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

Trick there is being certain who did it, and how do you strike them in a county you cant get into that's in the middle of a civil war?

I wonder where the FSA or 'rebels' would have managed to get a stockpile of chemical weapons from. They arent easy to manufacture is weaponised forms so you must assume if they have them, they werent theirs to begin with

Seems the US is using the UK as its vocie at the UN again!

'The UK is to put a resolution to the UN Security Council later on Wednesday "authorising necessary measures to protect civilians" in Syria.
The resolution will be put forward at a meeting of the five permanent members of the council, UK Prime Minister David Cameron said on Twitter.'

Apart from anything else we are announcing hugely important government news on twitter now are we?  

'"We've always said we want the UN Security Council to live up to its responsibilities on Syria," Mr Cameron said in another message.
"Today they have an opportunity to do that," he said. The draft resolution would condemn the "chemical weapons attack by Assad", he added.


Have the UN inspectors even reported yet that we can be naming Assad for the chemical attack?

'Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that "attempts at a military solution will lead only to the further destabilisation" in Syria and the region.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned on Wednesday that US intervention would be a "disaster" for the region.
"The region is like a gunpowder store and the future cannot be predicted," Mr Khamenei said, according to Iran's Isna news agency.'- BBC news



Lance- I think several government arms depots have been in territory the rebels have seized- but its a bit like nukes- its one thing to stockpile them, another to actually use them.

I'm against all Islamists (and Christainists and Zionists), so I guess I'm on Assad's side. Assad doesn't (and didn't) didn't seem anywhere near as bad a tyrant as Saddam Hussein. Is (was) he? And good on the Egyptians for throwing out Islamists who pretended to be democratic but were nothing of the sort.

I think the rebels are all sorts, some of them islamists trying to poke their way in. Assad, like many in the region, is the dude who controls the biggest guns but actually doesnt represent the majority of the population. He and his regime certainly arent nice!

Re the weapons stockpiles... I havent heard the assad regime say anything to suggest some of them may have been raided. Would be an easy excuse.

Assad keeps power the way nearly all dictators do, by being ruthless to opposition. Aside from that he doesn't seem to be a bloodsucker type, ie he doesn't try to funnel all money to himself. So he's not the worst of the lot, but not quite what one would call a benevolent despot.

Was listening to a Fox news piece and heard a phrase I dont like the sound of but dont want to jump to conclusions about as I dont know exactly what it means, in context i was "If you believe in American Exceptionalism we must act."

What the hell is American Exceptionalism? (apart from another bloody -ism to add to the rest  )

Oh Petty, you clearly weren't brought up right.  America is the shining city on the hill, the beacon to all who seek after liberty and truth.  The world is going to pot; if America doesn't save it, who will?  

Before WWII American Exceptionalism was always turned inward. As the world's largest democracy we were special but saw no profit in inflicting our superiority on others.  After the war America was unquestionably the single world power, so there was a lot of truth to the idea that if you wanted something done, America may as well do it herself.  It's not quite as true as it used to be, but the argument still carries weight.

Hmmmm, what about those of us who had liberty and truth before America had an existence?  

as far as dictators go, when they stoop to killing their own people they have crossed a line. they have blood on their hands and have to go.

But what if both sides have blood on their hands as in this case?- the opposition are heavily extremist islamic infiltrated, many group are fundementalist islam wanting Islamic law- you could be handing rule, power and weapons to men who will even more brutally oppress the people than before, only they will do it the name of a God- the same old sad tale.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Hmmmm, what about those of us who had liberty and truth before America had an existence?  

Ah, but you weren't American so it doesn't count.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:But what if both sides have blood on their hands as in this case?- the opposition are heavily extremist islamic infiltrated, many group are fundementalist islam wanting Islamic law- you could be handing rule, power and weapons to men who will even more brutally oppress the people than before, only they will do it the name of a God- the same old sad tale.

No, it's not an easy case, but something has to be done to prevent people from thinking they can get away with using chemical weapons. I know, it's not necessarily worse than blowing people up, but there has to be some lines or people go back to thinking they can do anything in war. It's bad enough already.

Ah, but you weren't American so it doesn't count.- Halfwise

Ah, I see.

Forgive me for saying so but from the outside American Exceptionalism after WW2 looked very much like assassinating, destabilising and destroying legitimate democratic governments in order to replace them with crazy assed dictators, who were however friendly towards US business interests. And who we have spent last the 20 years fighting and trying to remove again.   
That doesn't have all the outward appearance of superiourity really, well not in any sort of moral or intellectual kind any way.

Oh Petty, this clearly has you all heated up. Please....join us and have a glass of Kool-aid.

Lancebloke wrote:I think the rebels are all sorts, some of them islamists trying to poke their way in. Assad, like many in the region, is the dude who controls the biggest guns but actually doesnt represent the majority of the population. He and his regime certainly arent nice!

I'm no fan of dictators, but civil wars usually kill more people than dictators themselves.  The main reason I'm wary of the Syrian opposition though is that everything I've read about them suggests they are majority Islamist.  The whole attitude about the Arab Spring being a manifestation of the people's desire for Western-style democracy looks more and more like wishful thinking at best and willful delusion at worst with each passing month.

Re the weapons stockpiles... I havent heard the assad regime say anything to suggest some of them may have been raided. Would be an easy excuse.

As to the question of how the rebels could have gotten chemical weapons, they've been receiving arms shipments from their supporters around the region, mainly in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, who have a long and proven history of supporting Islamist movements.  On the other hand, it was the United States itself who supplied the weapons during the last high-profile use of them in Middle East, so who knows.

http://news.yahoo.com/big-arms-shipment-reaches-rebels-chemical-attack-opposition-091244846.html
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

The whole attitude about the Arab Spring being a manifestation of the people's desire for Western-style democracy looks more and more like wishful thinking at best and willful delusion at worst with each passing month. _ Eldo

I think you are despairing unnecessarily there Eldo. Don't mistake the noisy minority with the the guns as the wishes of the majority.
If that were truly the case there would have been little support from the people in Egypt for the army removing the government- there was because the people had hoped for moderation and got extremism again.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Forgive me for saying so but from the outside American Exceptionalism after WW2 looked very much like assassinating, destabilising and destroying legitimate democratic governments in order to replace them with crazy assed dictators, who were however friendly towards US business interests. And who we have spent last the 20 years fighting and trying to remove again.   
That doesn't have all the outward appearance of superiourity really, well not in any sort of moral or intellectual kind any way.

Oh don't worry, we've been doing that since long before World War II. It's just that prior to the world wars our scope was more limited. However, American non-interventionism only meant that we'd stick to the Western hemisphere, which we basically considered to be our own god-given private playground since at least the Monroe Doctrine. We have lots of practice at juggling Third World dictators in order to preserve our interests. The only real question is why, after so much practice, are we still so bad at it?

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I think you are despairing unnecessarily there Eldo. Don't mistake the noisy minority with the the guns as the wishes of the majority.
If that were truly the case there would have been little support from the people in Egypt for the army removing the government- there was because the people had hoped for moderation and got extremism again.

I'm not sure I'd use Egypt as an example of a revolution moving towards successful democracy. The military has been the most powerful faction since Morsi left (even before the coup), oh and, by the way, Morsi was just released from jail (as plenty of his accomplices have been) by the military government. The only democratic election so far saw an Islamist government take power, and while I'm glad to see them gone, a significant faction if not a majority of Egyptian people still want an Islamist government. Oh, and the protests from both sides have resulted in over a thousand deaths in the past two months, mostly at the hands of the military.

Few democracies are born of peace sadly.

If you like at the history of Third World democracy since the end of World War II, most of them only came about after several decades of rule by military dictatorship or some other sort of authoritarian regime. In the successful cases of democratization, the rulers allowed economic reforms in order to get the country moving forward which gradually led to a broader liberalization and opening up of society, which eventually resulted in a successful democratic opposition pushing for and receiving free elections (generally without violence).

Look at the US- took throwing off an Empire and a civil war- the UK democracy was gained inch by bloody inch across hundreds of years.
Democracy it seems is one of those things a country can learn but cant just be taught.

For me it makes no difference what structure you try to impose- dictatorship, empire, or democracy- itsnot the morality of the structure you are trying to impose that counts towards success or failure- its the fact its imposed.

That's very true, trying to implant democracy onto another country is just about the worst thing you can do to try to promote democracy. Hopefully we've learned that lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan and will show more restraint with Syria if we do get involved.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Was listening to a Fox news piece and heard a phrase I dont like the sound of but dont want to jump to conclusions about as I dont know exactly what it means, in context i was "If you believe in American Exceptionalism we must act."

Oh FOX News makes my blood boil.  

It's hard to get unbiased news today, as most networks seem to be slanted one way or the other.

Back in 2003 if you didn't support the invasion of Iraq they would label you anti-American. We had Bill O'Reilly telling people to "shut up" if they didn't support the war. After Afghanistan, Iraq, and the constant support for Israel, I really don't want any more US military involvement in the Middle East, but I guess I don't really have a say in the matter.  

Eldorion wrote:That's very true, trying to implant democracy onto another country is just about the worst thing you can do to try to promote democracy.  

Says it all.