Of course 'new' refers to the cruise missiles, it used to be guns, but new is also that we can now strike Syria and other nations without risking Western lives.
Why do we need to ''send Assad a message' by killing even more people and why we can't wait until the UN inspectors are sure the poison gas attack was Assad's doing, is unclear.
What's the hurry? We don't need inspectors to know that 100.000, probably more, are killed in the ongoing civil war. Why would we now rush into action because about 100 people died of some chemical substance?
To put it into perspective: more children have been killed by American drones, a war crime, where it's clear who 'pulled the trigger'. To be clear: using chemical weapons doesn't get better because the other is morally wrong, but is bombing the answer?
Bombing Kosovo didn't stop the atrocities in Yugoslavia, but 1200 civilians lost their life in this so called 'humanitarian war'. Bombing Iraq to stop Saddam from obtaining weapons of mass destruction proved to be futile as later intelligence revealed the secret services were completely wrong.
Why rush to a 'limited war' (tell that to the people who die in it) if there is an alternative. The Russians and Chinese can be persuaded to neutralize Assad if the UN finds evidence of a chemical attack.
Are the people of the 'coalition of the trigger happy willing' crying out loud for punishment of this gas attack? Polls suggest otherwise. The public is war weary and no longer so optimistic about bringing 'democracy' on a bomb.
Even Obama started his term as an opponent of international interventions and resisted plans to attack Iran because of suspected attempts to obtain a nuclear bomb, just like the US downplayed it's role in Libya so why repeat history?
Could it be that the UK and the US are under pressure of internal problems? A common reason for international aggression and both governments struggle with their public image after the Snowden revelations. Cameron and Obama don't want to be remembered for spying on their citizens and 'righting what is wrong' in Syria sounds so much better.
The question remains if a three day bombardment of Syria will restore confidence and trust in these national leaders. More likely it will just cause a further escalation of the religious civil war in the region, while the public will soon forget this moral crusade and get back to national issues.
Do you believe we will find proof of chemical warfare by Assad or will the bombing be followed by a later UN dismissal of these claims?
The US government lied about WMDs before. Why not do it again? Also, why assume this is a limited war? Aerial attacks are just a prelude to sending in troops and attempting another occupation, +Max Huijgen .
This is corporate welfare for the American war industry.
Do you believe we will find proof of chemical warfare by Assad or will the bombing be followed by a later UN dismissal of these claims? Does it matter? By then the west will be up to its ears in this shit…..
If the US is so intent on "sending a message" to Assad, then a three day massacre of more people is not needed. Simply fly one of those cruise missiles into Assad's bedroom in the middle of the night. Message delivered.
I just wrote this on my blog: "It doesn't matter what people say or do, politicians will go to war regardless of opinion. I seem to remember some of the protests against going to war with Iraq (2nd war) were the largest in history but it made no difference. If leaders want to do something they will do it regardless of what people want." http://singularity-utopia.blogspot.com/2013/08/war-is-peace.html
My point is: facts are irrelevant. Whether they find evidence of chemical weapons this does not matter.
Using alleged "chemical warfare" as a reason to attack and bomb is to my eyes a kind of "entertainment show" where you give the public a reason to hate and not care too much abount deaths. Something is tremendously wrong here.
It all sounds a bit familiar…
+Max Huijgen if I could give a 100 +1's, I would.
Fact of the matter is unfortunately that if you are not in bed with the US, they will feel the need to force their morals and values upon you, even if they are not the same by which they hold themselves, wether you want them or not. At the same time, UK and France are all gung-ho about it because they have unfinished business in the area, as neither were exactly welcomed in the area when they were there as occupiers.
In other words, Syria (and other countries in the region, if given an excuse) is screwed regardless of what it does or does not do.
Perhaps a few more people, including those in power, should watch the BBC documentary "A History Of Syria" (Documentary BBC – A History of Syria (2013)) before they start interfering with local issues.
Thanks for the link +Gijs van Dijk (and the hundred +1's
Certain US.gov sources have already stated they have enough evidence that there were chemical attacks and that they were carried out by the Assad regime. UK.gov hasn't gone quite as far as to positively say that, but sources have said they would not be considering a military strike unless they were positive it would be lawful (i.e. there is sufficient evidence.)
That said, we've heard this kind of propaganda before. There's also no way I can think of that this won't lead to the coalition being drawn into the civil war, and that scares me a lot!
I've heard many Syrians quoted as saying they look forward to the coalition strike, as they want this government removed from power. That's not what we're saying we'll do, but that's what Syrians expect us to do…
Anyway, my argument is that chemical warfare was outlawed in the 1920's, yet America used Agent Orange in Vietnam in the 1960's. Who bombed America to tell them off for that one?
Could it be that the UK and the US are under pressure of internal problems?
I have no opinion on the US's internal problems, but for the UK – the government is always under internal problems. The Snowden revelations and the David Miranda incident were barely drops in an ocean of problems (if anything, the only truly shocking thing to come out so far is that there haven't been any allegations of GCHQ selling interesting tidbits of personal info to the press, because these days that is the sort of thing you half expect). An action in Syria is more likely to just add to the governments problems, not take peoples attention away from them.
War is simply used as a way to distract people from the problems at home, and to throw money at people they like (and who will throw money back at them when they retire from politics) … everything else is just a charade.
I'm afraid that there is just too much money in wars nowadays and too much dependency between corporate interests and politicians for "we're here to help" wars not to happen.
And it's always so much more invigorating to try to fix other peoples', families' and countries' problems than one's own.
Tiresome business, humanity.
Bravo +Max Huijgen for your "coup de gueule" but please, do not forget France. Our president, for the worse of popularity, and without dialogues of the citizens, prepares us for this new war, with the support of our faithful national philosopher, BHL, who, after the Libya, informs us now about this "Juste cause". I invite you to look at a passage of its intervention yesterday on Canal+, in terms of a terrible simplicity (http://goo.gl/OWVVuS).
As you can see, we also french, are ready to install democracy with our friends (powerful) of USA.
With the nations with the most to gain either by aggression or non intervention it is entirely unclear about the validity of the recent claims of chemical weapons.
As alluded to by many of the commenters: follow the money and you'll come close to the truth.
http://www.examiner.com/article/us-uk-and-french-governments-prepare-to-attack-syria
+Max Huijgen , We weaken Assad and Islamic fundamentalists will step in. Plus Russia will never give Syria up, it's their only port in the Region…
So other than having a feel good moment in the WH and #10, I'm not sure what benefit this will actually bring about…
i agrees with ya , it's kinda senseless, like sending in a bigger Bully to teach the bully a lesson, , , ,
Is it possible that the reason for getting involved is that they are now afraid of chemical weapons being captured and smuggled out of the country by militant groups from bordering countries, and this acts as a perfect justification? If they got them into Lebanon or Iraq they could use them for a chemical attack against Israel or US/Iraqi government forces.
This would make sense, since their continuous talk of not wanting 'boots on the ground' is telegraphing that this is just going to be a bombing campaign, and what better way to deal with the issue than air strikes against the storage facilities and any military forces that carry the chemical weapons. Once that is done, you just leave in time for the government to collapse and leave the Syrians to build themselves back up from the ruins. No point getting US or UK forces tied down in another reconstruction effort like in Iraq or Afghanistan since that's when all the casualties happened (and that is what is going to turn the public at home against ou far more than the unjust nature of the war).
They won't strike against the chemical storage facilities +Azzedine Bouleghlimat Too dangerous as a) it would pollute the environment and b) the stuff could get in he hands of the rebels
+Paul Hill The Saudis and Arab League are mostly Sunni, which means they have an agenda too: Assad belongs to the Alawis, and Sunnis hate Alawis with a vengeance. Sunnis hate Alawis more than they hate Jews and Christians. They are not considered Muslims, or even heretics or infidels. They are considered a poison set to destroy Islam from within.
What most don't realize is that this is not a civil war, it is a sectarian war. It cannot be won. The best thing anyone can do is to stay out, get the hell away and wait for the dust to settle.
+Paul Hill Saudi Arabia supports the Sunni rebel forces in this religious war while the Arab League stopped short of approving an attack. They did condemn Assad though.
The chemical attack was likely a false flag operation to get the USA into the war.
WORKED FOR BUSH AND HALLIBURTON
My thoughts (very quickly),
(1) Military interventions are not generally wrong, see e.g. Mali. Sometimes you need to use violence to stop violence.
(2) You have to draw a line somewhere when it comes to the means by which people kill each other. Sticks and stones can't be outlawed. But even if you do not care about a world in which anyone used chemical weapons, I bet you wouldn't want to live in a world in which everyone possessed nuclear weapons. Or, even worse, biological weapons that could easily kill hundreds of millions.
The point thus isn't necessarily about the number of people killed, but by what means they have been killed. For game theoretic reasons.
(3) I haven't seen sufficient evidence of a use of chemical weapons. Much less evidence on who used chemical weapons.
(4) Anyone who decides to intervene in that conflict should not side with either Assad or the rebels, but instead with innocent civilian bystanders.
(5) Whatever you do, there are so many parties involved in this conflict that in the end at least one party will hate you, even if you decide to do nothing at all.
+Catherine Maguire the cynic in me says that he had no reason to assume we would do anything, since there has been violence and bloodshed for two years and no-one has intervened yet. Plus if he was getting desperate or fed up of the conflict he may have sought a swift end. But then, there's no reason that his enemies couldn't also be behind it, whether it was aimed at government, rebel or civilian targets – against government it kills your enemies, and against civilians or rebels they could claim it was the government did it to convince foreign powers to remove Assad.
Really, it doesn't matter who used them, if we are going to intervene our first goal should be to neutralise all of the combatants and then send in forces to enforce peace and order. Then after the fighting is over you can start figuring out who should be in charge and who did commit crimes during the conflict. If we go in now with a simple goal of removing Assad, who's to say if the people who take over will be any better? The people certainly won't have a say, all that will matter is who has the most fighters left following them.
Noting in passing…it's France that's dispatched its fleet, not the U.S. And the U.S. has withstood lots of pressure over the past year or so to take immediate action. On the other side of the ledger,
the Soviet UnionRussia has much to gain by prolonging the instability, as does China. There are no easy one-missile-hit solutions for this problem – and airstrikes would meet with one of the most sophisticated, Russia-born air defense systems in the world.One solution might be to gambit for enough time to amass evidence for war crimes trials – and then do a Noriega and pluck Assad out of Syria for justice. But that would presume forces ready to govern peaceably. Mebbe not.
So the most probable scenario is to support airstrikes which result in an endgame that looks mostly like the Libya endgame – help the rebels to win and let them sort it out from there. Main problem: Assad's loyalists aren't going to drift into the desert conveniently.
It will take a lot of prayer to make this one work. I am all for peaceable solutions, but there also needs to be justice.
My guess is that removing Assad would do very little. The Alawite minority will stand together, even without Assad, due to fears of a genocide against them in the case that Sunni rebels win this war.
Quote: "The majority of the Syrian military are Sunni, but most of the military leadership are Alawites. Alawites make up 12 percent of the Syrian population but are estimated to make up 70 percent of the career soldiers in the Syrian Army. Of the 200,000 or so career soldiers in the Syrian Army, 140,000 are Alawites. A similar imbalance is seen in the officer corps where some 80 percent of the officers are Alawites. The military’s most elite divisions, the Republican Guard and the 4th Mechanized Division, which are commanded by Bashar's brother, are exclusively Alawite."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Armed_Forces#Structure
I'm afraid those fears are not unrealistic +Alexander Kruel Not because of the positions they hold, but because of the deep religious divide between Sunni and Alawi. Sunni religious teachers are preaching that all Alawi must be killed.
Justice +John Blossom? Impossible to achieve in the international arena and who would keep the Americans honest? Nobody would accept cruise missiles on US soil for f.i. killing an estimated 150 children by drone.
If justice was the rule and we would assume moral high ground over and above the only international forum, the UN, there would be permanent bombardments by ad-hoc coalitions
Is the French fleet in the region? I can't a reference. All I know is:
America’s Sixth Fleet currently has four guided missile destroyers in the area, each of which could join the attack.
The Royal Navy also has its rapid response task force in the Mediterranean. The group includes two frigates and the helicopter carrier HMS Illustrious.
+Max Huijgen This will go at the pace of guidance, as it has. The U.S. has not over-reacted to events by a long shot – in spite of the caricatures from overseas, we are not a monolithic Bush-like presence.
May I remind you that over 300 people have been killed in the latest chemical attacks and an estimated 100,000 people have died in the hostilities over the past couple of years, not to mention millions who are in exile and creating a huge humanitarian crisis. Now, may we discuss justice again? Somehow your concern about a few missiles seems to be a little precious.
same as always power take over of country why even mention reasons any longer
That scene looks particularly violent.
The US government cites 100-150 killed +John Blossom On par with the number of children killed by illegal drones.
Kosovo saw 1200 civilians killed by 'a few missiles' by NATO.
I'm concerned about overzealous interventionism. I learned from the Gulf wars.
The 100.000 dead will just multiply if we conveniently wash our hands in a bombing attack. Destabilization never saves lives. Diplomacy and economic pressure might
On a positive note President Bashar al-Assad is a nasty man thus world would be better place if he could be easily removed then replaced with somebody decent, someone not corrupt, someone who really values democracy.
+Max Huijgen Oh, please. Let's look at the true exent of the human suffering. Millions huddled in tents – or worse – and hundreds of thousands dead, not to mention the maimed – the world should be ashamed that they wait for the U.S. to get involved.
The 3 main obstacles to peace seem to be (1) security reassurance for the the Alawites (2) removal of any Islamist / Al-Qaeda rebels (3) that Hezbollah leaves Syria.
If you can't reassure the Alawites that they won't get butchered if Assad leaves, and get rid of foreign elements such as Al-Qaeda and Hezbollah, then what reason does any side have to unilaterally stop this conflict?
If it would stop a religiously inspired war +John Blossom I would be in favor, but it won't. And if the US or the UK believed it would, they should have done it much earlier. Now they can't wait for the evidence..
We have seen that before when the UN didn't find proof of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and Gulf war 2 was started on false intelligence as the coalition chose to ignore the evidence. Turned out to be wrong…
The facts are there my dear friend. At least the United States is doing something about it!
+Max Huijgen The WMD thing in this conext is a complete canard – there is massive proof that people were attacked by chemical weapons, and massive death and destruction for two years. This is no Bush/Cheney fiction for the sake of oil companies – yet again, false and convenient equivalency from those who don't like to get mussed in the blood of things. More to the point, the Assad regime has been a brutal force in its region for decades. Today there are phone intercepts revealed which show that the Syrian Army has apparently driven these attacks.
The U.S. has stood by, waiting for the world to develop a sense of morals and spine about this situation. No doubt we will wait a while longer, but hopefully not much longer.
+Steven Swaks +John Blossom which facts? So far we only know chemicals have been used. We don't know by whom.
+Max Huijgen "The Syrian regime maintains custody of stockpiles of chemical weapons. Information available from a wide variety of sources points to the Syrian regime as responsible for the use of chemical weapons in these attacks. This is a clear breach of long-standing international norms and practice."
It's all over! That was from CNN. Do you want me to quote BBC?
We seem to have a different idea about facts +Steven Swaks Allegations, circumstantial evidence etc are not facts. Otherwise we would have found that desert filled with WMD in Iraq.
+Max Huijgen "NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen has said that a variety of sources pointed to President Bashar al-Assad's forces being responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria."
That's from AlJazerra.
+Steven Swaks Thanks. It mystifies me as to why in the midst of two years of extremely brutal and destructive carnage that people can cluck about this instead of standing up to the brutality.
+Max Huijgen You are right, we can always deny everything. If the Syrian regime said they did not do it, it must be true!
We could wait for the UN report this time and act on that +Steven Swaks
Why send experts if you can't await their findings. There is no danger Syria will repeat an attack.
U.S. spy services still have not acquired the evidence traditionally considered to be the gold standard in chemical weapons cases: soil, blood, and other environmental samples that test positive for reactions with nerve agent. That's the kind of proof that America and its allies processed from earlier, small-scale attacks that the White House described in equivocal tones, and declined to muster a military response to in retaliation.
There is an ongoing debate within the Obama administration about whether to strike Assad immediately — or whether to allow United Nations inspectors to try and collect that proof before the bombing begins.
We know that chemicals have been used? How? Those YouTube videos? Unverified third-party hearsay that certain drugs worked?
So far we only know some nerve gas has been used. There is rumor (spread by the US intelligence community) it was deployed on an order by a rogue officer.
Do we need to punish another 1000 people based on this rumor?
I agree with you +Catherine Maguire, but it is hard to gather hard factual proofs when the inspectors are being shot at.
I am confident you could find me a "proof" about anything, but we have to accept the overwhelming international opinion (not fact…) on this particular matter.
And to put things in perspective: interventions have rarely spared lives. Usually they cause them. Iraq had 112,017 – 122,438 civilian deaths, 90% after the official war was over.
+Max Huijgen Hmm, okay, I guess that we shouldn't have come over to intervene in Europe in 1918. Or 1941. Or whatever. Have fun.
The inspectors themselves believe they can solve this +Steven Swaks Why not wait for them instead of acting 'opinion'
Try to explain that to a family who lost someone in the Western 'punishment'
+John Blossom an international war is not even comparable to a civil war. Should Europe have intervened in the US? Did the US any good in Vietnam?
+Max Huijgen How do they know that some nerve gas has been used?
+Alexander Kruel :
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45718&Cr=syria&Cr1=
Transcript:
http://www.un.org/sg/offthecuff/index.asp?nid=2953
The UN is clear about what they have found.
+Paul Schoonhoven Those links don't seem to say that there is any evidence except hearsay. The only other evidence seems to be a video showing people whose behavior fits some characteristics of a chemical attack.
It's funny to see how the leftists/progressives/US liberals are the most war monger in this (and in Libya, Mali, Somalia and other ex-colonies). I guess they believe that once they have killed enough people the world will become a better and more prosperous place to live.
Iraq War II was just a hiatus because George Bush Jr. was in power at that time. They oppose violence as long as it isn't of their own.
+Zephyr López Cervilla I am afraid that in this instance many people are searching for false equivalency with the inanitites of Bush, which have little to do with the current situation. It's easy cocktail chatter that has little to do with the suffering in Syria – and elsewhere. Wars happen in general when people find it more comfortable to avoid painful truths than to confront them. No sane nation wants war – which certainly categorizes the Bush/Cheney war in Iraq as insane – but if people ignore the need for true peace and justice over a period of time, then war is inevitable. That's the sad part of this to me – people wanting to just step aside and let evil run the table, not out of any moral conviction, but because it's just too much of a problem to care about the people caught in these messes.
Thank you +Paul Schoonhoven. FYI +Max Huijgen Vietnam was not a civil war, it was pretty much part of the cold war. Syria is not a civil war either, it is the slaughtering of civilians by their own government.
With that said, we will probably not reach an agreement. Let's just hope and pray that the casualties will be minimum.
BTW, U.K., U.S. and France all coordinating naval forces in the region of Syria: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/27/syria-chemical-weapons-chuck-hagel/2705853/
Just to clarify, because I can see that one coming, a civil war is between organized groups within the same nation, state, or republic. The rebels in Syria are not that organized. But we could also argue about that one! You ladies and gentlemen have a great day.
Vietnam should have been a civil war +Steven Swaks People wanting to have their own country, free from the French reign.
As an American this wish may sound familiar. Would you have liked intervention in your civil war? Do you believe it would have led to a stable US and less casualties when the Brits and French had chosen to support both sides and escalate it?
Do you know how little support the North got from the Chinese and the Russians? Are you aware the Vietnamese war is called the American war in current Vietnam?
The US fought it over regional interests and ideology, but the Vietnamese ended up in a civil war. (Unless you assume all the South-Vietnamese were agents of the US)
+Steven Swaks A slaughtering of civilians by their own government? 41,000 of those killed during the conflict were Alawites. That's nearly half of all casualties being from a minority who only makes up 20% of the country's population.
Most wars are started because the public gets rallied behind 'humanist principles' while geopolitics drive their governments +John Blossom
How many interventions in civil wars have actually saved lives?
+Steven Swaks That's the trouble with many nations, unfortunately – the main question is whether they have the will and the ability to act as a state independent of colonial/global interests. Probably Syria does. Places like Somalia, not so much. Since there is a fairly small tribal minority in charge in Syria, there's at least the hope that the other interests can find a way together. Events in Egypt don't seem to augur well for this premise, but one can only try to give it a chance to succeed. Democracy is hard enough for wealthy nations…
How dare the USA even think about criticizing or punishing anyone for using chemical weapons? It was the USA who introduced chemical warfare on the nation of Vietnam. US chemical weapons were responsible for the deaths of 100's of 1000's of Vietnamese citizens, not to mention all of the children who are born with birth defects to this very day. Not only that but the use of those weapons created a famine that was responsible for the demise of even more people. Not one single Vietnamese citizen has ever been compensated in any way, nor has a single US citizen or politician ever tried to apologize to the people of Vietnam for its own barbaric behavior.
You always hear about 54,000 Americans who gave their lives for "freedom and justice." But you never hear about the 3 million or so Vietnamese who paid the ultimate price for America's special brand of justice. Its critical that anyone looking at this bear in mind that the people of Vietnam never did anything to the USA.
+Paul Schoonhoven where in the link to the press conference by Brahimi does it say 'nerve gas'?
+Max Huijgen Would you be more happy with "toxic agent"? Syria has a veritable chemist's selection of agents from which to choose.
'a civil war is between organized groups within a state' +Steven Swaks? Then surely it would include both Vietnam and Syria.Both are by the way listed as civil wars on Wiki.
No +John Blossom I asked Paul because I like facts. I was the one who first used nerve gas in this discussion. I'm not one for weasel words, but I'm interested in confirmation. Facts….
Good analysis and discussion +Max Huijgen
Personally, I believe the US have lost the run of themselves. To dress this up as some humanitarian rescue is disgusting.
+Max Huijgen Another false equivalency. 1) There appears to be no U.S. or global consensus for "boots on the ground" in Syria. People are trying to help Assad to exit in a way that minimizes military intervention for as rapid a transition as possible to peaceful rule. Hopefully just the threat of "you too can now wind up like Saddam or Muammar" coming home to roost will make him think – though it's rarely enough for this kind, so some military support will probably be needed to instigate a surrender of his henchman. 2) Vietnam was not about regime change in a unified nation – the nation had already been partitioned and not on ethnic lines – it was an arbitrary bifurcation of a nation that was defined by colonial lines in the first place. Vietnam was a war in which the U.S. wanted to retain colonial realities. Didn't work – probably never could have. Again, wars of choice for selfish goals are good for no one.
The blood is on Assad's hands thickly, and we need not be eager to put blood on our own hands. But when a man does not value the blood that has been shed, what does one do?
I don't really get why so many people mention what the U.S. did in the past. Does that matter at all? If a murderer says that murder is wrong, do you then disagree with that statement because it is a murderer who uttered it?
If it can be confirmed that Assad, or anyone, used chemical weapons on civilians, then that person has to be hold accountable. So far there is a lot talk from various parties who have known and unknown interests to tell lies. That's not enough to punish someone in particular.
+Alexander Kruel Agreed. Pointing the finger at the U.S. is mostly an excuse to disengage from the central moral argument. That doesn't make any one specific response right, but responding to immoral action is inherently right.
http://goo.gl/Tp9g4X and http://goo.gl/mzWUwg connect the dots
It can be appealing to think such things +Marc Roelofs but I doubt there is any need for concern. If we listened to the Gerald Celente types then by now all governments should have collapsed into total anarchy and we should be fighting constant street battles in a post-apocalypse world. The reality however is that all the food the preppers stockpiled has now rotted or passed its sell-by date. Investing in gold back in 2008/9 was a wise investment but it was not actually needed in a survivalist sense regarding the forecast total collapse of currency.
Alex Jones (infowars) has published a video with a title claiming we are on the brink of WW3 WE'RE ON THE BRINK OF WW3 but I doubt it will happen. Apparently the US aided the terrorists in the chemical attack and the EU is next: http://www.infowars.com/syria-us-aided-terrorists-in-chemical-attack-europe-next/ http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-evidence-syrian-rebels-carried-out-gas-attack/ if you believe some people.
Will Iran really attack Israel if US attacks Syria (http://www.infowars.com/ww3-syrian-iranian-officials-say-israel-will-be-set-on-fire-if-us-strikes/).
World War always a possibility because humans are primitive, but such wars cannot be stopped due to the primitiveness of humans, therefore it's best not to worry about it because more often than not it is merely people being overexcited, overly and unjustly fearful of doom.
+John Blossom I pointed at the UK, the US as well as the coalition of the 'willing' However the US seems to be alone in its desire to shoot before the questions are answered.
The Brits want to wait until the UN report is in.
+Alexander Kruel the person has to be held accountable, but will bombing achieve that?
+Max Huijgen Again, you're seeking false equivalencies that will serve us very little in today's world. Colonial nations were set up largely in a way that would guarantee factionalism within their borders – drawing lines through tribal areas so that none would be able to muster a majority and to allow the colonial interests to control them. So to wave one's hands and to declare "it's a civil war! stay out!" is disingenuous, especially when developed nations were the colonial interests who created these fiasco states in the first place.
So having drawn human and economic capital out of these nations for decades – and centuries in many instances – the nations that sucked them dry and then propped them up for their global goals are now faced with the uncomfortable job of spending money to deal with their poor sense of political and economic justice. That includes you, Europe – in a big way. We all have a price to pay – and dealing with violence from the likes of Assad is but one small part of a greater whole of healing the nations.
Today is the 50th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial. The world still has that dream of global equal opportunity and justice. Certainly my country still has that dream, at least among people of good will. We can all live together in peace with justice. But sacrifices are required to attain that goal.
You know similar texts were the pretext to the Koran, Vietnam, Kosovo and Iraq (to name just a few) wars +John Blossom?
For goodness sake: I supported the Iraqi invasion going against my peers in the international law community.
A country divided, more terrorists, no weapons of mass destructrion, but a 100.000 death and we are still counting.
For one time I believed the (forged) evidence. I have never been afraid to make dirty hands, but the moral high ground by well-meaning people has caused the majority of civilian victims.
Ideology, including the urge to 'right what's wrong' is fine (although often dangerous) but it should not be used for wars.
+Singularity Utopia your comment, though interesting in itself, does not 'connect the dots". The one link shows a train loaded with battletanks heading for a harbour in the US, photo taken yesterday. The other shows so-called anti Assad rebels shooting cannister projectiles with a mortar, several days ago. These represent (tome) carefully orchestrated and timed events to create a narrative to open the way to war. The 'Syrian Electronic Army' attacking the very newspaper that predicted the WMD's in Iraq is one touch too many. Maybe Hollywood put the wrong writers on this one.
+Max Huijgen I did not support the Iraq war. It was not supported by the international community and it had no plan for a political solution. It was purely about keeping China from Iraqui oil. There will be no U.S. troops in combat roles on the ground in Syria. Your analogies and presumptive saber rattling make noises that don't seems to correspond to the current reality. It seems to be simply anti U.S. noise.
I think the dots were too open to interpretation +Marc Roelofs – perhaps you could explain clearer? I thought due to the video description of the "terrorists" that you were a prepper. Here is a quote from the video description: "This is a false flag gas attack as a pretext for the west to invade Syria and setup another terrorist muslim brotherhood regime. WE MUST NOT TAKE THE BAIT AS IT COULD LEAD TO WW3." The video alledgedly protrays "FSA terrorists" but I have no idea what FSA is, perhaps considering the "false flag" claim the FSA is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Security_Agency? [update I have discovered FSA is Free Syrian Army.]
So in the context of "false flag" terrorists, I thought perhaps the tanks were supposed to be for subduing US citizens regarding the pending WW3 which the US uses as an excuse for tyranny?
What is your point about the Syrian Electronic Army attacking NYT? Perhaps you are saying the chemical attack is correct not a flase flag thus the NYT was attacked in retaliation for their truthful reporting if they have reported on Bashar al-Assad being behind the chemical attack? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/world/asia/culprit-in-syrian-chemical-attack-is-unclear-china-insists.html http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/reports-of-syria-chemical-attack-spur-question-why.html?_r=0
Anyway it seems nothing will happen until Tuesday at earliest. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/strike-assad-regime-british
I think I am suffering from the fog or war and it has not even started yet.
Interesting: http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/28/20231217-assad-assassination-attempt-may-have-prompted-chemical-weapons-strike
Note this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2404550/Injuries-Syrians-Assads-political-rivals-say-targeted-phosphorous-bombs.html
+Singularity Utopia What the "false flag" conspirators seem to not appreciate fully is that Obama is not the type of man that would be likely to respond to such ruses by the CIA or the military, and highly unlikely to initiate them. He's data-driven. And he's all too aware of the Bush and Cold War legacy. He's kept us out of many potential armed conflicts that the saber-rattlers would have had us get into. He got us out of Iraq. After covering his butt in Afghanistan with the "surge" forced on him by the hawks, to make sure that the data supported this conclusion, he's getting out. He's moved control of drone strikes from the CIA to the military – so that there's a clear chain of command to the Commander in Chief.
None of this is to assume that Obama will walk on water in the Syria situation, but if/when he takes action, it will be with precision and good metrics. He acted with precision in Libya, and kept the bloodshed there to a minimum as the result of that precision. Drone strikes, while with tragic consequences for some civilians, were at least aimed at a handful of truly bad apples openly at war with the U.S. I don't think that we can say the same about the chemical attacks in Syria, which were utterly random and terrorist in nature.
By contrast, Russia obfuscates, excuses and facilitates tragedy after tragedy in Syria, for its own very selfish motives. It seems that it won't support international actions of any kind meant to improve the situation. Where is the outrage for that? Crickets in this thread, as far as I can see. So if one wants to be an apologist for Russian hegemony whilst taking on international efforts to restore stability in Syria, then I would suggest that it's pretty shaky moral ground.
This is post is filled with all sorts of "false equivalencies" – usually the purview of right wing types. How many people should they be allowed to kill by poison gas before the world does something +Max Huijgen ?
+Peter Beckley So you think it is fine to kill people with poison gas because you don't like things the U.S. has done? See, I can do it too – as the original poster did. You answer my question first.
+Rob Gordon if you refer to me as the original poster, mind that I said 'To be clear: using chemical weapons doesn't get better because the other is morally wrong, but is bombing the answer?'
+John Blossom again, I'm not pro-Russian, nor anti-American. Never have been. I will quote again: the coalition of the
trigger happywillingWith regards to Iraq: the UN didn't support intervention, just like its doesn't support it now in Syria. Legally it's war by the coalition.
I lean heavily to the left +Rob Gordon but interventionism on moral grounds makes more victims than diplomacy.
+Max Huijgen Then what is? Send troops in to invade the country? Whose? Drop leaflets asking them to stop? There is no "drumbeat for going to war" in the U.S. – quite the opposite. Right now, however, there is panicked buying of gas masks by Israel civilians and the man in charge of that country is clearly a monster. What would you recommend?
Can a proponent of military intervention cite a case where a foreign attack actually saved lives?
This is an interesting thread – people just asking each other loaded, inflammatory questions. I am not a "proponent of military intervention" but I will take a shot. How about Normandy?
A foreign attack on a sovereign nation +Rob Gordon outside of the realm of a war. As far as I know none of the Western countries is currently at war with Syria. Now starting a war (military aggression) is against the law.
+Max Huijgen So you keep making "rules" for how your question should be answered, but won't ask any one else's? By definition when a country attacks another country they are "at war". I'm sorry, I am not a "proponent of war" so I am not the straw man you seek.
+Catherine Maguire Once again, I am NOT going to play the role of straw man here, no matter how desperately people here want someone to play that role. I was answering his specific question that he made on a comment – he didn't answer mine, and since he didn't like my answer to his, he made up new rules for his question.
Meanwhile David Cameron nearly escaped defeat in parliament as Labor and a large number of his own party MP's opposed military action. He had to back down and promise a second vote after the UN report would be in.
Rumor has it that Washington, although not interested in the facts, will accommodate Britain and postpone an attack until Tuesday. Not enough time for the UN as they claim to need at least another week.
+Catherine Maguire "proponent of war".
No +Rob Gordon that's not how it works. War is a rarity nowadays as it's illegal. The US hasn't declared war since WW2.
I'm not changing the rules. This debate is about the post-war world and about military intervention in civil wars.
Every occasion this has happened ended in tragedy and enormous numbers of civilian deaths. Yet some people defend it, so I challenge them to come up with at least one case where 'bombing democracy and moral values' really worked.
And which question did I miss +Rob Gordon? Happy to answer if i can.
People reading this thread: please step in whatever your side or argument. Debating it, is the least we can do before bombs kill again on our behalf.
So you do the same +Max Huijgen – so far, you haven't answered a single question anyone has asked back – you have just posed other questions.
We may agree with John Kerry, the US secretary of state, that the use of gas is a "moral obscenity", but would we not feel that "a measured and proportionate punishment", like striking at some missile sites or helicopter bases, is like telling the regime that "you can go on with your war but do stay away from the chemical weapons"?
And what is the moral weight of the condemnation by nuclear weapons states of the use of gas as a serious war crime when they themselves will not accept a norm that would criminalise any first use of their own nuclear weapons?
Jacob Bix, former head of inspection in Iraq on behalf of the UN. Hardly a lefty (or right wing as opposing an bombardment is called in this thread).
+Rob Gordon if you scroll up a bit, I asked you which question I missed.
+Max Huijgen It seems that the U.S. has been careful to assemble a true international coalition for Syria, and certainly acted closely with NATO on air operations in Libya. This current effort seems to have the active cooperation of France. Nobody wants unnecessary violence, but we have had two truly heartbreaking years of unnecessary violence. If the U.N. can make a reasonable contribution to peace, then that's good. But many nations share the same motives as Assad, so I am skeptical. It's like an international "red state" coalition in many ways…
+Max Huijgen -ok, so you did answer one question in your original post – "what would you do instead' – and you said you would have China and Russia "neutralize" Assad. Presumably you think that is ok because it is not the United States, but could you explain what you mean by that and how it would work? Do you mean they should assassinate him? How do you know they can do that? – or do you mean they should invade Syria? Also, your comment that a possible action is to "send Assad a message" – that is not what the Obama administration is saying – they are saying they may need to do it to prevent it from happening again. Would that work? I have no idea, and once again, I am not a "proponent of war" – I am weighing in on what seems to be a very slanted and one sided argument.
+John Blossom What coalition? The French, the Saoudi's, Turkey and the US are in favor. That's very limited support for an attack outside of the UN.
For the British stance see my earlier comment. No support at the moment.
The list of countries opposing it, is large. In the region (which is crucial) as well as large nations over the world.
Any attack outside of the UN is illegal. We are still waiting for the British report on Iraq, but it looks like it will be declared illegal there. Same in the Netherlands which supported the Gulf war but a later official commission found the war to have been illegal.
+Rob Gordon by neutralizing Assad I didn't mean killing him! The moment he loses backing by Russia and China, the UN can and will impose severe embargo's against the regime.
If Assad loses access to weapons, if he can't maintain the life style of his inner circles and Russia offers him and his family a way out, Assad will step aside.
Unlike Saddam he is not a lunatic, nor a complete loner.
As for bombing to prevent Assad from 'doing it again: first question is, were the chemical weapons deployed by the regime or by other parties. Second question: on instruction of the government or was it an ' My Lai Massacre' by a rogue commander.
US intelligence seems to point towards the second scenario.
This is what you want to do to that guy honking his horn in a traffic jamb!
+Singularity Utopia
My point was that those tanks are probably heading for the deserts in the ME again, and as a logistics operation this has to have been planned at least 6 months ago. This means that the date of their shipment was known 6 months ago and, lo' and behold, exactly on cue the news about chem attacks and cyber attacks is spread over the public. That sort of coincidence is just too much for my intuition to ignore. The tail is clealry wagging the dog here. Not even the pretense is kept that public or world opinion plays any role anymore.
I do indeed believe that after this tour the troops, well trained in urban surpression will form a dangerous entity when shipped back to the 'homeland'. I'm not a prepper, but maybe I would be one if I wasn't so lazy. Otoh, I don't think you can prepare for that; this army is big enough to take on half of the world, let alone a measly 300 million US sheep.
+Marc Roelofs re: "as a logistics operation this has to have been planned at least 6 months ago. This means that the date of their shipment was known 6 months ago and, lo' and behold, exactly on cue the news about chem attacks and cyber attacks is spread over the public. That sort of coincidence is just too much for my intuition to ignore.".
So what are you saying? That the United States decided to launch a poison gas attack on its own allies so they could have some fun little war? Is that what you "intuition" is telling you?
+Rob Gordon correct.
+Max Huijgen Well since your entire profile is filled with anti-American rants – to the complete exclusion of anything else, I guess I am not surprised that you would have such a bizarre conspiracy theory. I would be a little careful about using your "intuition" for anything practical though – I think it is a bit defective.
I'm not +Max Huijgen .
My intuition has only failed me when I supported Obama in his first election.
+Rob Gordon you don't seriously think the US is going to war to save those poor supressed people, do you? It was just Libya's turn to be invaded, like published years ago as you well know see http://goo.gl/Tg1oK
+Marc Roelofs It doesn't matter what I believe – I am more interested in what you believe. So you have said publicly here that you believe the United States attacked Syrian civilians with poison nerve gas. Can I surmise from your comment that you believe President Obama planned and ordered this attack on the people who are on his side. How do you think he pulled it off? Do you think the United Nations will uncover this – or are they his stooges? Please, don't stop at innuendo – please explain you full theory.
+Rob Gordon I think this government was planning to take Syria long before Obama said that chem attacks would be the 'red line'. In fact, the 'red line' comment was a red herring, and a planted trigger. I believe that the attacks on 9/11, in Boston and this one are not what they seem. Of course I do not know if the presidents themselves were involved in fiatting the attacks, but I'm certain they were involved in the 'make it happen' stage. In Syria it isn't even clear who is pro or anti, so it would be very easy to accomplish and blame it on confusion.
The fact that all this happens within a week and that the press has all the talking points ready within an hour is just weird.
The war has to happen before the winter and there is too much at stake this time. The US can only stay relevant if it deploys its only remaining asset, the huge army that was payed for by a broke population.
+Marc Roelofs So in your worldview, in addition to launching a poison nerve gas attack on its allies in Syria, the United States also attacked itself on 9/11 so it would have an excuse for a war in the Middle East that would showcase it's military strengths in order for it to remain "relevant" in the world. Is that an accurate summary of your opinion?
+Catherine Maguire Hey – you do some freaking reading – really, I mean it – read exactly what he has said – and I mean exactly. Then go read up about what your country has done – and Maybe Max should do the same, since while he claims to not be "anti-American" that is almost all he posts about. I can take a hint though – not thinking that America was the one who poisoned the Syrian civilians is the "unreasonable" position to have. I am done with this garbage and am muting this post. I'm sure I will now be the convenient straw mam you are looking for.
No +Marc Roelofs: "My point was that those tanks are probably heading for the deserts in the ME again, and as a logistics operation this has to have been planned at least 6 months ago."
You are wrong to think prior preparation implies certainty. If I was a military commander I would look at the ME situation and think this could deteriorate to a point where we need to mobilise quickly thus I will enact an plan whereby at short notice large amount of troops and military vehicles can be rapidly mobilised. Any mobilisation you see now, despite rapidity, does not imply it was preordained.
Sadly I think war is the only answer. Humans simply don't listen to reason, scarcity prohibits rational responses, which is why so many people believe in God and magic, therefore humans need to be suppressed with violent force.
Anti-NWO conspiracy-types (Alex Jones infowars), they seem to believe we are in the Matrix or that a world-creating-God lives in the heavens watching over us, thus it would be an utter disaster for technological and scientific progress if these people ever overthrew the US government. If the pending Syrian war is staged-managed +Marc Roelofs to prepare US troops for subduing US citizens then this is a good thing.
Scarcity leads to war, war is inevitable. Reason cannot stop war because reason is scarce, thus early attack is better because you then have the upper hand. The liberal illusion of peaceful resolution merely delays the inevitable war, it will actually make the war more horrific because instead of early cauterisation the wound had been allowed to fester.
I think human stupidity has reached a level where only world war will suffice. In theory world war could be avoided if people could use reasoning ability but not enough people can or are willing to use their reasoning ability.
I just assume +Rob Gordon didn't refer to me with his aggressive comment. anti-American rants, a bizarre conspiracy theory I don't recognize myself.
+Max Huijgen I think he does at least apply that anti-American label on you, though I agree that would not be true.
I would have to say if people go through my recent comments and posts, they might label me as such as well. However, it is my opinion I can be (very) critical about US domestic and international policy without being anti-American. To me there is a big difference between the government and the people of a country.
The strange thing is, when it comes to PRISM, Patriot Act, SOPA/PIPA, etc I would Americans to be more vocal than they appear to be, as arguably it is limiting their personal freedom more than others, yet the outcry seems to be more international. Makes me wonder about news aggregation in the US.
'expect' is missing from the second paragraph +Gijs van Dijk
A follow up in US intelligence unsure about chemical weapon facts Syria https://plus.google.com/u/0/112352920206354603958/posts/iZAgdXeZrsw
+Max Huijgen The facts that they are uncertain of are regarding the whereabouts and security around chemical weapons and how far up the chain of command that the Syrian regime has been caught discussing them. I agree that a weak excuse is not a good excuse, but there seems to be no evidence or credible rationale for any agent other than members of Assad's regime having this capability and the willingness to use it. The Syrian stockpile of these weapons is, according to numerous professional assessments, probably the fourth-largest in the world. Having is not the same as using, but if not them, then who.
And again, if we focus only and specifically on the "red line" issue of chemical weapons, then we ignore the greater carnage and suffering. This is far from the first alleged use of these weapons in the past two years – only the most bold in a series of destructive acts which, let us recall, came out of the Assad regime's response to peaceful nationwide protests. This is not a civil war – it's a national uprising.
If the US intelligence isn't sure, we can hardly start bombing Damascus +John Blossom
There is no risk of a repeat at the moment as the regime is aware of the risks, while the risk on new gas attacks is much higher if we attack. That's not only my opinion, but also of the US military who is not in favor of an open-ended mission.
+Max Huijgen war is not about right, war is about might. The mighty do what they want to do. War is a natural consequence of scarcity, it sadly cannot be avoided. The question is, are we sufficiently close to Post-Scarcity for war to be deemed unnecessary? I think we are too far away, or leaders don't have sufficient insight into the future.
+Singularity Utopia That's pretty clear – our global economy is based on the supremacy of scarcity, both real and artificial, which engenders both fear-based governments and fear-based responses to fear-based governments. Sometimes love-based responses mean sacrifice, with the presumption that there is truly universal abundance to take care of us should that sacrifice prove costly.
+Singularity Utopia although I agree to some point with your dark views about humanity and the inevitability of war I think that your statement "If the pending Syrian war is staged-managed +Marc Roelofs to prepare US troops for subduing US citizens then this is a good thing." goes to far. Anything that even goes in that direction should be avoided at all cost, because once the US has become a true fascist regime the whole world will suffer. I also think that strive for freedom is the only valid purpose for war. I agree that currently scarcity is actually the reason, above all in the sense that capitalism US-style leads to war, but it shouldn't be allowed to set the agenda.
Actually +Marc Roelofs I think the true fascism resides with Alex Jones etc, thus subduing US citizens could be a valid pre-emptive strike to protect freedom. I agree it is complex and there are lots of bad things about govs, but I think the world would be much more oppressive if Jones and other alleged freedom fighters were running affairs.
+John Blossom I think artificial scarcity is a fiction, currently there is only scarcity, there is nothing artificial about any aspect of it. Any distortions of abundance are due to scarcity (abundance is not the absence of scarcity despite scarcity being less pronounced when things are abundant, abundance is not superabundance and even superabundance while close to Post-Scarcity is not actually Post-Scarcity). If something is truly not scarce (if something is post-scarce) it cannot be suppressed thus "artificial scarcity" is a illusion, it does not exist.
So, distortions of abundance do not constitute artificial scarcity. Abundance is being distorted because abundance while more fruitful than severe scarcity is nevertheless scarcity. If Post-Scarcity actual existed it would be impossible to suppress it thus when people talk about "artificial scarcity" they are merely talking about scarcity.
+Singularity Utopia there is always a danger once fanatics get in power but I don't see that happening with Alex Jones.
How it could possibly be any worse than what's going on right now is beyond me. This government is capable and willing to take out people like Alex Jones and that is a fatal flaw in my book.
+Marc Roelofs
Alex Jones from time to time talks about God, he believes in God. I am wary of anyone who believes in imaginary beings. Presidents often believe is God but at least they don't object to genetic engineering, synthetic biology or stem cell research with the vigor which Alex Jones opposes science. I suspect the rule of Alex Jones would be very harsh for science and technology; he and others would be happy, I suspect, if civilization forever stayed at the farming stage of sophistication.
I never really gave it thought, since I never saw him as politically viable. But thanks for the headsup, good to keep that in mind.
Here's a blog-post based on my comments here: http://singularity-utopia.blogspot.com/2013/08/artificial-scarcity-illusory-fiction.html
+Gijs van Dijk: "To me there is a big difference between the government and the people of a country."
"Every country has the government it deserves."
"Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite."
— Joseph de Maistre.
Letter 76, on the topic of Russia's new constitutional laws (27 August 1811); published in Lettres et Opuscules.
en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Joseph_de_Maistre
"Now, there's one thing you might've noticed I don't complain about: Politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. But where do the people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality.
They come from American parents and American families, American homes, American schools, American churches, American businesses and American universities. and they're elected by American citizens. This is the best we can do, folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out!
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, if you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you are gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders. The term limits ain't goinna do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So maybe, maybe, maybe it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here. Like… the public. Yeah. The public sucks! There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody. "The public sucks, fuck hope!". Fuck hope.
Because if it's really just the fault of these politicians then where are all the other bright people of conscience? Where are all the bright, honest, inteligent Americans ready to step in and save the Nation and lead the way? We don't have people like that in this country; everybody's at the mall, scratching his ass, picking his nose, taking his credit card out of his fanny pack and buying a pair of sneakers with lights in them!"
— George Carlin.
Video: George Carlin Doesn't vote (4 min 20 sec)
Script: dotsub.com/view/0b8100cc-b7c5-4b5e-97a3-76911f31e72e/viewTranscript/eng
politicalhumor.about.com/od/funnyquotes/a/george-carlin.htm
goodreads.com/quotes/78321-now-there-s-one-thing-you-might-have-noticed-i-don-t
Update: Fast action on Syria blocked by hastily assembled parliaments Update: Fast action on Syria blocked by hastily assembled parliaments https://plus.google.com/u/0/112352920206354603958/posts/VaQCztfS9Hn
+Max Huijgen you link loops back to your other post. I think that you're looking for a story like this: http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-president-obamas-speech-on-the-50th-anniversary-of-the-march-on-washington/2013/08/28/0138e01e-0ffb-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html
"Hasty" seems to be the word. Action is not politically popular. Then again lots of folks felt that Neville Chamberlain was a level headed guy…
Thanks +John Blossom I have edited the link. Should be https://plus.google.com/u/0/112352920206354603958/posts/VaQCztfS9Hn
+Max Huijgen No worries, thanks.
You know, I've been thinking about this whole situation, and while U.S. sentiment is definitely weak on Syria so far, I am trying to understand, why the strong European reaction? Yes, the whole Bush/Cheney thing, but I suspect that more aware people understand that Obama is no Bush – he's intelligent, methodical, waits for data, and then acts with metrics. And then there's the question as to what's actually going to happen. Whatever's likely to happen is far more likely to resemble that was done in Libya than it will resemble Iraq or Afghanistan. Yet there was strong NATO support for Libyan action.
Then it struck me what the defining commonality is here…oil for Europe. Libyan oil flows mostly to Europe. Russian oil flows to Europe also, and Russia is the prime benefactor of Syria. This is on one level about European oil, first and foremost – and the spin seems to follow that pattern. France and England, with somewhat less dependence on Russian resources, are willing to go further down the road on potential support. Interesting.
+John Blossom good thinking. Of course with the French one never has to look far for hypocritical reasoning. This has been true for the last 150 years at least. They still think they're the center of the universe.
They'll probably use their position to bargain with Putin.
Oil and other strategic considerations don't influence the hearts of the people in Europe. Only their governments and most of them were in favor of a strong reaction +John Blossom
+Max Huijgen You're right, oil doesn't influence hearts, but it does influence leaders – and propaganda generators. Our Iraq War offers ample evidence of that. I understand people's reticence, but since most people in Syria are ready to depose Assad and a peaceful and just Syria can accelerate middle east peace rapidly – resulting in lower oil prices, BTW – it seems like a good time to help the people of Syria to determine their own will with just a small bit of offshore assistance. The French did likewise for the U.S. in 1781at Yorktown to tip the balance. Hopefully this turns out likewise. Let us not lose sight of the true goal – a greater and more lasting and humane peace.