The Syrian Invasion

[pErvinalia]

It certainly appears to be a shambles from my end of the internet. But probably better a shambles that doesn't happen (i.e. no war-y stuff) than a shambles that happens and costs thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL - Russia says it has proof the rebels did the chemical attack -- http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/2 ... iiorcYU-So

So, why don't we invade Syria to attack the rebels?

[Coito ergo sum]

Help the Syrian rebels! http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world ... ml?hp&_r=0

Putin says John Kerry is lying about Syria -- http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2 ... 0/2769683/ - well, that wouldn't be the first time that Kerry lied about what happened in a war, would it?

[pErvinalia]

LOL - Russia says it has proof the rebels did the chemical attack -- http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/2 ... iiorcYU-So

So, why don't we invade Syria to attack the rebels?

This was the earlier chemical attack. That one has been largely blamed on the rebels for quite some time now.

[Coito ergo sum]

Blame Bush!!! http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... _iraq.html

[JimC]

CES, one gets the feeling that most of your comments on current US issues and foreign policy are a matter of relentless sniping at the current administration, or anybody at all that was/is pro-democrat and/or anti-Bush...

Which is not to say I disagree with you on the need to be very cautious when it comes to interventions in foreign messes...

[Warren Dew]

LOL - Russia says it has proof the rebels did the chemical attack -- http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/2 ... iiorcYU-So

So, why don't we invade Syria to attack the rebels?

This was the earlier chemical attack. That one has been largely blamed on the rebels for quite some time now.

Obama said use by either side would cross his "red line", though. So the question just becomes, why didn't he push for attacking the rebels back then?

[Ian]

US intelligence may not be quite as sure of that one. But more importantly, Russia and Iran aren't backing the rebels...

[klr]

US intelligence may not be quite as sure of that one. But more importantly, Russia and Iran aren't backing the rebels...

Touché.

There was an interview with Gorbachev broadcast just now on BBC Newsnight. He didn't seem to have much different mindset from Putin, which I found a bit disappointing.

[JimC]

US intelligence may not be quite as sure of that one. But more importantly, Russia and Iran aren't backing the rebels...

Touché.

There was an interview with Gorbachev broadcast just now on BBC Newsnight. He didn't seem to have much different mindset from Putin, which I found a bit disappointing.

There seems to be a form of "national interest" which simply involves backing a side in any given conflict opposite to the one backed by a rival major power...

Other reasons or rational concerns can be subsumed fairly quickly...

[Ian]

Cold War 2.0 (aka Cold War Lite) is well underway. Have no illusions about hearing of a "reset" in US-Russian relations; behind the scenes (mostly, for now) Moscow and Washington are fuming at each other. And Syria is only a minor issue; there are other, bigger ones.

[Pappa]

I have to say, we should do something I don't know what though.

Bomb the living daylights out of Syria. If done comprehensively enough, the guilty will be among the dead.

Edit: It's not a novel idea. "Kill them all. God will know his own."

Yes, but they didn't have to worry about fickle public opinion, elections, or 24-hour news reporting back then.

Governments will always explore how far "plausible deniability" can be stretched.

Oh, and I wonder how much the US electorate really cares if Syria was turned into a giant concrete landing strip. I suppose, by now it has realised that it's government is not talking about a township in Virginia, but some foreign country, and foreign countries are full of, you know, foreigners.

Shall I look for the sarcasm emoticon now?

Even if they got into a huff about it, the'll all have forgotten by the time the next season of X-Factor or Pop Idol starts.

[Warren Dew]

LOL - Russia says it has proof the rebels did the chemical attack -- http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/2 ... iiorcYU-So

So, why don't we invade Syria to attack the rebels?

This was the earlier chemical attack. That one has been largely blamed on the rebels for quite some time now.

Obama said use by either side would cross his "red line", though. So the question just becomes, why didn't he push for attacking the rebels back then?

US intelligence may not be quite as sure of that one. But more importantly, Russia and Iran aren't backing the rebels...

Indeed. The "chemical weapons" part is just a pretext used by the warmongers to pick a fight.

Unfortunately we're failing to realize that Iran is a bigger threat than Russia.

[pErvinalia]

LOL - Russia says it has proof the rebels did the chemical attack -- http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/2 ... iiorcYU-So

So, why don't we invade Syria to attack the rebels?

This was the earlier chemical attack. That one has been largely blamed on the rebels for quite some time now.

Obama said use by either side would cross his "red line", though. So the question just becomes, why didn't he push for attacking the rebels back then?

Because he has an agenda, like all the lying scum who lead our countries. I've been seeing more articles making a link between this and an important proposed oil pipeline that is to run through Syria. The US has no credibility in the Middle East any more. They should stay out unless the UN authorises something.

[Ian]

Unfortunately we're failing to realize that Iran is a bigger threat than Russia.

I thoroughly disagree. But I do understand that point of view.