Syrian Strike Vote

[metis]

Apparently it wasnt a complete waste of time since he agreed to it (whether or not he follows through is entirely different)

But what led them to the negotiating table? I do believe it's quite obvious.

The weird thing is he doesnt need chemical weapons against the rebels, they are getting crushed regardless. TBH I am struggling to understand why he would bother except perhaps as a method to instill fear.

The casualties with Assad's forces versus the rebels is just shy of 3:1, and Assad hasn't been able to break the rebel control of parts of outskirt Damasus, which is Assad's stronghold. He knows the cards are stacked against him in the long run, which is undoubtedly why he was willing to use the gas. If you study the demographics, you'll see why.

Of America, to the entire international community, the russian initiative has challenged preconceptions about just how pivotal america's role should be in international affairs. Though you are right in that America doesnt control the UN, there was a time when it was a rubber stamp for the west, that is proving to be less the case in the last 15 years.

Agreed.

Assad is not a threat to the region, he is certainly a threat to his own people but to the region no; let alone to Israel if he were left alone or to the US in ANY circumstances save divine or alien intervention. You ARE kidding right?

He is very much a threat to the entire region, and for more than one reason. Assad and the Alawites have numerous enemies in the region since none of these countries are homogenous religiously, and the poison gas has been his wild card. Refugees are destabilizing Jordan especially, but also Turkey and Lebanon to a somewhat lesser extent.

Also, one of the fears is the spreading of these chemical weapons to other elements whereas they can be used against various targets, including American interests, which has been covered in the congressional briefings.

So, no I am not "kidding", although I wish I were, and it's a HUGE mistake to underestimate the potential dangers here. If Assad gets away with this because the west is afraid to act, this will come back to haunt us, and I can say that with certainty. The message that this will sent to Iran, Hezbollah, al-Queda, Hamas, and all other parties there, is that we cannot be depended upon and that the key to their survival is to do what Assad has done-- amass chemicals and work on developing a nuclear capacity. So, no I am not "kidding".

 

[InformedIgnorance]

But what led them to the negotiating table? I do believe it's quite obvious.

Of course, no one ever said diplomacy was just about smiling and speaking calmly.

The casualties with Assad's forces versus the rebels is just shy of 3:1, and Assad hasn't been able to break the rebel control of parts of outskirt Damasus, which is Assad's stronghold. He knows the cards are stacked against him in the long run, which is undoubtedly why he was willing to use the gas. If you study the demographics, you'll see why.

You and I must be looking at very different casualty figures, I would love to learn more if you have a link.

He is very much a threat to the entire region, and for more than one reason. Assad and the Alawites have numerous enemies in the region since none of these countries are homogenous religiously, and the poison gas has been his wild card. Refugees are destabilizing Jordan especially, but also Turkey and Lebanon to a somewhat lesser extent.

Refugees causing problems for neighboring states is not exactly the same as him being a threat to the region.

Also, one of the fears is the spreading of these chemical weapons to other elements whereas they can be used against various targets, including American interests, which has been covered in the congressional briefings.

So HE is not a threat, proliferation is a threat, very different things. A valid point but a very different thing - which would suggest that were the russian deal successful (and there are significant obstacles) then there would be no threat. But assuming that he had those weapons and was left alone, how likely would he be to proliferate? Put it this way, if he hasnt before, why would he do so later if we leave him be?

So, no I am not "kidding", although I wish I were, and it's a HUGE mistake to underestimate the potential dangers here. If Assad gets away with this because the west is afraid to act, this will come back to haunt us, and I can say that with certainty. The message that this will sent to Iran, Hezbollah, al-Queda, Hamas, and all other parties there, is that we cannot be depended upon and that the key to their survival is to do what Assad has done-- amass chemicals and work on developing a nuclear capacity. So, no I am not "kidding".

Thats unfortunate, because it seems to have little accuracy with its depiction of the realities of the threat.

 

[metis]

You and I must be looking at very different casualty figures, I would love to learn more if you have a link.

It was covered in some detail on Anderson 360, and the casualty figures deal not with civilian casualties but only those involved in fighting directly. The fact of the matter is that Assad's troops have not been able to dislodge the insurgents even in the Damascus suburbs, plus Assad well knows that he is outnumbered.

Refugees causing problems for neighboring states is not exactly the same as him being a threat to the region.

How can you say that as it clearly is a threat to the entire region and is creating much instability since there are potential players that can be affected all the way to Pakistan, down to Yemen, and into northern Africa? What happens in Syria is unlikely to stay just there-- it ain't like Las Vegas.

So HE is not a threat, proliferation is a threat, very different things.

Not true, largely because Assad is working in conjunction with Iran and Hezbollah, both of which strongly support him.

Thats unfortunate, because it seems to have little accuracy with its depiction of the realities of the threat.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever studied the region? Ever been there? If you do some day, get back with me and then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion, OK?

 

[metis]

There's a rather natural tendency for us to think that everyone thinks like we do, and that our logic must be their logic. Cognitively, most of us know this isn't true, but then sometimes it's easy to forget that.

The Middle East operates on paradigms often polar opposite the way the west does, so if we only look at them through western "eyes", we will be missing much, so we need to put on Middle Eastern "eyes", and that's quite difficult unless one not only knows the region but actually lives it in some way.

Some of us have had that opportunity, and let me tell you that it's quite a culture shock at first, and I'm an anthropologist who was and is used to looking at different cultures through different "eyes", and yet I had a tough time. Periodically even today, I have to pinch myself to make sure I just don't slip back into western "eyes" when certain things happen, especially if my emotions start to run high.

The Middle East is an area that often makes experts, such as Bernard Lewis and Thomas Friedman, hang their head in shame because they miscalculated. For example, those two, whom I do very much respect, miscalculated on what would happen after us invading Iraq, which they thought would help bring democracy to the region and offset Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah. Well, we saw how that worked out, didn't we.

Instead of knee-jerk reactions, we need to do our homework, and if we don't know much about something, then listen to the experts, while at the same time realizing that they certainly are not always right either. One of the presidents I long have admired was Dwight Eisenhower, who by his own admittance wasn't much of an intellectual. But he had something that might have been even more important, namely his willingness to listen to those who were the experts, but also was intelligent enough to be able to distinguish good advice from bad advice. He did it as a general and also as a president.

As parents, we get on our kid's case if they don't do their homework, but sometimes we may have to get on our own case as well because intellectual laziness is all to easy and comforting.

Sorry for "pontificating", but decisions made in a democracy are generally only going to be on the mark with an educated electorate that can tell the difference between good advice and bad.

 

[Zoe Doidge]

Whether or not it was Assad, an overzealous general or the rebels using sarin gas is beside the point. The attack means he's either using them or he's losing control over them, either way it's important that we seize control of or destroy the chemical weapons one way or another.

As it turns out the threat of an attack seems to have been enough to persuade Assad to hand over his stockpiles anyway. We know where they are, so we can always blow them up later if it looks like he’s changing his mind.

So regarding the poll, I abstain for now.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It was covered in some detail on Anderson 360, and the casualty figures deal not with civilian casualties but only those involved in fighting directly. The fact of the matter is that Assad's troops have not been able to dislodge the insurgents even in the Damascus suburbs, plus Assad well knows that he is outnumbered.

Spoiler: Search of AC360

So I searched youtube (yes hardly the most comprehensive source, but time is limited) 'Anderson Cooper 360 Syria', substituting AC360 and variants to expand search results Sorted by upload date and reviewed each unique peice (because there were duplicates) in order of that date (going back to the point at which the youtube sorting mechanism broke down and started to list them in the wrong order (three years), what worked out to around 40+ unique clips (there are likely more but the sorting algorithm makes it difficult to ensure that I am able to obtain correct results - in addition some are broken or invalid clips, but for all that would play I watched from start to finish, taking at least an hour and a half of purely AC360)

These are the two I found most supportive of your claims.
[youtube]8kOlZDENXG8[/youtube]
Anderson Cooper with Syrian Ambassador to the U.N. Bashar Jaafari.FLV - YouTube
[youtube]AJpKqQOsZ-w[/youtube]
Anderson Cooper 360° - Threat of chemical warfare in Syria - YouTube

These are the closest that comes to your comments, a mention of 500 dead security forces (probably significantly lower than the reality - but which anderson unhelpfully does not correct or provide alternate estimates), while the next closest (the second clip) is a mention of rebel activities in one province, claiming to besiege most of army strong points in that area.

None of the clips from AC360 which I reviewed implied in any form that the regime was outmatched without resorting to chemical weapons, actually the reverse was heavily implied. In fact the only real mentioning of casualty/fatality figures (with the exception of the regime's rather dubious 500 figure given in the first clip) in any of the clips is with regard to regime warcrimes. Hardly surprising that such data seems missing, as AC360 seems far more interested in qualitative and subjective rather quantitative and objective data, it is an emotionally orientated program there is nothing wrong with that, it is merely that in the search conducted (which may not be representative of the coverage of the program) there is far from sufficient evidence to support your claims.

If you have some idea about when the peice aired that might be helpful because the balance of footage I saw from AC360 indicates that while the rebels are far superior in numbers, they are (as repeatedly indicated in AC360 material) far from equally equipped and that the regime forces were at least holding ground (though preparing a rather horrific endgame were foreign nations to get involved).

How can you say that as it clearly is a threat to the entire region and is creating much instability since there are potential players that can be affected all the way to Pakistan, down to Yemen, and into northern Africa? What happens in Syria is unlikely to stay just there-- it ain't like Las Vegas.

I didnt say that the refugees were not a threat (economically and in terms of regional stability for the countries that they flee to) - I said that the mass emmigration was not something to give weight to the idea that Assad is a regional threat - such as in terms of his support for terrorists or his alliance with iran or his influence within lebanon - which are each very valid causes of concern and could be argued with some merit to be such factors, refugees are not.

Not true, largely because Assad is working in conjunction with Iran and Hezbollah, both of which strongly support him.

Up until now, without international involvement there is no indication that his ties to either party has resulted in proliferation of any kind. Indeed, the most likely scenario to result in proliferation is that Assad (and some of his local backerse such as the alawite generals) feels that they will be crushed, that their very survival is at stake; which is something that they seem to (rightly or wrongly) believe about the prospects should the rebels seize power (yet do not seem to believe such a circumstance will arise without internaitonal intervention).

You have no clue what you're talking about. Have you ever studied the region? Ever been there? If you do some day, get back with me and then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion, OK?

I fully admit my ignorance and indeed asked for further information when you claimed to have better sources of information. Yet you failed to address my arguments and your provided reference to sources were so vague as to be less than useful; that resulted in me looking as impartially as I could at material from the alleged source. Support for your assertions with regard to the relative forces within the materials uncovered during the search was extremely limited and indeed many of your claims such as with regards to factors that might result in proliferation are contradicted in that material and indeed suggest that the regime is more likely to adopt a 'sampson strategy' as they called it (I can track down the precise url if you are interested).

 

[BlandOatmeal]

...Support for your assertions with regard to the relative forces within the materials uncovered during the search was extremely limited and indeed many of your claims such as with regards to factors that might result in proliferation are contradicted in that material and indeed suggest that the regime is more likely to adopt a 'sampson strategy' as they called it (I can track down the precise url if you are interested).

Hi, Informed.

Do you realize that your last sentence was 69 words long? You may be in the same league with the Apostle Paul's Greek epistles!

Syria is quickly becoming non-news, as Americans and Europeans feel safe now about not having to have anything to do with the place. That may not be the reality, but it is the perception.

Meanwhile, the latest maneuverings in the area, especially the budding romance between President Obama and the latest Iranian President -- as well as our leader's obvious inability to enforce "red" lines, flaming lines, burnt-out charcoal lines or any other lines, can be expected to have a negative effect on our allies in the region. The latest I've seen from Turkey is the following:

Turkey sends message to West by choosing China for defense system

-- Turkey sends message to West by choosing China for defense system - Today's Zaman, your gateway to Turkish daily news

 

[InformedIgnorance]

The issue of possible US intervention is on the back burner while the chemical weapons info that was forwarded by the regime is being investigated. I very much doubt it is off the cards just yet (though the delay might cost them momentum in gathering support it could also be used as a breather with which they could actually develop support that failed to materialise such as in the UK) it is very much subject to how the chemical weapon issue is dealt with and on that point you can be sure everyone (including russia) is keen for a resolution (with russia probably more keen than anyone but the rebels).

If assad were to actually hand over his chemical weapons promptly (rather than dragging it out) it would be a huge triumph for russian foreign policy and at the same time a rather significant blow to US hegemony in many regions. If assad were to drag out the issue, tensions are likely to escalate once more and syrian intervention reconsidered (and most likely followed through with this time, ignoring possible rhetoric that syria would hand over their weapons for real this time). If on the other hand the regime were to use weapons or to appear to try to smuggle them or hand them off to others, it is almost certain that russian foreign policy would take a huge blow, and US policies would be considered more favorably - and a syrian intervention would become almost impossible to avoid in short order.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

The issue of possible US intervention is on the back burner...

It's on the back burner, and the gas company has shut off service. I just voted again for "Strike!", mostly because I come from a union family and that seemed to be the thing to do.

International politics has taken the back seat, lately, to domestic US politics. If WWIII broke out, with a war between Russia and China, I'm not sure the mainstream media would even report it. The latest buzz I got from the headlines, is that there's a new kid on the block: a kinder, gentler Iran, just let out of reform school. Two countries that don't seem to be buying the story are Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Shalom shalom

 

[Matemkar]

Who is that WE in the question?

Is it the zionist occupiers? If so, THEY have already done that and their desire to continue until they reach Euphrates would not suprise me.

Is it the Western Governments? If so, THEY have done quite mistakes in the past and it would not suprise me if they try again.

As for ME.. I don't think there should be any strike on any land. As Assad has always suggested, the terrorists who are supported by the west and western puppets (namely kings and sheikhs in the ME) should leave their weapons and let the nation decide if he stays or not. And I assure you, he will stay. The nation wants him, not another puppet menace kingdom/sheikhdom/democracy like that of KSA, Qatar and Turkey. But, anyway, should such a thing happens, I am sure it will trigger a war, or at least spread the war and I assure you no place will be safe for these governments and their puppets when a retaliation comes from the occupied countries and other oppressed nations..

These days, we see the terrorist cannibals who behead people, destroy villages, blow up themselves make Syria and Syrian nation suffer. And they are interestingly supported by the so-called democracy spreaders on kingdoms and family rules. Yes, they are supported by western governments that interestingly don't act against Bahraini, Qatari and Saudi tyrant kings and sheikhs. Lol. This is a joke. They even make coups and place these tyrant kings, e.g. Operation Ajax in 1953 in Iran. And when a nation rises up against these supserviant rulers and becomes sovereign (e.g. 1979 and onwards of Iran) or a ruler changes and sides with his own nation and wants to become sovereign (e.g. from Hafez Asad to Bashar Asad of Syria), they are portrayed as evil.. And, then, the terrorists groups there are supported (e.g. MKO, PJAK, Jundallah, etc. in Iran. And FSA and other gangs in Syria) in order to topple the government and change it with a subserviant one.. Yep, all hail to spreading 'democracy'.. This really is a joke.. And I am afraid this so-called spreading democracy and the so-called fighting against terror, will backfire one day.. And that day, I am not sure it will be so peaceful..

'The day of the oppressed over the oppressor will be harder than the day of the oppressor over the oppressed.' Imam Ali

 

[metis]

Who is that WE in the question?

Is it the zionist occupiers? If so, THEY have already done that and their desire to continue until they reach Euphrates would not suprise me.

Is it the Western Governments? If so, THEY have done quite mistakes in the past and it would not suprise me if they try again.

As for ME.. I don't think there should be any strike on any land. As Assad has always suggested, the terrorists who are supported by the west and western puppets (namely kings and sheikhs in the ME) should leave their weapons and let the nation decide if he stays or not. And I assure you, he will stay. The nation wants him, not another puppet menace kingdom/sheikhdom/democracy like that of KSA, Qatar and Turkey. But, anyway, should such a thing happens, I am sure it will trigger a war, or at least spread the war and I assure you no place will be safe for these governments and their puppets when a retaliation comes from the occupied countries and other oppressed nations..

These days, we see the terrorist cannibals who behead people, destroy villages, blow up themselves make Syria and Syrian nation suffer. And they are interestingly supported by the so-called democracy spreaders on kingdoms and family rules. Yes, they are supported by western governments that interestingly don't act against Bahraini, Qatari and Saudi tyrant kings and sheikhs. Lol. This is a joke. They even make coups and place these tyrant kings, e.g. Operation Ajax in 1953 in Iran. And when a nation rises up against these supserviant rulers and becomes sovereign (e.g. 1979 and onwards of Iran) or a ruler changes and sides with his own nation and wants to become sovereign (e.g. from Hafez Asad to Bashar Asad of Syria), they are portrayed as evil.. And, then, the terrorists groups there are supported (e.g. MKO, PJAK, Jundallah, etc. in Iran. And FSA and other gangs in Syria) in order to topple the government and change it with a subserviant one.. Yep, all hail to spreading 'democracy'.. This really is a joke.. And I am afraid this so-called spreading democracy and the so-called fighting against terror, will backfire one day.. And that day, I am not sure it will be so peaceful..

'The day of the oppressed over the oppressor will be harder than the day of the oppressor over the oppressed.' Imam Ali

Frankly, I think it's truly pathetic that you support a pathological killer like Assad, who has been no less brutal than his father. As we see with what's going on in Hom, whereas masses of innocent people were being gunned down and bombed even though it's not a militarily strategic target. Therefore, how you can sit here and blame "zionists" for this slaughter defies both common sense and even basic morality.