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

[Bells]

I have a loved one very likely going if this happens and so you see I have a self interest in no boots on the ground. I wish that I could turn a blind eye to the point you just made but it is the reality of the Syrian Civil War. Hopefully you understand my dilemma I am completely and utterly torn! If the Brits, French, Aussies and others are willing to send troops along with America and the Arab League funds the military action in the event of the above scenario then I would get behind it, albeit,reluctantly.

Your concerns are real and valid. But when you become a soldier, then this is a risk you face when you join up. And sadly, it is something that their loved ones have to become accustomed to. I have two very close friends in the US Air Force. Both are married with very young children. I also have a very very close and personal friend in the Australian Air Force, who is just now back from Afghanistan. His job was to remove landmines. During the time of his deployment, his wife virtually lost a quarter of her body weight from the stress of his being there and rightly so. We held her hand each time she bawled her eyes out and we were there with her when she gave birth to their son while he was overseas. When your spouse or child or sibling or parent is deployed, it leaves you with a life of pain and stress. But it is their job. As callous as that sounds, it is their job. It is why they signed up in the first place. And sadly, their lot in life is to deploy and is to sometimes be the boots on the ground and sometimes, they will have to do that for peacekeeping reasons and frankly, I think deployment to stop a mass murderer from continuing to use his chemical weapons is a noble reason to serve.

I was chatting to my friend in the US air force last night and we were talking about the issues in Syria and whether Kerry is correct to be so cautious about not guaranteeing that there won't be boots on the ground. And frankly, his response interested me and it is why I asked you what I did... Because as he sees it, in this situation, you can never make any guarantees or promises, because if things ever go sour and there is a risk or threat of those weapons falling into the wrong hands, then someone has to go in there to secure it. And we need to ask ourselves. Who would we want to secure it? Should we trust Assad who is affiliated and is currently getting help from Hezbollah and Iran? No. Because if he looks to be losing, he will get desperate enough to use more of it. As it stands, the Hezbollah have already said that he "lost his nerve" and used Sarin gas. So would we rather they take control of it? Since they are fighting with Assad against the rebels at present? Would we be comfortable that if Assad falls, that they then go in and relieve him of his stockpiles?

The irony of this whole debate is that we are protesting about other countries, primarily the US and the West now looking to interfere in the civil war in Syria. The truth of the matter is, Russia, Iran, Lebanon have had their hands in it from the start, providing financial, military support and providing Assad with the weapons he needs to fight his war. The West have not lifted a finger to help the rebel fighters. I posted an article earlier in the thread, about how perhaps we should have intervened right from the start, when he first started shooting and murdering civilians who were protesting peacefully and demanding democratic elections. Had we done so then, then we would not be in this mess.

At the end of the day, Quinnsong, we all need to ask ourselves, which boots would we be more comfortable being on the ground if Assad falls and the chemical weapons are there for the taking. Our boots or Hezbollah, Iran, parts of the rebels who have given support to Al Qaeda or Russia?

And we also need to ask ourselves one more important question. If we do nothing now, if we do not respond to such a gross and illegal act, it could result in chemical weapons becoming a part of conventional warfare, because the Convention that demands it never be used would be worth nothing, because we ignored its usage. And is that something we are comfortable with?

---

Probably. Without reading further in the thread, I haven't seen any connection to Assad's regime than the radio intercepts. Frankly, sarin rounds can be got or made.

Everything points to him. All evidence points to him, from the amount used to the weapons used. We also have the Hezbollah (who are fighting with him in Syria) telling Iran that he did it. Sometimes it is the butler in the dining room with candlestick. In other words, sometimes the most obvious answer is the correct answer.

I'm interested to see how that's so. If tissue samples are being used to identify the gas, how would HE affect them? Regarding the previous attacks, I've seen some articles on Syria's culpability, but this evidence isn't public either - I agree with you naturally that the Israelis are good, but not mythical.

Chemical weapons degrade very quickly. Shelling the site repeatedly (as he did) immediately after the use of those weapons would help destroy the evidence and help it degrade faster. And the use, dosage and delivery all points to Syria because the rebels do not have the capacity to produce, refine and use Sarin in that capacity.

In the briefing, Schindler said that only the Assad regime is in possession of binary chemical weapons such as sarin. The BND believes that regime experts would be the only ones capable of manufacturing such weapons and deploying them with small missiles. The BND believes that such weapons had been used several times prior to the attack on Aug. 21, which is believed to have killed more than 1,400 people. Schindler said in the earlier attacks, however, the poison gas mixture was diluted, explaining the much lower death tolls in those assaults.

---

The analysis presented by the BND is similar to that produced by the US. The American report holds that the poisonous gas was delivered via several small missiles that can be fired from mobile launch units. Casings found at the scenes of the gas attacks indicate that they were 107 mm rockets, which the regime possesses in large numbers. Schindler emphasized that the rebels are unable to carry out such a concerted attack.

Understand now?

Well, they did produce a report on an attack in March 2013 at a town called Khan-al-Assal. The report isn't available (at least not to the public and possibly to other governmental agencies), but then again neither are the American or French reports (at least not to the public). The Russians say it wasn't military grade, which is about the argument line you'd expect them to take if they're arguing the sarin was home-made, and that RDX was used as an explosive agent for distribution on impact. A CBS article argues that the sarin was "cottage-industry" produced rather than industrially. So it's not at all impossible that the rebels made some themselves. They also claim the reason the UN team was in the area at all was to investigate the earlier attack. Finally, assuming that the Syrians did in fact use RDX because they had a stock lying around, it would be curious to have used rockets near Aleppo and mortars (not helis and aircraft as you earlier alleged) in the Ghouta attack (this attack, that is). The BBC reported that the rebels themselves used sarin earlier as well. Both sides may well have used it. There's another report that the Turks caught rebels sneaking sarin into Syria, but it hasn't been picked up by the major institutions and is probably false.

Never heard of McClatchky news; still, I don't think they could invent the report itself. Had you not heard of this Russian report when you posted?

I had read a report where Russia advised that one of their scientists had advised that Sarin was used. However the arguments to counter their reports (which your own links provided) and the bizarre claims they made were more compelling. Then we also have the fact that even the Hezbollah have confirmed that he lost his nerve and used chemical weapons.

How do you know it will have degraded? Chemical stablizers are added to sarin used in warheads, but my impression is that their half-life is fairly long. Correction: about five hours, apparently. That might put it within range of a delay of a few days being useful to let the evidence degrade: yet, sarin samples were recovered from tissues collected by the Russians, so I'm not sure about that.

It has a very short shelf life and once out in the environment, it degrades very quickly.

Which is why Assad stopped UN inspectors from accessing the site immediately, and instead shelled the bejesus out of it.

I brought it up because it reflects the state of modern credulity about WMD use and construction. I'm surprised that you do believe it; personally, I'm about 65:35 on it.

I think one would have to be very naive to think that they are not trying to build one.

Well, if all parties (Russians, Americans) are to be believed, then both sides need to be interfered with. Obama would have a much harder job with Islamist forces in Syria than with the Syrians themselves, of course, but if they've used sarin themselves, they couldn't be overlooked.

People seem to be under the belief that the rebel and opposition forces are made up solely of Islamists. The reality is that it is made up of mostly armed forces personnel who defected and civilians who took up the fight when Assad first started to kill them when they protested peacefully. There is an Islamist faction amongst the rebels, but I think people are putting too much emphasis on them. There are more moderates fighting on the oppositions side than there are Islamists and the Islamists are also fighting for their say, but somehow, I doubt they will have much of a say in the end.

Yes and no. Assad does have WMDs. The rebels may too. Who used them here? The Syrians are very suspicious, but then again it's also suspicious that mortars were used for delivery when Assad has aircraft and rockets. You're big on the word "fret" - we can indeed investigate further. Is justice delayed a few weeks justice denied? Will Assad 'get away' in the meantime? What will happen if we take a little time for further investigation?

All intelligence organisations have clearly pointed out that the rebels do not have the capacity to produce the WMD's. Unless they got into a stockpile, but had they done so, then Assad and Russia would have been pitching a fit in public. And there is no evidence that they have done so. So..

All intelligence, evidence, independent sources point to Assad. From the mortar's used, to the chemicals he used to even confirmation from the group that is helping him in this war. You know, if it quacks, looks and walks like a duck, it is usually a duck and not a chicken.

True. His opposition is now largely comprised of religious fascists, however. I don't know what the intent of the attack was: if Syrian, to intimidate, and if not, to incriminate. That should be a saying.

Actually, it is not. There is a belief that his opposition are all Islamists. They actually are not.

I think I just said: investigate. One could at least wait until the UN samples were back. The question is also: how far are we going to go?

We haven't attacked yet, have we?

I was very surprised when you linked this in, so surprised that I went to the link and checked it. You seem to be implying that I thought the US had carried out the bombings, somehow. This was not my point at all: rather, I was impressed that someone actually had pictures and was looking for suspicious backpacks and bags. In the succeeding post, I suggested that Jones had unwittingly identified security personnel. As in: they were not actually involved, but were on scene to provide security. If you care to pursue this line of inquiry, could you cite directly from those posts indicating where I thought the Americans had done it themselves, which is what you're accusing me of above? If I may offer in amused rebuttal, you seem much more familiar with Jones' conspiracy line than I.

Oh please, Jones clearly argues that the US has a hand in the bombings. Even what you linked.. And the words you used..

Hmm. I note that two guys there appear to be wearing 'fatigue casuals' and desert boots. Or construction boots? Maybe the infowars ppl have unwittingly identified special forces security?

[Post 82]

They look like Blackwater types - but why the hell would Blackwater-type security be there?

[Post 93]

By which point Eram pointed out that you were a conspiracy nut.

Whereupon you then switched back to your conspiracy about the Saudi university student, even as they were hunting for the brothers involved in the bombing.. My favourite moment was when you cited Shoebat.. Ah classic conspiracy theory moment there. You were in your prime at that point... By the next page, people were clearly questioning whether you were rational or not.

Suffice to say, it was not your finest moment.

Then so be it. I'd just like someone to come out and publically admit that, no matter what occurs, the West will be blamed by Islamists (and other political opportunists). I'm cheered, though, that you've come around to indirectly admitting such individuals exist.

Wow..

Question: what were the political allegiances of the district struck?

And this matters why?

If they were aligned with the Islamists, does it make gassing them in their homes more acceptable?

Does it make it more palatable to you if the political allegiances were with the rebels?

Has the West become so accustomed to daily violence that Assad can now expect Western politicians to look the other way when small children die after suffering muscle convulsions, tears shooting from their eyes and foam from their noses and mouths?

Can we look away when we see the small girl from a Damascus suburb, in a T-shirt embroidered with glittering thread, captured in an image so heartbreaking SPIEGEL decided to show only a suggestion of the brutality of her death on its cover?​

Is this more fucking acceptable to you if that small girl is an Islamist?

How about two or three weeks to be sure, before we run in and kill a couple thousand, or ten thousand if Obama does put "boots on the ground"?

It has been about that long.

Now imagine my mirth at finding you misrepresented me again.

Think again. You are asking what were the political allegiances of the area struck with chemical weapons as though that fucking matters. As for your "blackwater types".. Refer to the quoted parts of your comments above.

If I were to be truly mean, I could just pitch it on basis that you don't read French. Yet, as you surely also know, that's not my style, so I read it. It does mention a Syrian heli attack, but other than that largely gives that which we know: that he has sarin, and that Alawite personnel are in charge of it. You could say it establishes precedent, though, sure: but not on the list of chemical warhead types are mortars, which were used in the Ghouta attack. Again, wouldn't be hard to slap together, but why didn't he just use rockets? The French report does allege air attack, but I haven't seen this from any of the eyewitness reports.

EDIT: actually, that last sentence is wrong: the French allege conventional aerial attack only, unless I've missed something. So for the time being, that's still a no.

J'aime bien comment vous pensez que je ne lis pas Français.

I really appreciate how you have read this for me and told me what it says. Sadly, you left out a very crucial part. In your assumption that I cannot read French, you claim that the French reports alleges conventional aerial attacks only. And yet, in the same sentence that it mentions conventional weapons, it also advises that Assad used a very large amount of chemical weapons. On a side note, GeoffP, French was my first language.

It was virtually on the first page of the text of the report (last paragraph on page 2).

In French:

L’analyse des renseignements dont nous disposons aujourd’hui conduit à estimer que, le 21 août 2013, le régime syrien a lancé une attaque sur certains quartiers de la banlieue de Damas tenus par les unités de l’opposition, associant moyens conventionnels et usage massif d’agents chimiques. ​

In English:

The analysis of information that we have today leads us to believe that on 21 August 2013 the Syrian regime launched an attack on certain areas of the Damascus suburbs held by opposition units, using a combination of conventional weapons and the massive use of chemical weapons.​

Emphasis mine.

Since you can pitch that you believe that I do not read French, care to explain to me, how since you know, you can read French and that you read it, how it is possible you missed this crucial line about "the massive use of chemical weapons"? Especially when it is in the exact same sentence as the conventional weapons you claim the French said they had only used?

Well?

Or did you think that I could not read French, and thus, would simply not know exactly what the French report actually said and so you tried to claim that they had said "conventional aerial weapons only" and I would not know any differently, since, "as you know, it's not your style"?

I left in the "my my" for free, short bus. Do you think it helps your case, doing this? You're a lawyer, aren't you? Aren't there some kinds of rules on ethical conduct for lawyers?

...good God, I just realized the complete naivety of that last sentence.

You claim to be a scientist. Aren't there rules about misinterpreting and misrepresenting data in studies? The reason I ask is because you admitted to reading French, gloated that I do not read French, and then deliberately misrepresented and misinterpreted the French document I linked you when it clearly states that Assad had used chemical weapons in the exact same sentence that you commented on in regards to their conventional weapons? So you either lied about your ability to read French or you deliberately lied about what you had read, under the mistaken belief that I could not read French to check what you were saying. How sad for you that I am a native French speaker.

And considering you were asking what the political allegiance of the area he bombed with chemical weapons, you'll excuse me if I point out that your words in this thread have been callous, uncaring and yes, points to the fact that you are not happy if the West responds because the opposition has some Islamists amongst their midst. I mean really, how can you even ask what the political allegiance of the area struck is? What does that fucking matter? So yes, I will ask whether you missed the short bus, because your manner of posting on this site sometimes demands it.

I guess you could write him about the Blackwater types if you're really so inclined. You know, you should probably check your references a little more carefully from now on. Just a suggestion.

Anyway, back to the main point: the case is growing somewhat stronger but not conclusive for the Ghouta attack being the work of the Syrians (Assad). Your links do raise some new questions. I'll try to compose a better breakdown of the evidence so far... if I ever get the time.

Aye. Mother Russia will be proud of your subservience.

My suggestion, learn to read and learn to not ask dumbarse questions that result in my thinking you are a fuck-knuckle.. Questions such as asking what the political allegiance of the area struck is, because what that does it show that you seem to think that actually matters.

 

[dumbest man on earth]

If you have a point you'd like to make, and it's a reasonable and rational point, then you ought to be able to do it without relying on Holocaust deniers to make the point for you.

CptBork, reasonable and rational. I can do that.

My point from the onset of this thread - Post #34 - "wegs, have you looked into who actually "owns" the "networks from the West"? Can you honestly not see that the "networks from the West" are, indeed, heavily biased?"..."The real truth exists. The smoke and mirrors exist - talking heads...mouthpieces...bullet points...cries of conspiracy theorist...mis-information...dis-information...propaganda - these are a few of the "smoke and mirrors" that the "owners" use to disseminate the "truth" that they prefer we believe..."

You had made, basically the same points about other media outlets - I was trying to get across that the same is happening with all media outlets. The same people who own the major media in the U.S. also own a large portion of the U.S. Military Industrial Complex - G.E., Westinghouse, Raytheon... The Boards of Directors of quite a few Companies/Corporations in the U.S. set in chairs of quite a few others. The "Uber" rich of the world have a vested interest in many different "areas".

Very early on, you were mentioning why not to give "validity" or to trust certain "sources" of information. we seemed to be in agreement!?

CptBork, at this point in this Post, I have to mention something that you will probably not like :
I had read this Thread from the OP and seemed to detect, repeat I, dmoe, seemed to detect a marked "heavy sarcasm" in your response to some Posts and Posters. Can you accept that ?

At any rate, not all pertinent information is available on Wiki or Better homes an Gardens. Especially when it is information that someone does not necessarily want to be common knowledge.
For example the link, that I Copied and Pasted from another Poster on this forum, in Post #608 - that you went on to reasonably and rationally review in your Post #618 - is not about the source - but the content.
The validity of the information or the message takes precedence over the messenger - can you understand that?

Hey, CptBork, it is very late for me and I am not currently in the greatest of health (recuperating from a lengthy hospital stay) so if you do not mind I would like to close for now.

I would very much like to continue to have reasonable and rational discussions with you, it seems that when you choose to, you can be very pleasant. (I read probably 30 times more Threads than I post in)

If you get the chance, read my other Postings and try to get some insight from them - I do not type very well or very fast and I would hate to re-explain all of the explaining I have done over the last few days because of a...shall we say a Poster that preferred to shout louder than me and use some inflaming tactics that caused some ensuing collateral attacks.

BTW - I am not an anti-Semite.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

There are people on here very willing to sacrifice other people's lives for their high principles.
Armchair Generals.
"Boots on the Ground" euphemism for "Dead bodies in the Ground"
Sickening.


btw
For your more extreme racist, Irish are Jews too. Lost tribe of Dan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes

 

[CptBork]

There are people on here very willing to sacrifice other people's lives for their high principles.
Armchair Generals.
"Boots on the Ground" euphemism for "Dead bodies in the Ground"
Sickening.

Would you count me in that group? I consider myself neutral on the issue provided you're neutral on Israel's right to self-defense. If you don't care enough about 120,000+ dead Syrians to want forceful action taken to stop the conflict, then I expect you also won't care enough to intervene for Shia Lebanese civilians killed next to the guerrilla fighters they shelter if those same fighters attack Israelis next, as they've been openly threatening for years. There's no such thing as proportionality when a nation defends itself against the unprovoked military aggression of radical Islamic hatemongers. Sound fair?

btw
For your more extreme racist, Irish are Jews too. Lost tribe of Dan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes

I just learned about British Israelism for the first time yesterday when I was looking up details about Jeff Rense. What a hilarious crock. First a nation persecutes and discriminates against Jews for centuries, only to then proclaim themselves the real Jews as justification for conquering the planet (or in Ireland's case, presumably conquering North America and screaming at Britain about "stolen" Celtic lands).

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Forceful action isn't going to stop the conflict.
It's probably coming soon, so we'll find out for sure won't we?

 

[CptBork]

Forceful action isn't going to stop the conflict.
It's probably coming soon, so we'll find out for sure won't we?

Like I say, I respect your opinions and can't forcefully argue against them. No one should be forced into this war against their will or choose to enter it without a plan and the willingness to take a fair share of the responsibility for whatever doesn't go according to plan. My expectation is that Israel will be attacked on a large scale at some point, one way or another, and regardless of the outcome in the present Israeli-Palestinian negotiations- either when Assad finds himself decisively losing and attempts a desperate ploy to unite the Muslim sects behind him, or after Assad completes his victory and Iran's axis has consolidated its control over Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. I don't want to see another repeat of the 2006 conflict- if the destruction of that war wasn't sufficient to deter Hezbollah, then the next war needs to be the last one it will be able to fight for a very long time.

Frankly though, with Israel out of the equation, would you still reject a military intervention if Assad does indeed look to lose, and he starts gassing his whole country in desperation?

 

[p-brane]

I am not an anti-Semite.

Nice try Hitler. Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Like I say, I respect your opinions and can't forcefully argue against them. No one should be forced into this war against their will or choose to enter it without a plan and the willingness to take a fair share of the responsibility for whatever doesn't go according to plan. My expectation is that Israel will be attacked on a large scale at some point, one way or another, and regardless of the outcome in the present Israeli-Palestinian negotiations- either when Assad finds himself decisively losing and attempts a desperate ploy to unite the Muslim sects behind him, or after Assad completes his victory and Iran's axis has consolidated its control over Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. I don't want to see another repeat of the 2006 conflict- if the destruction of that war wasn't sufficient to deter Hezbollah, then the next war needs to be the last one it will be able to fight for a very long time.

Frankly though, with Israel out of the equation, would you still reject a military intervention if Assad does indeed look to lose, and he starts gassing his whole country in desperation?

Military intervention, if done at all, should be by UN forces.
American solutions, through recent history, have caused more harm than good.
Their school report would read:
Bombing skills, B+.
Planning ahead, E-

 

[Bells]

CptBork, reasonable and rational. I can do that.

My point from the onset of this thread - Post #34 - "wegs, have you looked into who actually "owns" the "networks from the West"? Can you honestly not see that the "networks from the West" are, indeed, heavily biased?"..."The real truth exists. The smoke and mirrors exist - talking heads...mouthpieces...bullet points...cries of conspiracy theorist...mis-information...dis-information...propaganda - these are a few of the "smoke and mirrors" that the "owners" use to disseminate the "truth" that they prefer we believe..."

How many times must you be asked to stop posting this crap?

No, really. How many times?

 

[Bells]

There are people on here very willing to sacrifice other people's lives for their high principles.
Armchair Generals.
"Boots on the Ground" euphemism for "Dead bodies in the Ground"
Sickening.

And yet, you don't whine about the intervention and involvement (from the start of this civil war) from the Russians, Hezbollah and Iran.

For example, the death toll would be far less had Russia not armed Assad. And yet, any attempt by the world community to get Putin to stop selling Assad arms has fallen on death ears and any attempt to get him to stop in the UN is met with Russia's veto power.

In other words, the boots on the ground in Syria at the moment consist of Russia's boots and Hezbollah's boots. You aren't complaining about them. You don't complain or bitch about their intervention and involvement in this conflict, which has resulted in chemical weapons being used.

Oh no, instead, you are whining that the West wants to punish Assad for using chemical weapons. Because if Assad (with Russia and Hezbollah's help) kills innocent civilians, then it's okay. You aren't concerned about those boots on the ground. You're more concerned that the US wants to have targeted strikes against Assad for using chemical weapons and you are whining about any possible deaths from that. Fuck the actual deaths from the war at present and the deaths which have arisen because of Russia's and Hezbollah's help. No, you are more concerned about hypothetical deaths that may rise if the US strikes Syria.

I think that is more sickening.

btw
For your more extreme racist, Irish are Jews too. Lost tribe of Dan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Lost_Tribes

Why are you encouraging his racist ideology?

Forceful action isn't going to stop the conflict.
It's probably coming soon, so we'll find out for sure won't we?

Exactly what Putin says. Right before he sells them more arms. Funny that, huh?

Because the countries saying "forceful action isn't going to stop the conflict" have been the countries to gain from this conflict. And Russia is getting rich off it. When the world demanded he stop selling Assad weapons, he refused and sold him more. And this was at the start, when Assad was shooting up peaceful protesters.

If what you say is true, then to truly stop the conflict, Russia should be stopping all arms sales to Syria. But it is not. But you don't complain about that. You don't complain about the actual loss of life from Russia's intervention in this civil war. Or don't you think supplying weapons to Syria is forceful action enough to warrant your notice? Hell, you don't think using chemical weapons is worthy of consideration or forceful enough to warrant action.

 

[CptBork]

Military intervention, if done at all, should be by UN forces.
American solutions, through recent history, have caused more harm than good.
Their school report would read:
Bombing skills, B+.
Planning ahead, E-

How would a UN military intervention be any different than a coalition of the willing? If Britain doesn't want to get involved on grounds of risk to its troops or lack of moral clarity, why would a UN vote suddenly change that? I assume you care more about dead Syrian protesters than Russia's hurt feelings, so how do you think a UN action would differ from a US-led initiative? Who has a better track record than the US when it comes to humanitarian military interventions? Would you consider the Korean, Kosovo and Bosnian wars as US failures too?

Frankly I'm just thinking your position was more rationally justifiable when you left it at "no military intervention, period". I doubt you believe Russian and Chinese approval is what makes the difference between a moral action vs. an immoral one.

 

[CptBork]

Because the countries saying "forceful action isn't going to stop the conflict" have been the countries to gain from this conflict. And Russia is getting rich off it. When the world demanded he stop selling Assad weapons, he refused and sold him more. And this was at the start, when Assad was shooting up peaceful protesters.

I read your earlier post about Russia's military industrial interest in supporting Assad, but I don't see how the profits could truly motivate Russia's backing. Russia has a GDP of 1.7 trillion USD per year, whereas arms sales to Syria are something on the order of $2 billion annually, chump change by comparison. Besides, the Saudis just recently offered a much bigger weapons contract, future trade ties and promises that Saudi oil won't compete for Russia's market share, in exchange for breaking ties with the Iran axis, and it was brushed off within the same day. Since Al Qaeda was only a marginal player at the onset, I can only fathom the support for Assad as part of Russia's Cold War mentality, that it seeks prestige and influence in the Middle East at the expense of America's influence, and is willing to support whoever for whatever reason in order to obtain it. Better hundreds of thousands of Arabs die than have America appearing mightier and more popular than the Slavs.

Edit: All the same, Russia's now claiming they'll support limited action against Assad if they see adequate proof he conducted the chemical attacks. I really hope they're sincere about this and that all necessary proof can be furnished to them without having them tip off Assad's intelligence services.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

How would a UN military intervention be any different than a coalition of the willing?

Because it would exclude coalitions acting in their own interests.
Assad's troops are fighting against a whole variety of other groups, some of which are Islamists.

Were it the case that Assad was pro-American, neutral to Israel, Anti-Russian and anti-Iranian,
would the groups fighting against Assad would be termed "Terrorists" or Freedom Fighters" ?

 

[Bells]

I read your earlier post about Russia's military industrial interest in supporting Assad, but I don't see how the profits could truly motivate Russia's backing. Russia has a GDP of 1.7 trillion USD per year, whereas arms sales to Syria are something on the order of $2 billion annually, chump change by comparison. Besides, the Saudis just recently offered a much bigger weapons contract, future trade ties and promises that Saudi oil won't compete for Russia's market share, in exchange for breaking ties with the Iran axis, and it was brushed off within the same day. Since Al Qaeda was only a marginal player at the onset, I can only fathom the support for Assad as part of Russia's Cold War mentality, that it seeks prestige and influence in the Middle East at the expense of America's influence, and is willing to support whoever for whatever reason in order to obtain it. Better hundreds of thousands of Arabs die than have America appearing mightier and more popular than the Slavs.

I had posted something earlier about just how much it is.

But you are correct. It is not the only reason. When you factor in the fact that Syria gives Russia a port in the Mediterranean Sea (so much so that they have a naval base there), it is for Russia's personal interest that Assad remains in power.. One of the most important factors in the twisted relationship is that Assad provides Putin and Russia the influence it desires in the region (so you are correct in that as well). If Assad goes, so too goes Russia's voice and influence in the region.

When the West attempted a diplomatic response at the beginning of this conflict, they were vetoed in the UNSC. I guess Russia wants the glory and all the powerplays must come from it.

 

[Bells]

Because it would exclude coalitions acting in their own interests.
Assad's troops are fighting against a whole variety of other groups, some of which are Islamists.

Were it the case that Assad was pro-American, neutral to Israel, Anti-Russian and anti-Iranian,
would the groups fighting against Assad would be termed "Terrorists" or Freedom Fighters" ?

If the US were acting on behalf of its own interests in Syria, then they would have intervened about 2 years ago, instead of letting this civil war drag on to the point where Assad is gassing his populace with chemical weapons.

You again disregard Russia's interests in all of this. Why is that?

Why are you so against the West wanting to respond to the use of chemical weapons, so much so that you accuse them of acting on their interests (an idiotic argument considering how the West has not intervened at all until the desire to do so now since Assad used chemical weapons), but you don't seem to have a problem with Russia's self interest in this conflict?

Some of the groups fighting with the rebels are already called terrorists. Or did that escape your notice?

You seem to not understand something very basic here. Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Even if he was pro-American, etc, it would be beside the point.

 

[quinnsong]

I had posted something earlier about just how much it is.

But you are correct. It is not the only reason. When you factor in the fact that Syria gives Russia a port in the Mediterranean Sea (so much so that they have a naval base there), it is for Russia's personal interest that Assad remains in power.. One of the most important factors in the twisted relationship is that Assad provides Putin and Russia the influence it desires in the region (so you are correct in that as well). If Assad goes, so too goes Russia's voice and influence in the region.

When the West attempted a diplomatic response at the beginning of this conflict, they were vetoed in the UNSC. I guess Russia wants the glory and all the powerplays must come from it.

How does Putin sleep at night or anyone else that uses the bloodshed of others as an opportunity to sell arms, to gain glory or the power that comes with it? Right now it is Putin, tomorrow it May be America doing the same exact thing. Is being a sociopath a requirement for running a country? I am sickened by all of it.

 

[wegs]

If the US were acting on behalf of its own interests in Syria, then they would have intervened about 2 years ago, instead of letting this civil war drag on to the point where Assad is gassing his populace with chemical weapons.

I agree with that.

You seem to not understand something very basic here. Assad used chemical weapons against civilians. Even if he was pro-American, etc, it would be beside the point.

agree here, too, Bells.

My vacillation with regards to whether I feel the US should strike Syria in response to the chemical attacks, mainly was due to not having conclusive evidence that Assad’s regime was behind the attacks. That said, it would seem that the closest we can come to having solid evidence has passed, and my belief now in Assad being behind the attack, comes in the form of ruling out that rebels could have had the means (which has been speculated) to carry out such an attack. (not impossible for them, but unlikely in this case)

My concern now though is…this is going to lead to a war between the US and Iran. It’s very scary to think of this, because Iran is a potentially strong contender, and the threat of them reacting to a US strike against Syria, should be taken seriously. Add Russia into the mix, and it’s the perfect storm. Should Russia get involved and Iran, this will turn into a major war, and the US will be in it for the long haul. (my opinion)

And this begs the question…If the US strikes Syria or not…will the US still end up in a major conflict with Iran? In my mind’s eye, the answer is yes…it’s just a matter of when and for how long. In other words…I think there’s no way out of going to war with Iran.

 

[spidergoat]

Military intervention, if done at all, should be by UN forces.

That's hilarious. With Russia and China vetoing everything, nothing would ever happen.

 

[youreyes]

That's hilarious. With Russia and China vetoing everything, nothing would ever happen.

It's not just Russia and China who are against the war with Syria. Germany and Britain have also voiced against war with Syria at G20 meeting. And that is what U.N. is for, a mission of which is to come to a unilateral decision between its parties, and not be biased to ANY PARTICULAR COUNTRY OR ALLIANCES.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

@Spidergoat
You look through Star and Stripe tinted spectacles.
What proportion of the vetoes do you suppose are by the United States?

Yes, selfish states are gradually turning the UN into another League of Nations,
but the US is doing more than its fair share towards that end.