Should America/NATO support Syrian resistance the way it did in Libya?

I think morally its the right thing to do, but actually its a completely dangerous thing to do. If Iran or the Hezbolah gets involved its too scary to contemplate.

What is even more troubling is that there doesn't seem to be any credible central leadership among the opposition, so if Assad falls, Syria goes by default to the paramilitary organization with the most guns.  

There seems to be some intel that the chemical massacre was authorized by a rogue general, and that Assad and other generals were outraged when they found out. So if that's the case, the question becomes how to punish a rogue general without destabilizing the whole government....

Figg- a PM does not have to go to the Commons to go to war- technically the queen goes to war- its a reserved Royal Prerogative (its her army after all) but in practice the Royal Prerogative is carried out by the PM- there have however for a variety of reasons being many times over the decades when PM's have felt it politically more sound to get a show of approval by going to the House first- - that's why Cameron losing is such a shocker, its more a formality normally than a real vote- he has really weakened himself, technically he could still declare that Britain will take military action, he still has the use of the Royal Prerogative as PM, but now he would be doing so in defiance of the elected chamber.

Perhaps more interestingly the Queen could declare military action herself, or conversely she could cancel it if she wanted- its her army and the Monarch still has that power- you dont swear allegiance to the House of Commons when you join up, but to the Queen. No Royal since he creation of Parliament I dont think has actually used that power however.

There is no doubt Miliband used this for politics- its basically the form for the opposition to stand shoulder to shoulder with the government on matters of war, a show of unity and solidarity in the face of aggression and all that, to whip his own party into a no vote and to use a military situation to score political points is pretty low- maybe to be expected from a man who stabbed his own brother in the back to land the job.

Camerons problem is including absentees 60 of his MP's did not vote with him- more than enough to still have won the vote without Labours help. But the idea 60 Tory MP's would fail to back their leader on a military vote, well that one is frankly still sinking in. My gut reaction is Cameron's days are numbered as leader. And that was Milbands strategy all along.


David- So far I have heard it was Assad, it was a rogue general, it was an accident during transportation of stolen chemical weapons by the rebels, that it was the US, that it was Mossad.
And right there is one of the major problems- the famous fog of war.

Well.... maybe that is the one way Miliband can make his face fit.... but getting rid of the one person that has a slightly easier face to accept. I think Miliband is a clown and that he will be perceived as a clown to others... not really good for foreign policy for a start. I wouldn't vote for labour while he is in power. The Lib Dems are morons and UKIP etc are just a bunch of imbeciles. So unless Cameron does something tragic, or someone more deplorable than Miliband becomes leader of the Conservatives... I think a lot of people will carry on voting for the Blues.

Assuming Scotland is still in the UK for the next General Election then it will vote Labour (and if Cameron looses Scotland he is going to get a hell of a write up in the history books).
Tories are hated and never poll well here, the lib dems were in a poor coalition with labour in the Scottish parliament then jumped in bed with the Tories at the UK level, no one trusts a word they say, almost no one votes SNP at a Westminster elections, whenever UKIP cross the border we chase them back over it again, so by default that leaves Labour, the Greens and Independents.
So as is the norm, we will get whatever party in government England vote for. Probably the Tories again.

But why would you vote labour with someone just as scheming as Cameron (from what I have seen... probably more so)... but who also looks and sounds like one of Kermits friends?

Simply because Scotland is a left of centre country. And there isnt much else to choose from- there is only Labour to vote for.
The lib dems have lost all support by backing the Tories, the Tories just dont get votes here- there is only 1 Scottish Conservative MP thats not likely to change much. There is little point voting SNP for a General Election and UKIP aren't even a blip on the radar in Scottish politics. So Labour it is by default. Although I expect Independents to do better than usual.

Mrs Figg wrote:I am glad Cameron failed, its just a matter of time before the French waver and change their minds as well, I suspect Hollande is brown trousering it, and will go to parliament for the final vote. Obama needs a get out of jail card, he needs to save face without looking weak, I reckon the only way is to say to Assad, ok we will let you off this time but if you try it just once more we will bomb you without asking Congress or anyone.

This is almost exactly what I heard on morning radio here. Kerry said if Assad used chems again, then Obama could then act without asking Congress first. I'm thinking maybe Obama should keep out of it. He will be criticised left, right and centre, both internally and externally, no matter what he does, so with that in mind, why risk American troops being killed; at least he won't be criticized for that.

so with that in mind, why risk American troops in any way. - Orwell

Because he foolishly publicly declared a red line without consulting his allies first? And now if he doesn't stick to his word its not much of a red line and he looks weak and whoever used the chemical weapons takes heart from it and knows they got away with it.

What does he do? Order the strike? There's no way America can win. Do sonething and be criticized. Do nothing and be criticized. I suggested earlier - in regard to Afghanistan - that America may actually be trying to something good for that country, I was criticized. I know how he feels. Minefields everywhere - and no way of not stepping on them, whether you step left, right or foreward. I've decided in these discussions to step backward - like Obama, I guess. It's a sick feeling though.

Its all been badly played from the very start. Obama should not have publicly stated such a line without some heads up to his allies and getting a general feel for the mood first.
Cameron should not have called the vote so early and should have convinced his own party first.

But the heart of the problem is not Obama or Cameron, its the paralysis at International level because of the stupid vetoes.
Decisions should be on a democratic majority vote.
The power of veto just means its is impossible, even in cases like this where international law has clearly been broken, to act and enforce the law.
Until the vetoes are gone and countries can be held accountable in the International Courts it will be left to individual countries to take their own action.

the thing is, if they get rid of Assad who at least is relatively laical who will take his place, it could be militant Islamists or it could leave a vacuum of infighting where outside elements like Hezbolah send over 'spiritual leaders' and the end result would be worse than Assad, btw his brother who runs the military is said to be behind the hardline against the rebels, the family dynasty will probably try to win at any cost.

Lance thats so true, Kermits friends, that made me giggle. Cameron and Miliband are a pair of plonkers.

Shouldn't that have been Bush, Chris?

Orwell wrote:
Let me clear something up for you - which I thought was implicit in all my posts - I don't expect that Americans have to stay, or that it's their moral responsibility any more than it is any Human who believes in democracy and freedom to help, I'm just saying I admire them for being there working practically to help the country and that their cutting and running is a negative and not a positive for the country. And the cutting and running is because people like you pressure your Government because you are "tired from endless war upon war with nothing to show for it." Or at least, nothing to show for it that you're willing to see or recognize. What an insult to your troops that is.

Orwell wrote:
I realize suddenly that I best play a straight back on these Serious Threads, my tendency to humour and teasing, and some sarcasm (though not deliberately a lot, Eldo, though maybe I can see why you think it), is not appropriate here. The subject is too important to me for me to undermine my own arguments with sudden flashes of frivolity and teasing. It leaves me quite open to what I believe is misinterpretation for a start, and it's an approach that is not, in the end, respectful, so I apologize to Eldo and Halfwise for that.

It can be hard to tell what you are really saying sometimes, and I appreciate your later post laying out your true beliefs on the subject, nearly all of which I agree with. Hackles are raised when someone accuses you to be lacking in moral courage as you watch the body bags come back.

For me the major tragedy was that a war that required full commitment was fought only half-heartedly, and then a much larger war was started in Iraq for no real purpose with little public support (the general fear at the time made everyone give Iraq lip service, but it was a facade). I can understand wanting victory in Afghanistan to belong to the local opposition and not the West, but there should have been more support, and the Iraq war drew that off.

We may still have ended where we are now, and we'd still need to either withdraw, or perform saturation warfare and start all over. There was national will to throw everything in at the beginning (it wasn't done), but after more than a decade such will has evaporated. It's a pity.

The soldiers have done miracles under very difficult circumstances with no initial training in nation building and constant shifts in policy which must frustrate them no end; but to say withdrawing them is an insult is not true. You haven't been in the airports when soldiers come home - they are greeted with applause as they walk past the gates. We have learned the lessons of vietnam, and don't blame the soldiers for policy that went awry. Unfortunately I've seen video of soldiers watching protests against the war and asking "why are they protesting us?" Soldiers do take it personally, I wish they could understand that the protester's heart breaks to see good men and women dying in a fight that has been stacked against them.

At the heart of all this is committment, like I've said all along. An argument can be raised - and quite rationally in my opinion - that the loss of war in Vietnam was due to a lack of committment - or, possibly more correctly put, because of a hot-and-cold committment. Winning is nigh impossible in those circumstances, and history tells us that. A lack of will, I would contend, is the greatest reason for failure than just about any other factor. This does not mean that what America was trying to do in Vietnam was right - i.e. support a Democratic Government - or, even if right, it was any of America's business to have to do it. That is a matter for your belief system, ultimately, and raises the issue of world citizenship and it's presumed responsibilities.

I believe the same goes for Afghanistan. I wish, now that the work of Democracy and - for me personally, the emanicipation of women parrticularly - has started, it might be continued - Australians are losing their lives doing it though - and is it our business? I applaud them anyway - and I have heard soldiers speak of housing and schools built and heard the pride in their voices. That means something to me.

Syria is a strange one. Who is the enemy of Democracy? All of them? I'm clearly on Democracy's side. I wonder what the unheard majority would like to say in Syria - if voicing such an opinion itself wasn't dangerous if not fatal? Would it be, "Live and let live?" (for me, 'Democracy'). Or, "Do it my way according to my beliefs?" (i.e. the voice of every ism you can think of). The irony being, to allow Democracy to flourish in the Middle East (and, implicitly, 'Live and let live,'): it requires comittment which includes drawing blood, and an active committment and an acceptance of the inevitability of 'collateral damage', however ghastly misleading the term, and, of course, the death of your own if you're practically involved.

At the risk of waxing philosophical.... Knowing what happens in some of these countries, I feel for politicians. Do they interfere in any way - either by word or deed? For both are an intrusion intio the affairs of other countries. Or do they keep out of it? Keep out? Then I reckon we should all shut up about it, really. If we don't don't want to make it our business, then maybe we should keep quiet. Words without action are generally pretty worthless. History tells us that, and some rules from history are forever true, even if old defeats never doom us inevitably to future defeats. As I intimated above, I believe a lack of will and committment is (almost) always the father of defeat, even if it's not always an absolute guarantor of ultimate victory either, that's the risk you take. Risk takers often change things, but the too careful consign us all to the same old same old. Sorry for waffling. The mind does wander some times.

I both find myself agreeing and disagreeing with you Orwell.

Where we agree is on the need for the will to be there.
But I dont think the will is there to go to war in Syria after Iraq an Afghanistan, and if you know the will is not there before you even start, is it not wiser to not start at all then?

Where we disagree is where you say words dont count. That I strongly disagree with.
In the beginning was the word. Every ism you hate started with someone finding the right words, words to fire minds, words to create, words shape minds and minds shape worlds.
Democracy might often be won in blood, but its sparked by the words. Words like Freedom.
In the darkest days of WW2 the will of the British people was largely kept going by crowding round a radio to hear the words of Winston Churchill.

In the modern age words are more important than ever because we can send them to one another in an instant, country to country across the globe as if the distance did not even exist.
Words can reach ears in less fortunate places and infect minds into changing their world.
In the long term, words like emancipation, equality, individual rights spinning round the globe will be more effective than all the bombs dropped and bullets fired.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I both find myself agreeing and disagreeing with you Orwell.

Where we agree is on the need for the will to be there.
But I dont think the will is there to go to war in Syria after Iraq an Afghanistan, and if you know the will is not there before you even start, is it not wiser to not start at all then?

I'm not sure I have voiced an opinion on whether we go into Syria or not yet...  I thought I was just chucking thoughts about....But if you want one, it's this: I don't think we should be doing any strikes... Not yet anyway.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Where we disagree is where you say words dont count. That I strongly disagree with. In the beginning was the word. Every ism you hate started with someone finding the right words, words to fire minds, words to create, words shape minds and minds shape worlds.

I'm not sure I hate isms per se, just ideologues.* And I didn't at all want to imply words don't count. Only words alone have negligible value if they are not put into action, sometime.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Democracy might often be won in blood, but its sparked by the words. Words like Freedom.
In the darkest days of WW2 the will of the British people was largely kept going by crowding round a radio to hear the words of Winston Churchill.

People prepared to act; inspired to act.  

Pettytyrant101 wrote:In the modern age words are more important than ever because we can send them to one another in an instant, country to country across the globe as if the distance did not even exist. Words can reach ears in less fortunate places and infect minds into changing their world. In the long term, words like emancipation, equality, individual rights spinning round the globe will be more effective than all the bombs dropped and bullets fired.

I guess it all boils down with me is how words turn into action and the getting of results. What action should be involved is the real discussion point, because I mainatain that words alone have negligible results, I stand by that. I agree that words can prompt change. Look at Martin Luther King - though if action wasn't a big assiociate they would still have just been mere words in immediate pragmatic terms, no matter how fine. You said: "In the long term, words like emancipation, equality, individual rights spinning round the globe will be more effective than all the bombs dropped and bullets fired." I agree. Ideas should never be totally dismissed. But if it's just the word you rely on, then your 'long term' will inevitably be 'very very very long term' in my opinion.  Martin Luther King catapulted a Movement into something irrespressible. Movement, action, was still the vital ingredient for change at something far quicker than a snail's pace.

Words alone 'about' Syria are pretty much just that in the current circumstances, so why bother - unless you want to do something, commit yourself to some kind of action. Sanctions, strikes... whatever. I personally think we should keep out of it for the time being. Any half committment, or just a commitment of words, will cause more grief than it cures. Fine words mean nothing if your foe is running around your neighbourhood with a gun and someone in another suburb (or country) is saying fine things about what's right and wrong about it.    

Actually, I believe removing Saddam Hussein, all said and done, was good. Removing Assad, all said and done, may not be so clearly good in my opinion, though I base that on believing him less evil, or to have not committed quite as many atrocities on his own people, as Saddam. If he is as evil, then I might change my opinion.

* I don't hate isms as collections of thoughts and ideas worthy of contemplation and ethical stimulation, but as blueprints and manuals for telling you how to live your life. Mein Kampf, Das Kapital, The Bible, et al, etcetera, are all worth reading but not for the purposes of worship and the perfect rule of me over others.

I'm not sure I have voiced an opinion on whether we go into Syria or not yet..- Orrwell

I read it in your overall tone- the general we are all a bunch of weak willed liberals who cant stick it out to see democracy, freedom and apple pie rooted attitude.

"I don't think we should be doing any strikes... Not yet anyway."

But I guess I was mistaken. You are a weak willed liberal too!  

The problem with Syria is an obvious one- neither side likes us, both sides have deeply unpleasant people leading them, neither side offer the ordinary people any real hope of future freedoms free of religious ideologies.
If we interfere, even only to punish a transgression, we by default aid one side or the other.

The bit I dont get is why this is a red line at all. Apart from the fact I dont think it makes a lot of difference if you beat someone to death or gas them, both are just as bad as each other, its a weird red line to suddenly have.
If it were the first time chemical weapons had been used on civilians in modern times I could understand better this desire to demonstrate the rest of the world wont stand for that- but we let Saddam gas the Kurds with just some sanctions.

Perhaps the telling difference can be found in the words of a former British Diplomat who said of Saddam, "Yes he was a bastard, but he was our bastard.'

None of the bastards in Syria on either side are our bastards this time.

America & Syria- In this world justice can be imposed by only one people. Us.  - Bill O'Reilly, Fox News

I think strikes are necessary to slow down the gas attacks. It's better if there are lines, even if they seem somewhat random.

As for other things, I'm pretty much with the Powell doctrine all the way. Saddam was like a bad cold; eventually he would have gone away by natural causes. The Taliban would not, and had to be dealt with. But again in accordance with Powell we should have gone in all the way (he led the charge and did things right in the first Iraq war, but was over ruled in the second). It was laudable but misguided to try to make the Afghan war an Afghan opposition victory, it was part of what throttled down our commitment; that and Iraq.

The gas attacks could have been done by anyone knowing the U.S would get involved.
Could have been the U,S themselves. Anything to try out their new weapons.

Not my views but when you keep hearing stuff like this on the radio and in the papers it makes you wonder.

chris63 wrote:
Could have been the U,S themselves. Anything to try out their new weapons.
.

The thing is, those are our old weapons. We already know everything about them, and so does everybody else.  Even our nukes are our old fashioned weapons now. They're soooo 20th century!  
Nobody's even interested anymore. [yawwwwn.....  ]

Now if the Syrians were getting hit by invisible stealth drones,  or surgical cyber attacks that paralyzed only certain key systems and left the rest of the infrastructure in tact, then I'd think you might  have a good point.  Our guys are certainly not above such things, but they're more likely to play with something like Stuxnet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet than with cheap and dirty nerve agents that anybody can mix up in their bathtub.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I'm not sure I have voiced an opinion on whether we go into Syria or not yet..- Orrwell

I read it in your overall tone- the general we are all a bunch of weak willed liberals who cant stick it out to see democracy, freedom and apple pie rooted attitude.

"I don't think we should be doing any strikes... Not yet anyway."

But I guess I was mistaken. You are a weak willed liberal too!  

What I think about Syria is not immediately transferable to what I think about Afghanistan. I hope you don't think that with me one size fits all - or that 2 + 2 or 2 + 3 or 6 + 3 all equal 11? {{{*}}}  Syria is not Afghanistan. My geography is not great, but I know that much.  

{{{The liberal bit is uncomfortably close to the truth, but I refuse to say that unencrypted!}}}

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The problem with Syria is an obvious one- neither side likes us, both sides have deeply unpleasant people leading them, neither side offer the ordinary people any real hope of future freedoms free of religious ideologies.
If we interfere, even only to punish a transgression, we by default aid one side or the other.

I agree. If a genuine Democratic Party raises it's head, perhaps the West could arm them?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:None of the bastards in Syria on either side are our bastards this time.

True.



{{{* Irrespective of how Odo - and me as his sometimes representative - reckon all accounts with his loyal customers of his excellent quality goods and services. }}}

halfwise wrote:The Taliban would not, and had to be dealt with.  But again in accordance with Powell we should have gone in all the way...

In some ways, the same problem as Vietnam.