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

[littlebabyjesus]

Keep in mind that the WSJ is barely above Fox News in reliability.

I don't doubt it on the basis of that article. But it is worrying that they present something that purports to be analysis - with some very firm statements of opinion - but is in reality an absurdity. They are clearly attempting to manufacture consent for war here.

Is the WSJ the main financial newspaper? The equivalent here is the Financial Times, which used to be a decent source of information, on the basis that they didn't have to pretend to their readers that capitalism didn't work in the way it does. The FT has been a total disgrace since the Credit Crunch, though, cheerleading austerity in a very dishonest way.

 

[Frumious B.]

Keep in mind that the WSJ is barely above Fox News in reliability.

Who would you trust? NYT maybe? I'm not sure I trust any London media - they all seem so enthusiastic about intervention. They're pretty much assuming it's inevitable...they can't wait to get out the cruise missile graphics...but I think the US and UK are still very much at the sabre-rattling stage, a long way from attacking.

 

[brogdale]

Kerry gave a forceful speech it appears...

Don't he like him now, then?

 

[weltweit]

John Kerry made quite a strong speech today ..

eta: ok I am behind

 

[weltweit]

Don't he like him now, then?

Amazing how whoever the enemy is, the west has been schmoozing them, usually quite recently!

 

[weltweit]

I think a question would be:
What would "military action" actually entail?

 

[brogdale]

Amazing how whoever the enemy is, the west has been schmoozing them, usually quite recently!

Yep, pic from 2009..apparently, but as late as 2011 Kerry was waxing lyrical about Assad..

Kerry praised Assad later in 2011 as being a "very generous" man. "Well, I personally believe that -- I mean, this is my belief, okay? But President Assad has been very generous with me in terms of the discussions we have had. And when I last went to -- the last several trips to Syria -- I asked President Assad to do certain things to build the relationship with the United States and sort of show the good faith that would help us to move the process forward," said Kerry at a think tank.

 

[RedDragon]

I think a question would be:
What would "military action" actually entail?

Bullets and stuff, perhaps the odd aeroplane.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

I don't doubt it on the basis of that article. But it is worrying that they present something that purports to be analysis - with some very firm statements of opinion - but is in reality an absurdity. They are clearly attempting to manufacture consent for war here.

Is the WSJ the main financial newspaper? The equivalent here is the Financial Times, which used to be a decent source of information, on the basis that they didn't have to pretend to their readers that capitalism didn't work in the way it does. The FT has been a total disgrace since the Credit Crunch, though, cheerleading austerity in a very dishonest way.

It certainly sees itself as the main financial newspaper. They might even have been so at one time and then Rupert Murdoch bought them out. (I think it might have changed hands again, recently.)

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Who would you trust? NYT maybe? I'm not sure I trust any London media - they all seem so enthusiastic about intervention. They're pretty much assuming it's inevitable...they can't wait to get out the cruise missile graphics...but I think the US and UK are still very much at the sabre-rattling stage, a long way from attacking.

I don't trust any one media source. They all have their own biased little viewpoint. I read several accounts from more than one country and take a rough average.

 

[brogdale]

I think a question would be:
What would "military action" actually entail?

Shock, awe, pin-point accuracy with 'smart' weaponry and absolutely no "collateral damage".

 

[weltweit]

Shock, awe, pin-point accuracy with 'smart' weaponry and absolutely no "collateral damage".

Hmm, yes we have seen that before somewhere.
And it usually generates lots of business for the military supply chain replenishing armaments.
Not sure they often manage to achieve the low / no collateral damage either and what an awful turn of phrase that is anyhow. What on earth is wrong with "innocent civilians!" ?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't trust any one media source. They all have their own biased little viewpoint. I read several accounts from more than one country and take a rough average.

You should never trust any media source, clearly. But you can trust them to behave in the way that furthers the interests/agendas that they represent. Once you know what those interests are, their biased reporting can still be useful.

For instance, the facts in that WSJ article about the Saudis helping the rebels, and who's heading the operation, are likely to be reliable. Their explanation of the motives behind the acts - pure propaganda.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Don't he like him now, then?

That's new version of the Rumsfeld with Saddam...

 

[Nylock]

overt western involvement in Syria will end badly. As awful as things currently are in Syria they will get much, much worse if we stick our oars in. If the Americans, the UN, and that disingenuous slaphead that runs our country were at all sincere about helping the syrian people then they would have already done so long before now and without calls for cruise missile strikes and the like. Pretty much all non-syrian actors in this conflict have behaved in a deplorable and cynical manner. Fucking criminals and shithawks the lot of 'em...

 

[RedDragon]

Right, I'm about to go to bed and just to make sure I've got this right, we're about to join France and the US in firing cruise missiles into Syria - what could possibly go wrong?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Keep in mind that the WSJ is barely above Fox News in reliability.

Is it even that reliable?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Right, I'm about to go to bed and just to make sure I've got this right, we're about to join France and the US in firing cruise missiles into Syria - what could possibly go wrong?

Any particular targets or just whatever part of Syria?

 

[TheHoodedClaw]

Don't he like him now, then?

They aren't exactly having a massive foursome though.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I think a question would be:
What would "military action" actually entail?

Probably mostly "at a distance" intervention like air-strikes, artillery-spotting etc

 

[Frumious B.]

Cruise missiles would look good on the news but they'd be a token gesture. They don't do much against hardened targets, i.e. the places where Assad stores his worst weapons. You need bunker-busting bombs dropped from aircraft. But Assad has the latest Russian anti-aircraft weapons, so they have to be taken out at the start of a bombing campaign. It all adds up to prolonged large-scale bombing with a fair few Western aircraft being shot down, more than were lost over Iraq. I find it hard to believe that Obama is up for that. Unless Assad increases his chemical weapon use.

 

[brogdale]

So Dave's dragging those MPs back from Tuscany to vote for bombing Syria.

 

[JHE]

Do they never fucking learn?

Even the ineducable must have some objectives, though. Beyond getting rid of bad Assad, what do they hope for? Are they so fucking naive that they think a bunch of Middle-Eastern Islamists are going to become pro-Western if the West bombs Assad's army for them?

Mugs!

 

[sunny jim]

. Unless Assad increases his chemical weapon use.

Its not certain by any means that he's used them in the first place.

 

[RedDragon]

It's an American butt kissing exercise, Dave's got his fiscal future to think about - just look how well Tony is doing.

 

[JHE]

Its not certain by any means that he's used them in the first place.

Indeed.

I don't think there's any doubt that they've been used, but it's not clear who used them.

Kerry says there's no doubt, but other news reports say that the Obama administration is waiting for an intelligence report on the question.

 

[Zabo]

For a moment I thought Kerry in his highly emotive speech was speaking of his military days in Vietnam. Agent Orange and Napalm. I struggle to listen to anybody moralising when they have such an immoral track record:

Japan- Nuclear Bombs
Vietnam - Agent Orange and Napalm
Guantanamo - Torture and breach of all International Laws
Extra Judicial Executions - Drones
Torture - Abu Graihb and elsewhere
Death Squads - Funding And Support in Latin America
Extraordinary Rendition

As Kerry said:

"Last night after speaking with foreign ministers from around the world about the gravity of this situation, I went back and I watched the videos, the videos that anybody can watch in the social media, and I watched them one more gut-wrenching time. It is really hard to express in words the human suffering that they lay out before us. As a father, I can't get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing while chaos swirled around him; the images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of blood or even a visible wound; bodies contorting in spasms; human suffering that we can never ignore or forget. Anyone who can claim that an attack of this staggering scale could be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass. What we saw last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality."

Yes Mr. Kerry. You should know.

 

[Fuchs66]

The narrative being pushed in the media here - Assad baddie, rebels goodies - is essentially arbitrary. It would be just as easy to highlight the rebels' atrocities and focus on their Islamist nature while portraying Assad as a secularist struggling to maintain order.

TBH the only (armed) group involved in this that I have the slightest bit of sympathy with are the Kurds.

 

[Yuwipi Woman]

Do they never fucking learn?

Even the ineducable must have some objectives, though. Beyond getting rid of bad Assad, what do they hope for? Are they so fucking naive that they think a bunch of Middle-Eastern Islamists are going to become pro-Western if the West bombs Assad's army for them?

Mugs!

It's just another vehicle for war profiteering. It's always all about the money. Blowback just means another opportunity to cash in on arms sales, etc.

 

[JHE]

It's just another vehicle for war profiteering. It's always all about the money. Blowback just means another opportunity to cash in on arms sales, etc.

I don't believe Obama is in the pocket of the arms dealers.