okay, we have to do something about syria

syria civilians

       “We HAVE to do something about Syria!”
       “Okay. Why?”
       “Because the Syrian government used chemical weapons against their own people!”
       “Okay. But hasn’t the Syrian government been killing their own people for a couple of years now?”
       “Yes. But this time they used chemical weapons!”
       “Okay. Do chemical weapons kill their victims deader than conventional weapons?”
       “You don’t understand! Chemical weapons are indiscriminate!”
       “Okay. But when the Syrian government shelled neighborhoods where insurgents were suspected of hiding, wasn’t that also indiscriminate?”
       “The chemical weapons killed noncombatants! Women! Children! Old people!”
       “Okay. Didn’t the shelling also kill women and children and old…”
       “We have to do something to stop the killing of innocents!”
       “Okay. What do you suggest?”
       “Launch missles! Drop smart bombs!”
       “Okay. And you can guarantee that won’t kill innocents?”
       “There is always collateral damage! But we have to stop Syrian President Assad from using chemical weapons!”
       “Okay. So we should destroy his chemical weapons facilities?”
       “No! That would contaminate the area!”
       “Okay, so we should drop bombs and launch missiles at Assad? We should kill him?”
       “No! He’s the only one we can negotiate with! And he’s not a radical Islamist!”
       “Okay. So who do we fire these missiles at? Who do we drop the bombs on?”
       “Airfields! Command and control centers! Military installations!”
       “Okay. But that’ll just kill a bunch of mid-level officers and support staff, won’t it?”
       “Yes, that’s correct!”
       “Okay. If we destroy a bunch of military installations and kill those people, will that prevent the Syrian government from deploying chemical weapons?”
       “No! Chemical weapons can be fired from any artillery piece!”
       “Okay. So we’d have to destroy all the Syrian government’s artillery. Can we do that?”
       “No! Many of them are deployed in areas inhabited by civilians!”
       “Okay. So what should we do? Send in ground troops?”
       “Are you fucking crazy? We can’t send in ground troops!”
       “Okay. So we can’t kill Assad, right?”
       “Correct!”
       “Okay, and we can’t target the places where the chemical weapons are created, right?”
       “Correct!”
       “Okay, and we can’t target the individual weapon systems that actually fire the weapons, right?”
       “Correct!”
       “Okay, and we can’t send in ground forces, right?”
       “Are you fucking crazy?!”
       “Okay. So basically, we can’t actually prevent Assad and his government from using chemical weapons against their own rebellious citizens.”
       “Correct! But we HAVE to do something, or America will be blamed and people will hate us!”
       “Okay. You’re saying if the U.S. does nothing, we’ll be blamed and people will hate us?”
       “Yes, that’s correct!”
       “Okay. But if we do something and it doesn’t work, won’t we still be blamed and won’t people still hate us?”
       “Yes, that’s correct!”
       “Okay. But even if we did something and somehow whatever we did magically worked, wouldn’t we be blamed for not acting sooner?”
       “Yes, that’s correct!”
       “Okay. So the United States is going to be blamed regardless. Won’t people hate us anyway?”
       “Yes, that’s correct!”
       “Okay. Okay, so to summarize, regardless of what we do or don’t do, the Assad government will be able to use chemical weapons against their own people and the United States will be blamed and hated regardless. And regardless of what we do or don’t do, civilians will continue to be killed at random.”
       “Yes, that’s correct!”
       “Okay. So we’re fucked.”
       “Yes, that’s correct!”
       “Okay. And the Assad government is fucked.”
       “Yes, that’s correct!”
       “Okay. And the Syrian people are fucked.”
       “Yes, that’s correct! Massively fucked! Fucked all around!”
       “Okay. And knowing all that, your position is…?”
       “We HAVE to do something about Syria!”

syria neighborhood

Advertisements

186 thoughts on “okay, we have to do something about syria

    • Jody, if it was just the US that was fucked, I think we’d be able to cope with that. The problem is, everybody involved is fucked. There really aren’t any good ways for this to end. Either a LOT more people will die and Assad will somehow stay in power…or a LOT more people will die and somebody with a Kalashnikov will be firing bullets in the air while Assad gets strung up on a makeshift gibbet.

      Like

      • I can’t help but feel if we do nothing, we’re just sitting by and watching a bully at work basically. But as you pointed out, until the bully started using chemicals, no one cared.

        Like

  1. This sounds like a conversation I’ve had with myself several times now. ‘Something’ needs to be done, but I don’t see where any intervention will actually do anything beneficial…

    Like

    • It’s such a frustrating situation, isn’t it. I mean, it really IS important for world powers to reinforce the concept that chemical warfare isn’t to be tolerated. But at the same time, it would be monumentally stupid and pointless to get drawn into the sinkhole of Syria’s civil war.

      Like

      • @..”It’s such a frustrating situation, isn’t it. I mean, it really IS important for world powers to reinforce the concept that chemical warfare isn’t to be tolerated. But at the same time, it would be monumentally stupid and pointless to get drawn into the sinkhole of Syria’s civil war….”

        >>My sentiments to a T! Good questions & even better responses..

        Like

  2. I’ve been hearing that the rebels are actually the ones with the chemicl weapons. They have been posting videos of them using them and there have been a few rebels openly admitting to journalists that they are the ones with the chemical weapons. The media lies and so does the president.

    Like

    • I’m sure they’ve used limited amounts of chemical weapons, but 1) the target of the attack, 2) the scale of the attack, 3) the military grade quality of the munitions, and 4) satellite detection of multiple rocket launches from government-controlled sites preceding the first reports of chemical attacks in social media…well, it all indicates it was the Syrian government that’s responsible for this particular atrocity. Of course, there are plenty of atrocities on both sides, but this one can be laid at the doorstep of the Syrian government.

      Like

      • Alex Jones? You’re citing Alex ‘the US controls the weather and uses it as a weapon’ Jones as a source? Seriously?

        Like

      • Lol I think that was taken out of context when he was taking about that. And yes I do take him seriously. He may seem a little wacky sometimes but that’s bc he is very passionate about waking people up.

        Like

      • I’m sorry…I don’t mean to be rude, but Alex Jones is a conspiracy theorist of the worst sort. I can excuse an excess of passion, but I can’t trust anything Jones reports. Sorry.

        Like

      • Greg, lets try some logic here. Clearly knowing that chemicals will draw in US and allies, why would Assad risk using chemical weapons? Its not like he achieved something by killing 1500 people using chemical weapons! Rebels on the other hand would benefit a lot by staging a false flag operation and blame it on Assad.
        1)The area attacked is partially held by Syrian army and rebels. Shouldn’t Assad be targeting rebel strongholds instead? 2) How do you conclude the scale of attack pointed to Syrian forces? Sarin is deadly in a densely populated area and can kill more people with less amount 3) Contrary opinion is that this is a false flag operation with rebels getting the chemicals from another state. In that case munitions still would be military grade. 4) Social media ? seriously?, are you going to hold a government responsible for use of WMD based on reports on social media. Did it occur to you that if it was a false flag operation the perpetrators plant stories of Syrian rockets before executing the attack?

        You need conclusive evidence before making a judgement here.

        Like

  3. No one ever mentions the Russian government. I’d be starting by pressuring and shaming Russia. But no one ever mentions the Russian government. I’d say that the US is the easier target these days.

    Like

    • It’s absolutely true…Russia has made it impossible for the United Nations to act against the Syrian government. Of course, Russia has a naval base in Syria (I think it’s one of the few Russian naval bases remaining outside Russia) and the Syrian government buys a LOT of military equipment from Russia. So they’re not particularly eager for the Assad government to fail. Russia needs the cash.

      Like

      • Greg, that was a wonderfully histerical dialogue )
        It is not about Russia needing cash. Russia doesn’t really need that cash (it has got plenty), it can profit more from the oil price rise following a large-scale war, if it breaks out. It is about the “sphere of interest” thing. About influence. About keeping the last remaining outpost in the Middle East and playing a role there and in the Mediterranean.

        Like

      • Yeah, you’re right about the oil. And the influence. I think it’s difficult for a lot of folks to see the situation through Russian eyes (I certainly can’t do it). But their global influence has diminished, so it would be all the more important for them to retain as much influence as they can. It’s a shame that events in the Middle East are never just about events in the Middle East.

        Like

      • Events in the Middle East have never been just about events in the Middle East since the first crusade, which was never really about the holy land.

        Like

      • “Russia needs the cash”. Er, I don’t think so. Russia has $513bn of foreign currency reserves (Wikipedia rankings no.4 worldwide) equal to about 25% of its $2tr GDP; with public debt around 10% of GDP. The days when Russia was seriously strapped for cash are long gone with the rise in the price of oil. Maybe when oil crashes.

        Like

      • There’s a Russian naval facility in the port of the city of Syria. Russia provides weapons and the makings of WMDs to the Middle East. Whatever the US has or hasn’t done, it is constantly being held to account for it. Russia is not.

        Like

  4. The blogs and Twitter are currently linking to a report datelined August 29th by Dale Gavlak, an experienced Middle East reporter of 20 years’ standing who has written for the BBC, Associated Press and NPR …

    http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

    SUMMARY: The chemical weapons “attack” by Assad was actually an accident on the part of a group of rebels who had been supplied with the weapons, but no training, by Saudi Arabia. The curious rebels didn’t know what the weapons were, and started investigating them in a tunnel used as an arms dump. Some of the weapons fired, killing about 12 of the rebels instantly, then there was an explosion leading to a larger release of gas and more widespread deaths.

    *If* the report turns out to be accurate it would cast a huge shadow over the “intelligence” on which British Prime Minister Cameron’s Commons performance was based (i.e. “The rebels don’t have chem weapons, so it must have been Assad”), in the debate on whether Britain should join in the fun. I think it unlikely that the UK’s spooks would have been unaware of Saudi intentions, much less the CIA (who would have supplied Saudi with the weapons).

    Like

    • It’s an interesting article, to be sure. In the Clarification, they acknowledge that Gavlak “assisted in the research and writing process” and didn’t actually interview anybody.

      The interviewing itself seems a tad weak. “Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.” I’ve added the emphasis there. Belief isn’t evidence. And this: “The father described the weapons as having a ‘tube-like structure’ while others were like a ‘huge gas bottle.'” There are a lot of weapons that have a tube-like structure — anything from a mortar (which is certainly capable of firing shells with weaponized chemical agents) to a Light Anti-Tank Weapons (which isn’t). And I’m not familiar with any weapon system that looks like a huge gas bottle. I don’t find that very compelling.

      As to the rebel groups having chemical weapons, I don’t think there’s much doubt that some of the rebel groups have had access to small amounts of chemical weapons. But probably not in the quantity or ‘quality’ (if I can use that term to describe chemical weapons) that were apparently used in the most recent attack.

      You can’t discount anything, of course. But it seems to me the evidence leans heavily toward the Syrian government being responsible.

      Like

      • Didn’t see any Clarifications section, and the Mint Press News website is now down again. (Update: Google now shows me that Mint Press have added a paragraph to the top of the article since I first read it.) Yes, it does weaken the article to know that Gavlak wasn’t actually there to do the interviews. However, one has to ask why Assad would use chemical weapons, given that he’s not stupid and would know what sort of reaction it would provoke. Unless he’s playing some kind of very dangerous double bluff.

        Like

  5. Too complicated. Keep it simple.

    Obama = Bush
    Kerry = Colin Powell
    You and me = SUCKERS

    here’s a .pdf file I’m printing out and putting up! Simple, easy, pictures and no words.
    SpreadAnIdea.wordpress.com

    Like

    • I suppose it’s possible to reduce the history of the Syrian conflict and its implications for the Middle East to ‘simple, easy, pictures and no words’ but I’m not sure I’d want to rely on that for policy decisions.

      Like

      • Hullo! rational debate is COMPLETELY IGNORED by the mainstream. the only thing politicians care about is votes and money. you have to mobilize regular folks who are turned off by brainy stuff.

        Like

      • Yeah, but I’m not sure the best response is to try to tune the debate to the lowest possible note. It might be an effective introduction, but I think it’s important to acknowledge that some things are just really fucking complex and aren’t reducible to a few images. Just my opinion.

        Like

      • but most people realized that they were in fact lied to. I remember trying to convince my coworkers of this in 2004. I was made fun of. 2005, still made fun of. 2006, they started to shut up. 2007-2008, everyone pretty much admitted that we were screwed over by the war planners. Just tap into that simple memory.

        Like

      • >> Yeah, but I’m not sure the best response is to try to tune the debate to the lowest possible note.

        Well if there existed a debate which was judged by the quality of the logic in the arguments, or the quality of the factual research, or the poetic goodness of the rhetoric, I would agree. But as far as I can see, that would be like trying to fight fair when your opposition is not. You’re going up against something with the power of the McDonalds advertising machinery. They go right for our base instincts. Pretty colors. Simple messages. Bam! they’re the most profitable restaurant in my town (where 50% of the population is Ivy league students, faculty, and university employees).

        My mind made up for the time being, so I’m going out and spamming a bit, for the sake of attracting attention. Anyway, thanks for responding & all the best!

        Like

  6. I remember there had been a lot of very reliable intel about Saddam having WMDs, which were never found. Why not wait for UN team to deliver their findings in about two weeks?

    Like

    • Actually, the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq consistently reported that they couldn’t find any chemical or biological weapons, or evidence of CBW production. But the US and UK governments mocked up their own ‘evidence.’ I suppose that’s possible now as well, but it seems less likely (ot me, at any rate).

      Like

  7. PS- I remember going to a couple of pretty vigorous protests in 2003 and 2004. wall-to-wall people for 15 blocks on a big wide New York Avenue. The war happened anyway, but still. This time everyone is acting like it’s already a done deal.

    Like

  8. Chemical warfare via tobacco and it’s added highly addictive chemicals is
    killing millions worldwide / including / Americans/ British / Syrians / etc etc
    USA political parties as British political parties having been funded with the
    profits of tobacco tothe tune of / Tens of $millions thus they have turned a
    blind eys to the millions of victims of tobacco as it’s added highly addictive
    added chemicals / the movie industry churning out decades of movies that
    being nought but the promotion of tobbaco and it’s addictive chemicals…..
    The power of the tobacco companes such that it took decades just to get
    a law in place that banned smoking in public places / in debate for such a
    law the politicians would stand and give a speach defending the tobacco
    companies not the people / an appalling situation of betrayal of the people
    where the power of money blinded those whom ‘s duty t’was to protect the
    people/ to uphod the law / that the rights of all being hounered protected.
    That a USA govt decides wto judge others / yet not judge it’s own appalling
    crimes against humanity / but reveals it for what it is / a terrorist nation that
    having committed appalling crimes under a cover that it protects democracy
    and freedom / yes its true many in SYRIA should be brought to accont / the
    greater truth many Americans should be brought to account / govt as military
    they being guilty of mass murder / torture / false imprisonment / as countless
    appalling crimes of inhumanity /brining death suffering as injustice worldwide.

    Like

    • I’m not convinced the sale of tobacco, as nasty as it is, really qualifies as terrorism or chemical warfare. I’ll agree that it’s emblematic of capitalism though.

      Like

      • Greg / If killing millions worldwide with tobacco and it’s
        added highly addictive chemicals / an act which is only
        regarded in judgement as only nasty then the few that
        killed in SYRIA / under normal circumstances would go
        unnoticed / giving little concern to the rest of humanity.
        The problem be a USA govt need use distraction as a
        means taking focus of americans away from how bad
        the situation a USA is in ..the problems many and dire.

        The MONSANTO company having used the American population as guinea pigs in genetic acts of terrorism in changing the genetic structure of plants where they now produce frankenstein foods /feed to the American people.
        The result on animals given such food is cancers tumors
        bad news to a extreme for Americans in that MONSANTO
        simply used Americans as if they being laboritory testing
        animals / numbers such frankenstein food will kill being in millions / MONSANTO spun a story to the USA govt of how
        they would control the worlds food supply / such earning a
        USA $TRILLIONS of course a USA govt but believed them
        they don’t come more halfbaked gullible / than USA govt’s.
        The MONSANTO disaster but one of many dire problems a USA in facing / rather than in coming to terms as accepting
        the problems facing them govt & military command seeking diversion as seeking distraction than facing the stark reality of situation / (where need ask all nations for help & support.

        Like

      • Yes, I understand you’re outraged by Monsanto, but accusing them of terrorism is to minimize real terrorist actions. Terrorism, by definition and design, is intended to create terror. Monsanto is about making huge profits by marketing their products, and you don’t sell your products by terrorizing people.

        I dislike Monsanto’s business practices, but they’re capitalists, not terrorists. If you want to rant against capitalism, then I’m all for that.

        Like

  9. Great article which cleverly points out all the reasons why we should stick out nose into Syria. Personally, I feel like this is a case of “Nothing-going-well-at-home-let’s-start-a-war-people”. Obama hasn’t been able to turn any positive corners at home, so this may be his last effort to do something good. And Satan surely does pave his roads with good intentions. If the US goes down this road, we’re walking straight into hell!

    Like

  10. There was a talkshow on television in which someone said that Chemical Weapons originate from the USA, so he wondered why it was possible for Syria in the first place to use Chemical Weapons. In my opinion we have to worry more about atomic weapons, I think those will be far more harmful to humankind, although we can’t say that what happens to Syria isn’t horrible, one thing though which I notice is how the media are trying to create a certain image of this situation, just like the media in the Islamic world does when something happens.

    Like

  11. My solution is to have Russia step in to be the policecountry this time. The syrians are their friends, the rebel hate the russians, and we get to stay out of it. Russia gets a bit of up front glory for being in there and will be tied up for the next 10 years or so with blood feuds… Win for us at least… We stay out of it, the world will see that we aren’t the only folks capable of stepping in like for the last few decades and maybe the radicals will refocus on someone other than us… Now how do we get the Chinese to step up and work over NK?

    Like

    • I’m not sure Russia would be willing to police Syria. I mean, they haven’t done it so far. It seems unlikely they would be willing to do it just to implement US policy. But it’s a nice thought.

      Like

      • Russia (or more accurately the USSR) Have already had their ten years trying to police Afganistan during the ’80s. I can’t see them doing the same thing in Syria any time soon which means they’ve learned from their mistakes. So Russia’s ‘Just let them get on with it’ stance appears nore credible from their point of view.

        Like

  12. I think they would like a chance to improve their political standing, help an ally, and Putin is just dying to get a Nobel just Like Obama.

    Like

  13. IMO, using chemical weapons is a lot like what a small ‘s’ suicidal person does. They want to get noticed in their now-desperate state but without actually dying. Syria is caught up in something that has gotten out of hand so they need something to end it. Whether the USA goes in or not it will be the ‘something.’ The chemical attack is a cry for help– sending up a flare — just to know you did something that might cause a different stir. If you were there wouldn’t you do that?
    If I were the US I would do nothing and lean heavily on the diplomatic side. Wait a minute, does the USA do diplomacy? Maybe they should try it. I’ve talked to bullies on what they do/did and many of them say that once they found out about the diplomatic approach to things they liked it and no longer saw bullying as the way to deal with everything.

    Like

    • I confess, I hadn’t considered the chemical weapons attack in terms of a ‘cry for help.’ It’s an interesting take on it. I’ll have to think about that.

      But yes, the US does diplomacy. We didn’t for a while, but once President Bush left office, the US rediscovered the value of diplomacy. I’m not saying we’re really good at it, but we’ve been talking directly and indirectly with Syria since this mess began.

      Like

  14. Diplomacy in this case =”Take two aspirins and call me in the morning.” For all intents and purposes, things are already calming down Syria-side There have been no more chemical attacks and there likely won’t be any more. Like when a fighting couple gets heard by the neighbors, they miraculously calm down. When the police come by, the couple is heavily into the makeup sex. Humans are weird.

    Like

  15. Thanks, Greg. Nice to insert a little humor into our country’s latest outrageous behavior. I sure wouldn’t want to be Obama right now – your post sounds like it might have been taped in the Oval Office! Congrats on the FP! Well deserved, and you’ve started a great conversation!

    Like

  16. Many people in the West are so hard on the Middle East. That part of the world is very old and has many intricacies within it. I guess China doesn’t have that problem too much because it has stayed China throughout. It’s big enough to do so.
    Wait until we reach the 6000+ year mark and see all the old battles we will have accumulated by then still grinding and groaning.
    Another thing that I think everyone personally knows but for some reason forgets when others do it, is that when you get into something a little too far and someone has to help you save yourself from yourself, you aren’t exactly grateful for their intervention. You’re more embarrassed and have to save face by hating them….Hence the saying, No good deed goes unpunished. At this point in time USA is the world’s scapegoat and it doesn’t like it.: USA has a hero mentality which is impractical. Just suck it up USA, You wouldn’t be where you are today without knowledge and people from the Middle East who came to your shores. Just play your relative part like one family member in a huge dysfunctional family. i.e. the world. One day it will be your turn to call on a catalyst.

    Like

  17. We have a neighborhood. We have, a bad neighbor. Some shit goes down and we all talk about what we need to do about that neighbor. Everyone in the neighborhood, has some history or vested interest that let the neighbor stay around to begin with, which we find out, led to the problem.

    This scenario leaves the kids out, who are not involved with the discussion, unless they have a friend who lives where the bad neighbor is so it gets complicated for them. The rest of the kids in the neighborhood is US, having this discussion.

    Like

  18. It’s time we stayed home and worked on taking care of us. There is nothing we can do to correct a situation we have no business in.
    Big business and even bigger government want to protect ‘their’ vital interests, namely, oil. If we are to actually discuss a solution to aid those in the Middle East it would be to start with looking at ourselves, first.
    We, middle American, are the real losers and will continue to be as long as we listen to mainstream America’s media machine sway us here, and then sway us there. I’ve got a future I hope and pray for that I’ve worked all my life to leave to my two grown children. College debt is eating me alive, providing for those that are here illegally is straining every paying taxpayer. The medical insurance promised under ObamaCare has take away more and substantially increased in price for services I am allowed. Illegals receive free education, free medical care and the welfare system, itself, is a sorry excuse for teaching someone how to fish.

    I love my country, my country comes first. One more conflict in a region that despises our incessant need to dictate our principles to them is not our answer, nor there’s.
    We have to have our own house in order if we want to be an example of something to hope for.

    Your post is timely cast. I don’t know many who haven’t been mulling a similar dialog in their grey matter. I am angered that we are even faced with this, AGAIN! We have a Congress that is too polarized to give a ray’s ass, and a President set on trying to please everyone except the taxpayer.
    It’s time to stand before we fall for something none of us wants.

    Like

    • The argument in favor of acting now against the Syrian government isn’t so much a desire to impose the will of the United States as it is to reinforce the modern (since the 1925 Geneva Conventions) and widely accepted notion that the use of chemical weapons has to be actively discouraged in warfare. That’s a laudable and compelling argument, given the nature of chemical and biological weapons (they’re really effective against civilian populations, but not very effective at achieving military goals).

      The problem is 1) the US is probably the wrong nation to do it, 2) the US is probably the only nation willing to do it, and 3) anything the US does really won’t degrade Syria’s ability to use tactical chemical weapons, and 4) whatever the US does will only piss off more people on every side of the conflict.

      Basically we’re talking about Waiting for Godot with Chemical Weaponry. “I don’t know, I’ll never know, in the silence you don’t know, you must go on, I can’t go on, I’ll go on.”

      Like

      • Can the US destroy Assad’s chemical weapons arsenal? Probably not (at least, not from the air without risking an accidental release of those chemical weapons). But the real question is, can the US inflict enough pain on the Assad regime to deter him from using them again – i.e., to make it clear that chemical weapons will not be a war winning strategy for Assad. It’s not necessary to destroy Assad’s chemical weapons stock, it’s sufficient to deter their future use.

        The Chosky’s make a compelling case that targeting Syria’s air fields and air force infrastructure would serious impair the Assad government’s war efforts, with minimal risk to either Syrian civilians or US personnel (www.realclearworld.com/articles/2013/08/30/what_to_bomb_in_syria_–_and_why-2.html). The Assad government is going to use chemical weapons if it thinks they will help it win the war. It isn’t going to use those weapons if the price of using them means that it loses its supply line from Iran or Russia or its ability to reinforce government outposts around Syria. Deterrence, for lack of a better word, works.

        The sort of limited strike contemplated by the Obama administration won’t end the killing of civilians in Syria – that’ll go on as long as the fighting lasts and, as I’ve noted elsewhere (http://ifiwantedyouropinion.com/2013/09/03/what-the-hell-is-obama-doing-why-hasnt-assad-been-bombed-yet/#more-582), if either side wins outright, the likely outcome is the mass slaughter and exodus of the losers, meaning that the ”best” result is that both sides slug it out for a few more years before negotiating a peace agreement that slices up Syria like a Christmas goose along religious and ethnic lines (i.e., the Yugoslavia solution). That’s not a good result, since in the meantime tens of thousands (or more) Syrians (mostly civilians) will die, but in this fight there are no “good” outcomes, just better or worse outcomes.

        At best, by denying the Syrian regime the ability to use chemical weapons as a “war winning” strategy, the US might make them more inclined to consider a negotiated settlement (on the theory that fighting only makes sense if you think you can win – though I’m not optimistic). But since the use of chemical weapons allows the Syrian government to kill a lot more people and might help them win (resulting in the aforementioned bloodbath) or at least might help them think they can win (giving them no incentive to negotiate), deterring their further use likely will help minimize future civilian casualties.

        Like

    • Nobody appointed the U.S. the world’s policeman, but when despots start gassing kids and the U.N. once again proves its as limp and useless as Hugh Hefner’s pee-pee without Viagra, somebody has to step up and call a time-out on that kind of thing or what you will get are more despots gassing kids, not less.

      Like

      • I don’t think it’s terribly helpful to view this through a testosterone lens. But it’s true that the use of biological or chemical weapons has to be actively discouraged.

        Like

    • President Kennedy, maybe? lol, I’m just old enough to remember him. I often find myself feeling “we have to do something!” Then ask myself, why does it have to be us that feels so strongly? I’m an Air Force Vet and military widow so maybe I was brain washed from childhood and in my years of service. I have said many times that I knew I was being brainwashed and approved. The conditioning lowered my response time when it was important. I worked on birds on the line ;-)

      Like

      • I’m also a veteran. I come from a military family. That’s partly why I feel strongly about this stuff. But on the other hand, there really IS some value in backing up the Geneva Conventions (even though, in my opinion, the US violated them by engaging in torture). Chemical and biological warfare are really good ways to kills lots of civilians, but they suck at achieving military goals. They need to be actively discouraged. I just wish somebody other than the US would do the discouraging.

        Like

  19. Greg / I do not believe that your interpretation of terrorism
    means that you can dismiss the killing of millions / in that if
    the killing’s done for monetary profit it NOT a crime if done
    under the false cover of defending democracy freedom it’s
    not a crime. Greg the only sense your having is NONsense.
    You are simply doing as politicians /playing people for fools.

    Like

    • What I believe is that words have meaning. Terrorism is a tactic; it requires the use or threat of violence intended to create a sense of fear in a specific community. I don’t think Monsanto intends to create fear in anybody. I think they want to create complacency in everybody. A lot of folks may believe that’s more insidious than terrorism, but it’s not terrorism.

      Like

      • greg / words do have meaning but just using words to spin out meaningless nonsense / is just playing people for fools.

        .

        Like

  20. A lot of good points. But I think we are hidden from some facts. We do not care about the Syrian people because there is a no win scenario playing out there. The common person has compassion for children and the incidences in Syria revolve around children. But the governments, rightly or wrongly care about the effects we would have if we entered the fray. Chemical warfare scares everyone. There are canisters already smuggled in the United States in empty apartments in some cities. They can be triggered by a phone call. This scenario although made up is plausible. The Boston incident shows how vulnerable we are. Imagine a detonation of a nerve gas in Boston or New York by a radical group. In Syria it was fifteen hundred. In the United States it could be five thousand. Somewhere there is a think tank contemplating our actions and the retaliation that would happen after the attack. We already know Tel Aviv will be on the target list. So fifteen hundred, poor dead souls and our retaliation leads to twenty thousand dead poor souls and one understands the delay. There is another possible explanation. Our sources lead us to believe that the killing of Assad is around the corner. We wait and the problem could resolve itself. Time will tell.

    Like

  21. Reblogged this on Ginger Musings and commented:
    This is utter brilliant and frames the shitty situation that is the Syrian “conflict.” And to me, highlights exactly why we should stay out of it. Which itself doesn’t even get into whether we have the legal or moral ability to do so.

    Like

  22. This conversation started with an ‘absolute’ Statement: the Syrian government used chemical weapons against their won people. You must be very clever to know this, seeing as noone else does. The only thing that is certain is chemical weapons were used, but we don’t know by whom. President Obama and Secretary Kerry’s statements are not evidence, they are accusations, nothing more, and anyone who uses a public platform or provides a public platform to further unsabstantiated information is trading in propaganda. We do not know who used the chems, but maybe we will after the inspectors have prepared their report.

    Like

    • My comments are of course addressed to the conversationalist, but I do agree that something has to be done, but not using that method to light the fuse. It is highly likely the rebels instigated the whole thing with outside help – this, I also don’t know. No one knows as yet, except Obama and Kerry, it seems.

      Like

    • I agree we need to hear the reports of the weapons inspectors before anybody does anything. That said, the most reliable evidence we have at this time indicates the weapons were launched by the Syrian government.

      Like

  23. Hot topic everywhere right now. The problem is no one has an answer and we all know the innocent will suffer if they go in guns blazing.So what we need now is a really cool Mission impossible team, but I’m dreaming.

    Like

  24. Greg,
    After having read just about everything posted here, wearing a scarf on Fridays and with dear friends that are Serian, I fear your internal conversation pretty much sounds like mine. I try very hard to refrain from the F! However, it seams appropriate here, we are all really F__d!

    Like

  25. This is too funny, at least from where I see the whole … the issue is not Syria. The issue here unfortunately, is America. The old game can’t be executed anymore … it seems America has a ‘self esteem’ problem — wanting to be so loved, can only come from such emptiness although I’m confident the peaceful Americans know the difference. What needs taken to task is the root of the problem, and that starts there, in congress.

    Like

  26. It is such a complicated situation, and you didn’t even get into what other countries say and feel about this (i.e., China, Russia, Iran). It just gets worse, doesn’t it?

    Great post. Congrats on being Freshly Pressed.

    Like

    • It just gets worse until…no, it continues to get worse after that. But at some point there’ll be an equilibrium. Which will last until it all gets unstable again.

      Like

  27. Greg

    If Bashir al Assad is toppled frrom power , who is there to replace him ? The US still has yet to learn from what is now taking place in bot Iraq and Afghanistan with the leaders now in power there . And if tis situation is now said to be so damn important , then were was the outcry from this country concerning the genocide that took place in Darfur , Congo and and Rwanda ?

    tophatal …………..

    Like

    • That, as I understand it, is one of the primary reasons nobody is providing significant help to the rebels. Another failed state in the Middle East doesn’t benefit anybody — and the odds are that when Assad falls there’ll be continuing sectarian violence in Syria. There’s no way this ends well. For anybody.

      As to the acts of genocide you mention, the issue isn’t whether or not the Assad regime is killing its own citizens; the issue is the use of weaponry modes outlawed by the Geneva Conventions.

      Like

  28. The US should only get involved in conflicts when they pose a danger to the US. While its tragic, the conflict in Syria poses a threat to who exactly? Saudi Arabia, UAE, Israel? Don’t those nations have enough weapons, soldiers and money to make a coalition and go after Assad?

    Like

  29. Common sense says there is nothing going on in Syria. This has been going on forever. If it was all true the way it is put there would not be any people left in Syria. It is called governemnt defense department begging for more money. This government is being put down too and it is nothing more then give the military more money to protect the legislatures being put down. All theri admins are being executed . Use some common sense.

    Like

      • I am sure there is a war there no bigger then we have a war here. I am a veteran. They spray crap on us here too. They experiment on all of us too. All this exsgeration is no more then fund raising. Territory controlling for resources etc. Then when we disclose we get the targeted treatment. We do not have whistleblower laws because they all do just a great job. It takes millions of victims to get those protection laws and it takes million sof men not us women. The governemnt is and always has been male dominated. Due to position I got immunity the only reason I got anything.

        Like

      • greg / mkesing63 is but giving a comment in your
        own style as in own language of course you don’t understand it (reason) it’s but complete nonsense.

        Like

    • I think a LOT of people care if chemical weapons were used. It has more to do with the conventions of how war is conducted than with who used the weaponry. Chemical and biological weapons are handy for killing lots of people indiscriminately, but they’re not terribly effective in achieving military goals (like capturing territory). That’s why they were banned under the 1925 Geneva Conventions.

      Like

  30. Was literally just talking about this the other day. It’s such a fragile situation, and at first glance, the most obvious response is wanting to rush in and ‘help’. If only it were that easy!

    Like

  31. Yeah, I disagree. We don’t need to anything…. I get the whole chemical warfare thing and the fact that a bunch of people are being killed, but for once the United States needs to keep our noses out of it.I know it sounds blunt and uncaring but any attack on Syria and the Assad regime basically guarantees a reaction from Russia, most likely resulting in escalating military responses from both of us. And I for one would like to stay away from any interactions with the Russians that involves our militaries in any way. It sucks being in this situation but it’s the best option for the United States; however, it doesn’t look like we will stay out of it. I am pretty sure Obama will be authorizing the air strikes whether he gets congressional approval or not. I really hope he doesn’t get congressional approval and decides not to do it and accepts the fact that we will look weak, but we will just have to wait until the 9th or whenever congress gets back. I would love to help these people, I really do, but its not in our best interests and we are far more likely to have a better outcome in this situation if we just stay out of it.

    Like

  32. The way that I see it is that even if Assad’s government was taken down, the chances of him being replaced by someone worst is higher. You want the solution to be beneficial for the innocents involved in the situation. Such a solution comes for a price, which innocent people pay anyway.

    Like

    • The intent of the limited strike President Obama is suggesting isn’t to remove Assad from power (although the US has been urging him to step down for about two years now). The intent is to reinforce the Geneva Conventions ban on chemical and biological weapons.

      I think the intent is commendable; I just don’t think either Assad or the rebels are open to the message.

      Like

  33. Are Westerners Ready to Bomb Syria?
    by Thierry Meyssan

    Pretending to believe in a chemical attack by the Syrian government against its own people, Washington, London and Paris are beating the drums of war. Should we take these threats seriously coming from states having announced as imminent the fall of Syria for more than two years? Although one should not exclude this option, Thierry Meyssan thinks it is less likely that an intervention organized by Saudi Arabia. Western agitation would rather aim to test the responses of Russia and Iran.
    Voltaire Network | Damascus (Syria) | 30 August 2013

    (Damascus, August 27) – What bee has the Nobel Peace Prize Winner, Barack Obama, got in his bonnet? Sunday, August 25, the White House issued a statement in which an anonymous senior official said that there is “little doubt” of the use by Syria of chemical weapons against its opposition. The statement added that Syria ’s agreement to let the UN inspectors in the area is “too late to be credible .”

    If the use of chemical weapons on the outskirts of Damascus, Wednesday, August 21, 2013 is likely, the Security Council of the United Nations has not concluded that it was the work of the Syrian government. At an emergency meeting held at the request of the West, the ambassadors were surprised to see their Russian colleague present satellite photos showing the firing of two rounds at 1:35 am from the rebel zone Duma in rebel areas affected by gas (at Jobar and between Arbin and Zamalka ) at times coinciding with the related disorders. The pictures do not tell us whether they were chemical shells, but they suggest that the “Brigade of Islam”, which occupies Duma, has hit three birds with the same stone: first, to remove the support of its rivals in the opposition; second, accuse Syria of using chemical weapons; finally, disrupt the offensive of the Syrian Arab army clearing the capital.

    If the Syrian government, similar to its enemy, Israel, is not a signatory to the Convention against chemical weapons and has large stocks, the jihadists also have some, as confirmed by Carla Del Ponte, to the fury of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. In December, the Free Syrian Army released a video showing a chemical laboratory and threatening the Alawites. This week, the government discovered several caches of chemical weapons, gas masks and antidotes in the suburbs of Damascus. The products came from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United States and the Netherlands. Also, it is at the request of the Syrian government, not the West, that UN inspectors are present in Syria for two weeks to investigate allegations of use. Finally, on 29 May 29, 2013, the Turkish police arrested a dozen members of the Al-Nosra Front and seized chemical weapons that were to be used in Syria.

    However, on Friday, President Obama met his National Security Council to review the attack options against Syria in the presence of Ambassador Samantha Power, leader of liberal hawks. He decided to strengthen the U.S. military presence in the Mediterranean by sending a fourth destroyer, loaded with cruise missiles, the USS Ramage. This is in addition to the USS Gravely, the USS Barry and USS Mahan, which remains in the zone when it should return to port.

    Saturday, he called British Prime Minister David Cameron on the phone. And on Sunday, he spoke with French President Francois Hollande. The three men agreed that intervention was necessary without specifying how. Sunday again, the Secretary of State John Kerry called his British, French, Canadian and Russian counterparts to say that the United States was convinced that Syria had crossed the “red line”. If the first three speakers listened at attention, Russia’s Sergey Lavrov expressed surprise that Washington pronounced itself before the report of the UN inspectors. He referred to the “extremely grave consequences” that would result form an intervention in the region.

    Monday, the French defense minister, Jean -Yves Le Drian, was in Qatar and was to go to the UAE to coordinate with them. While the Israeli national security adviser, General Yaakov Amidror, was received at the White House. During a telephone conversation between the British Prime Minister David Cameron and Russian President Vladimir Putin, the latter stressed that there was no evidence of use of chemical weapons by Syria. For his part, the Chinese Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Li Baodong, called his U.S. counterpart, Wendy R. Sherman, to urge the United States to exercise restraint. Aware of the risk of a regional war in which Christians would suffer, Pope Francis reiterated his call for peace.

    Should we therefore think that the West will go to war without a mandate from the Security Council, as NATO did in Yugoslavia? This is unlikely because at the time Russia was in ruins. Today, after issuing three vetoes to protect Syria, it must intervene or forsake any international action. However Sergey Lavrov has wisely rejected a Third World War. He said that his country was not ready to go to war against anyone, even over Syria. It could therefore be an indirect intervention in support of Syria, as China did during the Vietnam War .

    Iran then, through its Deputy Chief of Staff, Massoud Jazayeri, indicated that the attack on Syria would be crossing the “red line” and that if it took this step, the White House would endure “serious consequences.” Though Iran has neither the resources of Russia, nor alliances, it is certainly one of the top 10 global military powers. Therefore, to attack Syria is to run the risk of retaliation against Israel and uprisings in much of the Arab world, including Saudi Arabia. The recent intervention of the Lebanese Hezbollah and the statements of its Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, such as the Palestinian organization PFLP- General Command, leave no doubt.

    Questioned by the Russian press, Syrian President Bashar al -Assad, said: “The statements made by US politicians, Western and other countries is an insult to common sense and an expression of contempt for the public opinion of their peoples. This is nonsense: first accuse, then gather evidence. This task is carried out by a powerful country, the United States ( … ) This kind of accusation is a purely political response to the series of victories won by government forces against the terrorists. ”

    In Russia, the President of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Duma, the journalist and geopolitician, Alexei Pushkov, commented on his Twitter account : ” Washington and London have pronounced Assad guilty before the conclusions of UN inspectors . They will accept nothing but a guilty verdict . Any other verdict will be rejected. ”

    The notion of a new war in Syria squares badly with the economic problems of the United States and Europe. If selling weapons is a way to earn money, destroying a state without hope of return in the short or medium term can worsen the situation.

    According to a Reuters / Ipsos poll conducted after the August 21st attack, 60% of the US public opposed intervention in Syria against 9% who supported it . If they were convinced of the use of chemical weapons in Syria, they remained 46% in opposition to the war and 25% in support. The same survey indicates that U.S. respondents are even less fond of secret war : 89 % said the US should not arm the rebels, against 11% who want to arm them more. Finally, four options were offered to respondents : airstrikes ( supported by 12%), creating a no-fly zone ( 11%), the financing of a multinational force ( 9%), and direct U.S. action ( 4%).

    In France, Le Figaro, published by the arms dealer Dassault, asked its readers and, at the end of the day, 79.60 % opposed the war versus 20.40% in support. It will certainly be difficult to reverse public opinion and go to war.

    Another interpretation of events is possible: some videos showing the victims of chemical attacks actually circulated on the Internet a few hours before the attacks. It will always be possible for Westerners to “discover” the deception in time and backtrack. However, the case of chemical weapons in Iraq has shown that Westerners could lie to the international community and escape with impunity once their evil deed is accomplished.

    The charges from jihadists and their Western sponsors emerged while the Syrian Arab Army launched a major offensive, “Shield of Damascus” to free the capital. The shot of the two shells of the “Brigade of Islam” came at the beginning of the offensive, which continued for 5 days and resulted in significant losses among jihadists (at least 1,500 killed and wounded of the about 25,000 present). All this agitation may be only psychological warfare to both hide this defeat and attempt to cripple the Syrian offensive. This is especially a way for Washington to test the Iranian response after the election of Sheikh Hassan Rohani to his presidency. And it is now clear that the latter will not oppose the policy of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

    However, during the war against Libya, I had underestimated the ability of the United States to violate all the rules, including those of NATO. Basing myself on documents from the Atlantic Alliance, I insisted on the long resilience of the Libyan Jamahiriya confronting its armed opposition. I ignored the holding of a secret meeting on the NATO base in Naples behind the back of the Atlantic Council. At the time, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Denmark, Turkey, Israel, Qatar and Jordan secretly planned the use of Alliance assets to bomb Tripoli. Not trusting their allies, whom they knew would be opposed to an attack so costly in human lives, they had not informed them. The Atlantic Alliance was no longer an Alliance proper but an ad hoc coalition. In a few days, the taking of Tripoli caused at least 40,000 deaths, according to internal reports of the Red Cross. Such a manoeuvre may be being organized : the Chiefs of Staff of approximately the same states, plus Saudi Arabia and Canada, are gathered since Sunday and until tonight in Amman under the chairmanship of the CentCom commander, General Lloyd J. Austin III. They are considering five options: supplying weapons to the Contras, targeted bombings, creating a no-fly zone, establishment of buffer zones and land invasion.

    The Atlanticist press calls to war. The London Times ad .

    President Barack Obama could well follow the war plan drawn up by his predecessor George W. Bush on 15 September 2001, who foresaw, in addition to attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, those of Libya and Syria, as was revealed by the former Commander of NATO, General Wesley Clark. Except that, for the first time, the target has serious allies.

    However, the new U.S. rhetoric contradicts all the efforts of the Obama administration for the last year that sought to eliminate obstacles to the holding of the Geneva 2 Conference: resignation of General David Petraeus and supporters of the secret war, non-reappointment of Hillary Clinton and the ultra-Zionists ; indictment of irreducible opponents of an alliance with Russia, especially within NATO and the missile shield . It also contradicts the efforts of John Brennan to cause clashes in the Syrian armed opposition to demand the abdication of the Emir of Qatar, and to threaten Saudi Arabia.

    On the Syrian side, they are preparing as much as is possible for any eventuality, including the NATO bombing of command centers and ministries coordinated with an assault by jihadists against the capital. However, the most likely option is not triggering a regional war that would overwhelm the Western powers. It is an attack in the fall, supervised by Saudi Arabia and endorsed by the fighters it is currently recruiting . Eventually, this operation could be supported by the Arab League.
    Thierry Meyssan

    Translation
    Roger Lagassé

    Like

  34. Okay, so if the USA does something “they” will blame it and hate it. If the USA does nothing “they” will blame it and hate it. How would this differ from the current sitauation where “they” blame the USA and hate it? There is no upside to the USA doing anything in this situation while the downside occurs whether the USA does anything or not. Seems to me like one of those true, and rare, “no-brainers”.

    Like

    • The upside, according to President Obama, is that a limited strike sends the message to both sides that chemical warfare won’t be tolerated. I think that’s a laudable intent, but I’m not sure Assad (or the rebels, for that matter) will take that message to heart.

      Like

    • Keep in mind this is not merely a point to be made about Syria and the use of chemical weapons in Syria. It is also a point that needs to be made about this type of behavior world wide whatever conflict arises. But it needs to be made on a universally accepted scale. Americans need to seriously pay attention to the working realities of the modern world. We live in a global economy and community, we are all affected by what happens outside our boarders. Remember Russia and Georgia? Crap like that couldn’t be tolerated and crap like this cant be tolerated.

      Like

  35. Yes something must be done, but why should the US be the ones to initiate? This is a tragic crime against humanity, genocide. All world leaders have a responsibility to stand up and take action, regardless of religious affiliation, ethnicity or their animosity toward the US. If in fact there is indisputable proof that chemical weapons were used all nations should stand together and take action.

    Like

  36. nothing could have summed it up the way you did – excellent work, well done. I hope people are blessed with some humanity so the simple civilians can live in peace – it is just this they ask for.

    Like

  37. We can’t forget the issue of oil. The West is addicted to it. It bathes in its consumption like that singer who soaks in bathtubs of yogurt. What do addicts do? They steal, deceive and exploit. Is there any way readers here could reduce their use of oil so the crazed addiction is reduced? I feel I have room to talk because I intentionally don’t have a car. I intentionally have a small house so need to heat is less. I have no children because I don’t see the sense in bringing more consumers into this world. Babies are for life and they quickly get ugly like the rest of us. I don’t think I’m great and wonderful because I keep my needs sustainable. I simply don’t want to be 100% owned (digestion and conscience) by corporations because I can’t govern myself. If the West believes it has the right to a high standard of living then factored into that is the belief that we can also cause havoc in other places for our baby-bump infatuated selves. Right? People who waste resources are the ones who think they are great and for some reason entitled to more. This comfy justification is a temporary state of mind with permanent and horrible effects. Wake up and smell the sarin…

    Like

    • greenfrieze / are you related to Greg as like Greg your
      comment but utter nonsense in playing people for fools.

      As with Greg t’woud have benefited if parents giving a
      occasional sound spanking upon your bared buttocks
      thus teaching some sense as some respect for others.

      Like

  38. Well, we do clearly have to do something about every chaos that’s erupting around the world. It’s affecting all of us clearly in such a way that, as human beings, we feel and empathize with the ones who are suffering.

    Yet for now, I hope many nations meet and carefully plan on how to make Syria at peace not in pieces. Just my opinion – a single powerful country that tries to stop the conflict of a country will only get in the way of resolving the inner turmoil (US to Iraq anyone?). And frankly, it doesn’t help at all. All the killings and chaos goes long term instead of being stopped instantly.

    Like

    • Things began to get really screwed up in the Middle East when, after the First World War, European powers arbitrarily redrew borders and set up puppet regimes ruled by internal minority sectarian groups. That led to those groups (like the Alawites in Syria) depending on foreign powers in order to remain in control. And now, of course, all those foreign powers are stuffing their hands in their pockets and walking away whistling and trying to look innocent.

      Like

      • Great comment about European powers arbitrarily drawing borders with no consideration about local cultures/tribes/what have you. Another example of this is Africa. The US has historically (since WWII) been the policeman of the world. The use of chemical weapons should be despised by ALL countries. Russia’s stand is atrocious – Putin is NOT to be trusted, he’s been eroding personal freedoms there for years. Mind you, our personal freedoms are also eroding. However, why don’t middle east countries try to seriously solve their own problems without outside intervention? I know oil is a big reason but even so. Great article that sums it up in a nutshell – we’re F&^%ed either way.

        Like

  39. Pingback: There’s a war in there « Pip Marks

  40. The tobacco comanies / killing a great part of humanity
    with tobacco as added highly addictive direst chemicals.

    MONSANTO killing rest of *worlds population with their
    frankenstien foods / in main in America genetic altered
    food given direct to the individuals / in Europe /in main
    genetic poisonous food being feed to animals thus via
    the animals to the to the Europeon population / result
    as a USA bring bringing millions of deaths / a multitude
    of serious health problems / comes with / frankenstien
    foods. It but beggers belief how humanity in such a dire
    situation /greed of wealth as an greed of political power.

    MONSANYO sought but wealth /achieved their powerful
    position in their funding of politicians funding all political
    parties / to the tune of tens of $millions.The Politicians
    so blinded by the wealth offered / given by MONSANTO
    they gave MONSANTO freedom to do / as they pleased
    of course politicians never realized dire result of genetic
    manipulation which now resulting with it’s bringing death.

    It’s vital THE USA starts face the real problems of nation
    as being MONSANTO a company out of control bringing
    death to millions worldwide / with the potential of ending
    humanity / the situation now requiring immediate action
    the USA should not use distraction diversion as means
    in turning a blind eye to the real problems it need face
    a USA as all humanity face / the media need be given
    the freedom in reporting the truth / thus politician give
    give their attention a focus to real problems / not that
    of media spin / where in a constant state of war with
    other nations / in trying to achieve world domination.

    Like

    • Dude, seriously…if you want to rant about Monsanto, do it on your own blog. I’ve been patient about this, but your insistence on thread-jacking a discussion about Syria is starting to get tedious.

      Like

      • greg / if serious problems as MONSANTO are not faced
        then there be no SYRIA or USA / humanity be wiped out.

        Like

  41. yeah, im not exactly one for war and politics, but I believe we should go about saving syria without making a huge war, whilst I fully support Obama, with all the nuclear weapons these days it could get horrific

    Like

  42. This is very well put. It’s such a frustrating situation that I feel like I’ve been having this argument with myself (and many many other people) all week.

    Like

    • I’m inclined to think that folks who aren’t having this argument with themselves and/or others simply aren’t paying enough attention. It would be SO much easier, wouldn’t it, if one side of the argument was clearly stronger.

      Like

      • True. I suppose the problem is that people seem to think that it’s an either or situation. Military intervention or nothing. Diplomatic routes linked with humanitarian efforts don’t seem as dramatic as air strikes but there we are.

        Like

      • You’re absolutely right. There’s nothing sexy about diplomacy. Nobody ever made a blockbuster movie about peace negotiations.

        The argument made by folks who want to punish Syrian for using chemical weapons is that the use of such weaponry isn’t open to negotiation. They were banned by the Geneva Conventions. Their argument is that anybody, regardless of what side they’re on, who used biological or chemical weapons in a conflict has to be punished. I think that’s a legitimate argument. I just don’t think the ‘punishment’ will actually achieve anything.

        But I like your thinking.

        Like

  43. Thanks for this! My thoughts exactly! There’s so much more I wish I could say, but I’m not exactly sure how to put it in words. Basically, there are crisis all over the world, yet the ones in the Middle East are the only ones where we see the need to intervene, to “help the people”. I think it’s a clever disguise for a bigger agenda. Regardless, this was so very well written!

    Like

      • Greg / It’s an obvious attempt of mind to put a end to
        all brain development thus the destruction of humanity.
        There is one way that mind can be controlled thus the
        ability of brain developmenthat fundemental is allowed.

        I say the mind controlled not defeated because it can’t
        be defeated /however it can be controlled in giving one
        peace of mind /I shall give a further comment soon / as
        to how such be achieved. As explain at a later time how
        mind can’t be defeated / yet can be controlled / where it
        being the better qualties of humanity flourish / blossom.

        Like

      • It’s an obvious attempt of mind to put a end to all brain development thus the destruction of humanity.

        You’re talking about Monsanto again, right? Not reality television, or hockey. You’re starting to get a wee bit Boo Radley, you know.

        Like

  44. Sorry to be so vague, Greg.

    There are problems all over the world, some as great as those in the Middle East. And chemical weapons/chemical warfare are definitely something to be concerned about! But I just wonder (wonder is the more appropriate term, since I really am curious) if it’s all an attempt to seize control of the oil industry. Of course, it’s not just the US, but other countries as well.

    Drug wars/crimes in Mexico. Conflict in the Republic of Congo. Sex trafficking in Thailand. Just a few examples. They all seem like pretty horrible things, but you don’t hear much about the US involvement to “help” these people. But I wonder, if those countries were rich in oil, would we suddenly turn up to “help” these countries? Again, I’m not snubbing my nose at the problems and the serious situation in Syria. And, maybe I sound like a complete moron to those reading. But, this theory that I never really thought about was discussed by friends this weekend, and it just makes me wonder.

    To be honest, I’m really not educated on that theory, but I wonder if there are those who are, or those out there who believe that. I suppose I didn’t go about asking my question in a very clear manner. Forgive me! All I really meant to do was compliment your piece and then I went and stuck my foot in my mouth, talking about things I know nothing about. *sigh* Really good stuff, though!

    Like

    • Heidi, you don’t sound like a moron at all. You sound like somebody who’s making an honest attempt to understand issues that are so complex and twisted that experts want to throw up their hands and quit.

      And I think you’re right on some of those issues. The problem is that chemical and biological weapons are different; they’re banned by the Geneva Conventions. As horrible as war is, it would be even more horrible if nations ignored the very few universal rules proscribing what can and can’t be done by nations at war.

      Like

  45. With decades of 24/7 govt media as military media brainwashing
    greater majority of Americans incapable of independent thought
    however / there an means american people can free themselves.

    Such the means of freedom for americans is again establishing
    the direct link with the creator where one’s practical experience
    of the creator will take one beyond ideas as beliefs to that that
    one knowing the creator / understanding the ultimate purpose
    of creation of the universe / the creation of given a human life.

    The next comment be establishing such the needed direct link
    which one being capable in having / but having forgotten such
    link exists having been the victims of cruel brainwashing / from
    corrupt govts / corrupt politicians / whom rather than serve the
    people having stripped the people of all rights / where treating
    people as sheep to fleece /cut unto the bone shown no mercy.

    A USA govt as military will not take the blame for the dire state
    of the nation / rather they continue to wage war on others use
    distraction as diversion as a means in staying in power / thus
    deny the people their right to brain development / their rights
    knowing the purpose of creation /the purpose of a human life.

    I advise all americans not to lose heart / in time you will be set
    free you must be of good faith don’t lose hope / remain strong.

    Like

  46. How and why is this the United States “problem”? I think what is happening is horrific..as you pointed out..there is nothing we can do to help. If the United States must get involved..shouldn’t the United States first get the thumbs up from the United Nations?

    Like

    • I don’t think this IS the United States’ problem. It’s a world problem. The Geneva Conventions ought to be applied worldwide.

      As to getting UN approval, that simply won’t happen — not because a majority of nations would oppose the use of force in Syria, but because Russia (or China, for that matter) would simply veto any UN resolution authorizing the use of force.

      Like

  47. The direct link to the creator has not changed since time
    having began that link achieved when turning the senses
    inward via meditation doing such / the experience gained
    gifts one Clarity of understanding in one knowing creator
    in going beyond ideas and beliefs to practical experience
    of creator in understanding one’s ultimate purpose of life.
    which controling one’s mind / allowing brain development.

    One can’t defeat the mind but one making the direct link
    with creator can control mind / why? mind NOT defeated
    is another story for another time ( interesting as it is the
    main need at present is / gaining greater understanding
    thus this comment shall be towards fulfilling a vital need
    as how such direct link with creator again reestablished.

    As one’s focus only has been on material manifestation
    of the power of creation. / One needs aid and guidance
    to re-focus the senses that one experiences the power
    of creation in it’s essence / not as before being diluted
    in it’s material manifestation / (thus greater experience).

    Throughout history of humanity there (always) being a
    “Teacher of Teachers” the teacher of teachers being a
    aid & guide to those reaching such the stage that they
    then require meditation in furthering their development.

    Present times the Teacher of Teachers is Prem Rawat
    Prem having dedicated his life to aid guide those whom
    reaching such the stage meditation vital as be required
    in going beyond ideas as beliefs unto knowing creator.

    On PC search put (words of peace) or (words of peace
    global) on site be a selection of videos / Prem explains
    meditation with a open invitation he will aid guide all in
    reaching the stage that meditation being then required.

    Once such re-focus begins / then again one in knowing
    true peace of mind again in one knowing their true self.

    Like

  48. BARACK / for the illegal drone ( unmanned armed aircraft) strikes on
    YEMEN alone BARACK guilty of mass murder / slaughter of innocent
    men / women /children /such appalling heartless crime / for which the
    USA military command / & USA president BARACK be brought to trial.

    Like

  49. If Obama can sow all this concern , because young innocent victims died at the hands of the Syrian military because of a chemical weapons` attack ? Then why no outrage as to the loss of lives on the streets of Chicago from the gun violence there ?

    Seemingly, Barack Obama cherry-picks the issues, , he feels will tug at the heart strings of the American people . If only he would also show the same concern for the military veterans as well , specifically the young men and women returning from the theater of war in Iraq and Afghanistan and who are unable to obtain the benefits they rightfully deserve , because of the archaic bureaucracy and incompetency of the VA .

    Like

    • I think there is, in fact, outrage about the gun violence in the US. Unfortunately, the outrage isn’t felt by those in Congress. As the President of the U.S. Obama doesn’t have the power or the authority to overrule Congress; as Commander in Chief, though, he does have the power and authority to authorize limited military strikes. Those are two different roles and they don’t overlap.

      That said, I think he’s doing the right thing by putting the issue of military strikes before Congress.

      Like

      • You saw the idiocy of David Cameron’s actions initially and he was in no uncertain terms that he cannot act unilaterally by the vote that took in the House of Parliament ,

        In the case of Obama , his actions show in some cases a complete lack of understanding and his so called foreign policy is dictated way too much on supposition . Barack Obama has no real clear idea who the US allies are in the Middle East .

        And John Kerry as Secretary of State was an uninspired choice to say the very least ..

        Like

  50. What’s important is for all Anericans again in making that
    direct link with creator thus then being in a state of peace
    free from govt and military cruel 24/7 media brainwashing.

    Like

  51. I like the choice of dialogue rather than typical journalism and some great questions posed here, with no clear answers because I’d have to question if there really are any. Bombing a country sounds like a primitive “solution” to me that will worsen things long-term, with generational consequences for all countries involved– meaning the entire world.

    Like

  52. Isn’t is amazing that we have such “clarity” of the situation in Syria, yet we are still not talking about the Benghazi disaster? Could it be that the urgency of the Syrian crises is a distraction from our domestic issues – the impending change of our health care system and the mishandling of our own embassy crises in Benghazi?

    Like

  53. Thank you for this discussion. I think the only thing we can do to make a difference is to support those who have lost their homes and live in refugee settlements until this issue is resolved and they can go home.

    Like

  54. Pingback: Poor Miley | khaula mazhar

  55. Pingback: Your Voice, Live from the Scene: WPrightnow — Blog — WordPress.com

  56. Pingback: Your Voice, Live from the Scene: WPrightnow | Electrician Richardson

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s