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

David H wrote: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.

Which - I presume - does not eliminate an opposition faction doing the deed?

Is the nerve gas situation the telling factor for America considering strikes btw? Are there possible other reasons?  

Pettytyrant101 wrote:"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!  

Do people here think that my answer to all Middle Eastern problems is, bomb them if they're not a democracy?  {{{Admittedly, the idea has some merit...  }}}

Orwell wrote:
Do people here think that my answer to all Middle Eastern problems is, bomb them if they're not a democracy?

Is that a rhetorical question?

No.  

Or am I to assume some people here do think that?  

{{{Well, there goes my recently acquired reputation as a weak willed liberal then.... }}}

If a genuine Democratic Party raises it's head, perhaps the West could arm them? - Orwell


I reckon if we are going to go in we support whatever secular moderates we can find and otherwise shoot everyone else on both sides.

That's what I have wanted to hear all along, Petty: the voice of common sense and reason.  

you know I think a lot of the time its the Wests fault a lot of the time. We sell these dictators chemicals and land mines, the UK has been found to have sold these chemicals to Syria and Kerry was photographed having a cozy diner with Assad and wife, so we cozy up when we want arms deals but then hold our hands up in horror when the dictators actually dare to use the weapons. We fuck around making deals with regimes that kill their own people, and when it gets to the point of civil war, we decide to mop up the mess afterwards to save face and to make us feel better, and morally superior. We cozy up for oil, we cozy up for financial reasons, we topple regimes when it suits us, and we arm other groups when it suits us, we carve up nations and tribes when it suits us.
All we can do morally is make sure the millions of refugees are safe and fed until they have a stable country to go back to. We should keep our noses out, or face the consequences which could be WW3.

Morally chemical weapons are repugnant, and I think Assad should be punished once the civil war is over, in a court of law, for genocide, that way we dont risk our safety and we wipe the smile off that Assad reptile.

There was an interesting, and worrying question asked at PMQ's today- which Cameron typically never answered but batted aside as politicians do- it was from his own backbenches too.
He was asked, if America strike Assad to punish for chemical weapons use, and Syria call on Russia to help them put down the rebels*, how would NATO react?- the MP called it the Doomsday Question.

*whom Russia and Assad catgerise as terrorsts-I said at the time when Bush used that as an excuse to label people the US didnt like as an excuse for action, that it was a dangerous precedent to set. And now it could come back to haunt us. One mans terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

Well, historically speaking, a successful brigand is a King.

Russia cant afford to support a full scale war against the West right now. I don't think they would really have the stomach for that.

Helping Assad... I doubt that would ever be direct support. Weapons (non WMD) and special forces... probably. That would be as much as I think would happen there.

Not to defend the selling of arms, but in many cases it's the result of an arms race by proxy. Russia (or the USA) would sell arms to their pet strongman to keep stability, then the USA (or Russia) would have to sell arms to their neighbors to make sure the first guy doesn't get any ideas. Once it's started I don't think anybody's found a way out of the escalation game, unfortunately. UN peacekeepers are often pulled out when they might be needed most. Maybe the United Nations should be armed with WMD?   Oh, right, veto power. Not a chance any of the big 5 will give up that amount of sovereignty.

Not only are arms races extremely profitable, but it's been discovered that arming both sides of a conflict is the surest way of keeping leaders like Vaclav Havel, or Lech Walesa, or Martin Luther King, or Mahatma Gandhi from emerging.

And there's no profit to be made from guys like that.

arms are just big buisness, governments go to exhibitions and fairs and buy stuff like it was fruit & veg. arms dealers get rich like Adnan Khashoggi.

ALERTS TO THREATS
IN 2013 EUROPE

From JOHN CLEESE

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.


The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.


The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.


Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."


The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."


Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..


The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.


Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.


Regards,
John Cleese ,
British writer, actor and tall person


And as a final thought - Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.

Life is too short..

 to the John Cleese piece in particular-

'The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.'

Damn right!  

Is this true ?

Part true. Part false. He'd been trying to build more buildings as part of the complex for some time, and had ended up taking over the lease on the existing buildings in the process.

The buildings at the site had always had terrorism insurance, as do most iconic buildings. They'd already had to pay out once on the World Trade Center when the truck bomb went off in the basement a few years before. So I'd say the word "fortuitously" in quotes is an out and out liehere. It's as standard as fire insurance.

After the attacks, the insurance company said it was one attack and they should only have to pay 3.5 billion. Silverstein's lawyers argued that two planes hitting two different buildings counted as two attacks by the wording of the insurance and so they should be awarded 7 billion. After millions of dollars of court costs, a jury capped the maximum at half way between as a compromise.

No conspiracy here. It's just what developers and insurance companies do-- try to suck as much cash out of each other as they can.

It would be pretty stupid to own a skyscraper in a major world city and have an insurance policy that didn't cover terrorism.

NB thanks for the thorough explanation, Dave.

chris63 wrote:ALERTS TO THREATS
IN 2013 EUROPE

From JOHN CLEESE

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.


The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.


The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.


Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."


The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."


Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..


The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.


Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.


Regards,
John Cleese ,
British writer, actor and tall person


And as a final thought - Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.

Life is too short..

 Pure Gold

If we have to cancel this weeks's barbie, those Syrians better watch out.

holding hands is also a sign of respect

I experienced the hand holding thing in West Africa. Between the sexes is a big no-no in public. But you'll be walking down the street with a dude, and all of a sudden he's holding your hand. Fortunately I'm usually far too slow on the uptake to react to anything until like, the next day. (Wake up the next morning: "The f%#k was that?") Lots of missed opportunities, but also keeps me out of trouble.