Do you now support military action against Syria's government?

[Pickman's model]

It's time for Assad to go. By whatever means.

It's a pity then he's mates with russia, iran and china.

 

[butchersapron]

The early predictions of the Syrian revolution have proven to be unfounded. We know that our journalist's constant comparisons with the speedy downfalls of Ben Ali's Tunisia and Mubarak's Egypt were irrelevant in a country as complex as Syria.

Numbering 50,000 men, the Free Syrian Army, a self-declared non-sectarian group of early army defectors, remains the largest opposition group in the country. But during the past year other factions have entered the fray. If their numbers, as well as their political views are anything to go by, the possibility of a united front seems remote.

The Syrian Liberation Front, numbering 37,000 fighters, and the Syrian Islamic Front, numbering 13,000 fighters, operate in Syria's southeast and northeast respectively. Both of these groups espouse an Islamist ideology, in contrast to the self-declared non-sectarianism of the Free Syrian Army.

However the real challenge to the unity of the Syrian opposition lies in Jabhat al-Nusra, to whom thousands of Free Syrian army fighters have apparently defected. Numbering only 5,000 fighters as of January, but now perhaps many more, al-Nusra's core fighters come from Iraq's post-war insurgency and have recently pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/4...intelligence-briefing-on-the-assad-resistance

Why are you not putting quotes in quotes or indicating that they're quotes in some other way?

 

[likesfish]

A sitation where cruise missiles are the answer.

 

[Pickman's model]

A sitation where cruise missiles are the answer.

You think assad should bomb london and washington?

 

[cyprusclean]

Why are you not putting quotes in quotes or indicating that they're quotes in some other way?

The usual irrelevance.

What are you in a snit about today?

 

[cyprusclean]

You think assad should bomb london and washington?

Has he got cruise missiles?

Besides he can always get Iran to do that job, Syria being its client state.

 

[cyprusclean]

A sitation where cruise missiles are the answer.

Targeting where and what?

 

[brogdale]

You think assad should bomb london and washington?

...and Paris?

 

[Pickman's model]

The usual irrelevance.

What are you in a snit about today?

Why would you want to present someone else's work as your own?

 

[butchersapron]

Has he got cruise missiles?

Besides he can always get Iran to do that job, Syria being its client state.

Not sure that you a) quite get how client state relationships work, who has the power (hint: generally not the subordinate one in the relationship) or b) can provide a good reason why Iran would target london and washington with missiles on Syria's say so.

 

[brogdale]

It's time for Assad to go. By whatever means.

"Whatever means"; really?

Based upon 'our' record of fucking up nations that were 'our' client states, what are the chances of 'us' sorting out one of 'their's' with a few cruise missiles?

 

[cyprusclean]

Why would you want to present someone else's work as your own?

I didn't. And you know that very well.

 

[butchersapron]

It's time for Assad to go. By whatever means.

That's whatever means aside from ones where you are the person who has to face the consequences of the action.

 

[cyprusclean]

Not sure that you a) quite get how client state relationships work, who has the power (hint: generally not the subordinate one in the relationship) or b) can provide a good reason why Iran would target london and washington with missiles on Syria's say so.

Go back to bed.

 

[likesfish]

A

Targeting where and what?

Assad making that fucker dead is a laudable aim

 

[brogdale]

A
Assad making that fucker dead is a laudable aim

...because that decapitation model has worked so well to bring peace and prosperity to some many people, hasn't it?

 

[teqniq]

I still think there is a strong possibility that the chemical weapons attack is a false flag operation of some sort. The only thing I would advocate, if you can afford it is giving money to aid charities which I have done once already and will most likely do again.

Does the World Care? 1 Mn Syrian Children Refugees & Aid Money Running Out

The Syrian conflict has produced a massive refugee problem, and it reached a new level of horror this week with news that the UN High Commission on Refugees estimates that there are a million children refugees alone. UN resources for dealing with this problem are fast dwindling and donor pledges are falling short....

http://www.shelterbox.org

 

[cyprusclean]

I still think there is a strong possibility that the chemical weapons attack is a false flag operation of some sort.

You mean the Syrians are provoking the Americans? Or the other way round?

 

[teqniq]

The other way around. Though who is both directly or indirectly responsible will most likely never see the light of day.

E2A Though it would be more correct to say that persons presently unknown - Syrian rebels and/or outside third parties are keen to push the U.S. into making good on it's 'a red line would be crossed' statement regarding the use of chemical weapons.

 

[brogdale]

The other way around. Though who is both directly or indirectly responsible will most likely never see the light of day.

Most commentary from those closer to the events have speculated that the most likely source of the chemical attack were the units commanded by Assad's brother Maher. The attack on the rebel-held suburb coincided with a large loyalist operation to clear rebels from parts of suburban Damascus.

Sounds more likely than some CIA or AQ inspired attack?

 

[teqniq]

In the early days of this conflict it became apparent that Maher was /is some kind of psychopath so I suppose it's certainly possible that he could be responsible. I just have deep misgivings about the whole affair, especially after the last time when:

UN's Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels 'used sarin'

 

[stuff_it]

i'd support massive retaliation and targetted assasination against the guilty party - not for what it would or would not achieve in Syria (which i believe to be beyond any political process and locked in a cycle of utterly unrestricted civil warfare upon which outside intervention, either happening or not happening, would have no effect..) - but purely to establish the price of other states/groups using Chemical weapons on a civilian population.

if the 'international community' - and yes, i'm aware of how flawed and nebulous that concept is - does not impose a price on the use of such weapons then it crosses, imv, a very thick red line with regards to all the previously accepted rules like the Geneva and Hague Conventions (which, respectively, govern the conduct of war, and the legalities of the war itself), and the Geneva Protocols on the use of Chemical and Biological weapons: its saying that the rules aren't the rules anymore, that if you ignore them then there's no sanction.

this view is not about Syria or the respective virtues - of which there are few - of the opposing sides, its purely about the future: if its ok to use CW in Syria, then its ok to use CW anywhere. that is not, i'd suggest, a future it would be wise to chose purely because action against whichever side happens to be guilty in this instance carries downsides.

So you're suggesting nuking Syria from orbit?

 

[Frumious B.]

No military action. That would just escalate Shia-Sunni conflict throughout the region. The body count would be colossal, we'd be stuck in sectarian conflicts in multiple countries for decades. We should stick to negotiation, help for refugees and taking names for future trials.

 

[SpookyFrank]

I assume you mean by the US, maybe with the support of other Western governments. No, no, no, no, no! Why can't our governments just learn to butt out? Let the Syrians sort it out. Neither side deserves support.

The Syrian people aren't a 'side' and they do deserve support. Not that I have any idea what would be the best way to help them, but it does seem like everyone is talking about whether or not to send in the tanks and nobody is really talking about how to help the millions of refugees.

 

[Frumious B.]

Refugees are where we should focus. There are 1.5 million so far. They will live through the war, return to Syria eventually and help it rebuild. We want them as friends, not enemies.

 

[ViolentPanda]

A major problem with support for any side or faction in Syria is that whoever wins, the people of Syria lose, because any regime will be the puppet of one side or another of the "superpower" equation, and a situation of "no regime" a la early post-war Iraq will possibly mean incursion from Israel "for security reasons" at the very least, with Syria possibly ending up even more of a proxy battleground for foreign interests than it already is.

 

[DotCommunist]

some proper hardons in this thread

 

[eatmorecheese]

Depends what is meant by military action, depends if you regard Assad's mob as the government.

Moral outrage is a dangerous thing when it explicitly expresses itself by dropping bombs. The complexity of the situation on the ground, plus the propaganda frenzy bolstered by the interests of other regional powers involved has left me bewildered.

I've yet to see any coherent or plausible plan for military intervention. Balkan analogies also occur to me.

 

[Frumious B.]

All this stuff about red lines and chemical weapons is naive delusional hypocrisy because it's based on a presumption that the West has a moral imperative and a humanitarian agenda. The West is just the US and Israel - nobody else has a say. The US has zero status as an honest broker or a protector of the weak. The Iraq war and the drones have established that. (And the locals haven't forgotten that the US armed both sides in the Iran/Iraq war and supported the Shah of Iran.) The US and Israel couldn't give a fuck about dead Syrian civilians, their interests are in squashing Hezbollah and ensuring that whoever takes over from Assad doesn't attack Israel. So if the US can work out where the serious weapons are they'll send some cruise missiles, but let's not pretend this red line nonsense has anything to do with the morality of mass slaughter or sending a message. It's in the interests of the US to have a prolonged war of attrition to reduce the enormous arsenal of weapons in Syria. If Assad was killed tomorrow a bunch of Salafists would grab all his tanks and retake the Golan Heights. Maybe that would suit the US because it would be the ideal pretext for killing lots of extremists and disarming the other side.

As for the UN inspectors...what a farce. Why on earth would Assad let them out of their luxury hotel? "Hello, we're the moral arbiters of killing people humanely. You may remember us for our sterling work in Iraq. Please let us in so we can make the case for bombing you."

 

[Delroy Booth]

I don't think those numbers are accurate at all Cyprusclean to be honest. The idea there's a 50,000 strong Free Syrian Army is laughable, all the recent reports (at least since the beginning of this year) that I've seen have said Jabhat al-nusrah is the dominant rebel group, and the numer of troops directly under the control of the FSA less than 10% of the overall number of rebels. the numbers fighting for Al-Qaeda have been put at 30,000 or so. I suspect your data is either out of date or wishful thinking.

Forgive me for not searching out any links to back that up but there's ample links in the Syria thread which say this, so I suggest you look there.

The idea that the Free Syrian Army is non-Islamist is also untrue - many of these Islamist militia's switch their allegiences from FSA to Al-Nusrah depending on who's got the best weapons and the most money. This notion of there being a clear distinction between the secular good guys and the Islamist bad guys is nothing more than wishful thinking put about the neo-conversative american hawks like John McCain. The truth is much more complicated and uncomfortable than the neo-cons say. The idea that the secular non-Islamist Free Syrian Army outnumbers the Islamists 10-1 in Syria is laughable.