvious. Counter-questions: why do you think that one country's bad actions excuse another country's bad actions? Specifically, why do you think that the US doing bad things makes it morally acceptable for Syria to do bad things?

No. Relevance?

1. The UN charter/human rights declaration/Geneva Conventions.
2. The Moral Imperative.
3. What forbids it? Countries have been doing what they feel like because they can forever. What's different now?

Okay, Mr. shocked and appalled, :

a.) - I did not state, nor do I think "that one country's bad actions excuse another country's bad actions".
b.) - I did not "specifically" state, nor do I "specifically" think "that the US doing bad things makes it morally acceptable for Syria to do bad things?"

What is the relevance of my "Do as I say, not do as I do" question? Well. I'll tell you:
It Seems to me, and quite a lot of other open-eyed, critically thinking, unbiased people in the world, that that is exactly the attitude that the U.S. and some other countries have in regard to the rest of the world, not just Syria.

In response to my question #3 : - What tenet, law, belief, religion or edict gives ANY GOVERNMENT OR NATION THE RIGHT TO MEDDLE IN THE AFFAIRS OF ANY OTHER NATION?
Your answers :
1. The UN charter/human rights declaration/Geneva Conventions.
2. The Moral Imperative.
3. What forbids it? Countries have been doing what they feel like because they can forever.

My question had to do with "meddling" in the context of the thread - that the situation in Syria was produced/created by the MEDDLING OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS OR NATIONS IN THE AFFAIRS OF SYRIA.
Do the 2 "answers" and the counter-question and statement address that?

What's different now?

I realize from your prior Posts that you seem to be very selective in what evidence, positions and viewpoints you consider valid.
You seem to belittle, ignore, condemn or otherwise try to marginalize what does not fit agreeably into your world view.
Whether you shout "conspiracy theorist" or "reputable source" or whether or not you choose to see or accept any actual facts- will not change the ACTUAL FACTS of the situation(or the actions that actually led to that situation!) in Syria.

Syrian civilians have already suffered and died - and you know that any MILITARY ACTION will only lead to more suffering and death - and from recent actions taken because of "the Bill of Goods" sold to us by the "Mass Media" in the "lead up" to PRIOR MILITARY ACTIONS - that destroying the country of Syria, and leaving it devastated, will cause continued suffering and death. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan...
Why should "BULLIES" be allowed MILITARY ACTION when true diplomatic resolutions are not even attempted, much less exhausted?

When all governments and nations are held to OBEY THE MORAL TENET THAT NO GOVERNMENT OR NATION HAS THE RIGHT TO MEDDLE IN THE AFFAIRS OF ANY OTHER NATION things just might begin to change.

The people in the world who choose not to see that, or refuse to to see that, or are so ignorant or indifferent to it, that they fail to stand up and demand that change, will be the people who suffer and die when those "Bullies of the World" decide to, and are allowed to MEDDLE IN THE AFFAIRS OF THEIR NATION!

Any relevance?...Anything different now?...Will you stand up?...Will you put your "boots on the ground" in Syria...Will you send your children off to be "boots on the ground" in Syria, or Iran, or...
Will you feel the same way that you do now, when another nations "boots on the ground" are in YOUR nation, YOUR backyard, at YOUR front door?

p.s. Why is it so imperative for you to "take" or "maintain" this so called "mainstream position"?
Please tell me that I am not wasting my time and thoughts on another one of the "sheople"!!

 

[Russ_Watters]

Okay, Mr. shocked and appalled, :

a.) - I did not state, nor do I think "that one country's bad actions excuse another country's bad actions".
b.) - I did not "specifically" state, nor do I "specifically" think "that the US doing bad things makes it morally acceptable for Syria to do bad things?"

Not "specifically", no, but your dodging of direct answers to the questions you asked(!) implies that you think it is so. Why not answer the question directly: Do you think that a country using chemical weapons on its own civilians should be immediately condemned?

What is the relevance of my "Do as I say, not do as I do" question? Well. I'll tell you:
It Seems to me, and quite a lot of other open-eyed, critically thinking, unbiased people in the world, that that is exactly the attitude that the U.S. and some other countries have in regard to the rest of the world, not just Syria.

That's not relevance, that's a reiteration of the statement itself: I'm aware that some people say the US has a do as I say, not as I do attitude. So what? Your answer does not say why you think it matters.

In response to my question #3 : - What tenet, law, belief, religion or edict gives ANY GOVERNMENT OR NATION THE RIGHT TO MEDDLE IN THE AFFAIRS OF ANY OTHER NATION?
Your answers :
1. The UN charter/human rights declaration/Geneva Conventions.
2. The Moral Imperative.
3. What forbids it? Countries have been doing what they feel like because they can forever.

My question had to do with "meddling" in the context of the thread - that the situation in Syria was produced/created by the MEDDLING OF OTHER GOVERNMENTS OR NATIONS IN THE AFFAIRS OF SYRIA.
Do the 2 "answers" and the counter-question and statement address that?

No, they don't. They address the question you asked which was what gives anyone the moral authority to intervene, period. That is a completely separate issue from whether other countries created it. Your question said nothing about other countries created the problem. You're dodging your own question!

What's different now?

Different about what, from what?

I realize from your prior Posts that you seem to be very selective in what evidence, positions and viewpoints you consider valid.

Indeed: I have a very strong bias toward reputable, mainstream sources because I am driven by a desire to be led by facts/truth. You and several others apparently have a very strong bias in favor of crackpottery when it favors your position.

Syrian civilians have already suffered and died - and you know that any MILITARY ACTION will only lead to more suffering and death....

To the contrary, some military actions have in the past ended the suffering and death.

...that destroying the country of Syria, and leaving it devastated....

No one is suggesting we destroy Syria. That's not on the table. Your (and others) continued referencing of it is a strawman.

...will cause continued suffering and death. Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan...

References of Iraq and Afghanistan are strawmen. Our involvement in Syria will not resemble those actions at all. It will look like Libya, which directly led to an ending of the suffering and death.

Why should "BULLIES" be allowed MILITARY ACTION when true diplomatic resolutions are not even attempted, much less exhausted?

This is an internal struggle, so there isn't anything for diplomacy to do. Yet, to be sure, people have tried.

When all governments and nations are held to OBEY THE MORAL TENET THAT NO GOVERNMENT OR NATION HAS THE RIGHT TO MEDDLE IN THE AFFAIRS OF ANY OTHER NATION things just might begin to change.

As said previously: that opinion means that you think the UN should be dissolved because the UN charter and other mandates contain such rights.

Any relevance?...Anything different now?...Will you stand up?...Will you put your "boots on the ground" in Syria...Will you send your children off to be "boots on the ground" in Syria, or Iran, or...

No. No one is suggesting "boots on the ground" in Syria and Iran isn't even a topic of conversation here. Both are just strawmen you and others are bringing up.

p.s. Why is it so imperative for you to "take" or "maintain" this so called "mainstream position"?

As said, I have a strong bias toward reliable facts and truth.

Please tell me that I am not wasting my time and thoughts on another one of the "sheople"!!

If your bias prevents you from accepting positions not consistent with your beliefs or worse demands rejection of proven facts because they say things you don't want to believe then yes, you may be wasting your time.

I notice nothing in your post addressed the issue of the current suffering of the Syrian people. That's despicable.

You, billvon and others: your positions seem calibrated to contradict the US, regardless of the fact that the US's opinion is widely held in the West and regardless of what is happening to the Syrian people. Regardless of whether the Syrian government used the chemical weapons, it still happened. If you honestly believed the Syrian rebels used chemical weapons on themselves/each other (and if you cared), you should be proposing a course of action designed to stop that rather than merely opposing the chosen course of action. For example, if the rebels are the ones who used the chemical weapons, the only place they could have gotten them is from the Syrian government. So our response should be to send troops in to seize and secure the Syrian government's chemical weapons. Right?

 

[ElectricFetus]

I think NATO is going to strike a few targets and call it a day, it literally might be a one day strike! Then they will anounce to the world that they "did something" when overall they will not have done anything at all other then kill a few peope a blew up some military instilations and equipment.

 

[GeoffP]

I think NATO is going to strike a few targets and call it a day, it literally might be a one day strike! Then they will anounce to the world that they "did something" when overall they will not have done anything at all other then kill a few peope a blew up some military instilations and equipment.

Yup.

http://news.yahoo.com/russia-warns-catastrophic-consequences-syria-hit-100720291.html

I like the "monkey with a grenade" analogy. Apt. Does the democratic electoral process invite observers (and victims) to forgive the actions of the preceding administration in a kind of collective amnesia? Does it make the actors more apt to act? Do the citizens of democratic counties think these things, subconsciously? I don't think it's working.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I really doubt a small one day strike on a handfull of targets will result in "catastrophic consequences" for syria or all of the middle east.