The Syrian Invasion

[Coito ergo sum]

Part of the intelligence about Assad weapons came from Israel listening in. Why don't we hear anything from Israel?

...because every Muslim country wants to exterminate Israel. There is probably good reason for them to keep their heads down on this one.

[Cormac]

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.

Yeah. It certainly seems that way.

And Russia is a big scary bear right on our doorsteps.

[Cormac]

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.

I think you're right Ian.

[Cormac]

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.

Yup, and before that Turkey caught the rebels with sarin gas. The only group we are fairly certain used chemical weapons is the rebels. The rebels are also starting to look like the bigger of the human rights offenders too, given the execution and cannibalism videos the rebels released.

It should be noted that the Rebels are not a single coherent group though.

There is even one psycho fucker who started on the government side, where he led brutal attacks on rebels and civilians alike. Then he became a rebel, and was involved in further atrocities. Seemingly his behaviour put him beyond the pale of even the extreme rebels. So now he is a leader back on Assad's side.

Wars, and especially civil wars allow the evil bastards to act out their homicidal fantasies.

[mistermack]

I'm starting to feel highly suspicious of the way Cameron handled that vote.
I'm getting the feeling that he never wanted to win it in the first place, and that all the disappointment was a bluff.

It did seem INCREDIBLY incompetent at the time, to hold the vote and lose it.
And the way that they jumped up immediately afterwards, and said that this ruled out Britain ever taking any part in a military action was also incredible. The vote did no such thing. It just said, '' not today, thank you ''.

Maybe Cameron KNEW that it was the rebels who used sarin earlier, and didn't want to be taking part in a one-sided punishment, when both parties are guilty of the same thing.

He's either an amazing idiot, or a liar. I think it's probably the second.

[klr]

I'm starting to feel highly suspicious of the way Cameron handled that vote.
I'm getting the feeling that he never wanted to win it in the first place, and that all the disappointment was a bluff.

It did seem INCREDIBLY incompetent at the time, to hold the vote and lose it.
And the way that they jumped up immediately afterwards, and said that this ruled out Britain ever taking any part in a military action was also incredible. The vote did no such thing. It just said, '' not today, thank you ''.

Maybe Cameron KNEW that it was the rebels who used sarin earlier, and didn't want to be taking part in a one-sided punishment, when both parties are guilty of the same thing.

He's either an amazing idiot, or a liar. I think it's probably the second.

He could be both. But I still tend towards the first option. Politicians are pathologically afraid of making themselves look foolish in public, even if might benefit them in the long run.

[Tero]

It's a game. Obama is playing the same game. "I wanted to help, but congress would not let me. But next time..."

[pErvinalia]

There's a default stance around the world of bitching about the US. Not Russia or Iran and their roles in this mess, mind you - there's a sense of resignation about them. But the US will be bitched about no matter what it does.

Because they keep bombing the shit out of countries, Ian. What fucking planet are you on?!?

[Ian]

Oh please.

[JimC]

There's a default stance around the world of bitching about the US. Not Russia or Iran and their roles in this mess, mind you - there's a sense of resignation about them. But the US will be bitched about no matter what it does.

Because they keep bombing the shit out of countries, Ian. What fucking planet are you on?!?

Oh please.

The thing is, to much of the world, the nuances and justifications for recent US military actions will not matter...

They will, rightly or wrongly, simply perceive rEv's "bombing the shit out of countries", and are developing a view of the US in response.

[Ian]

I know. But I have no obligation to respect such a simplistic and naïve viewpoint. I do acknowledge that it is widespread though.

A thought: a persistent pattern of the US becoming militarily involved in crisis zones reflects an equally persistent pattern of many other countries NOT becoming involved in crisis zones, even when they should.

[Warren Dew]

Maybe Cameron KNEW that it was the rebels who used sarin earlier, and didn't want to be taking part in a one-sided punishment, when both parties are guilty of the same thing.

If so, good for him.

[Warren Dew]

There's a default stance around the world of bitching about the US. Not Russia or Iran and their roles in this mess, mind you - there's a sense of resignation about them. But the US will be bitched about no matter what it does.

Because they keep bombing the shit out of countries, Ian. What fucking planet are you on?!?

I'm pretty sure the UK and France did a lot of the bombing in Libya, and in fact pushed that bombing more than the U.S. did.

[pErvinalia]

There's a default stance around the world of bitching about the US. Not Russia or Iran and their roles in this mess, mind you - there's a sense of resignation about them. But the US will be bitched about no matter what it does.

Because they keep bombing the shit out of countries, Ian. What fucking planet are you on?!?

Oh please.

The thing is, to much of the world, the nuances and justifications for recent US military actions will not matter...

They will, rightly or wrongly, simply perceive rEv's "bombing the shit out of countries", and are developing a view of the US in response.

"Oh please" what? Do you think you have a respected position in the world these days? The US is just as bad as Russia and China (actually far worse when it comes to dropping bombs on foreign countries). Who are you kidding?

[pErvinalia]

I know. But I have no obligation to respect such a simplistic and naïve viewpoint. I do acknowledge that it is widespread though.

A thought: a persistent pattern of the US becoming militarily involved in crisis zones reflects an equally persistent pattern of many other countries NOT becoming involved in crisis zones, even when they should.

The UN is the only suitable venue to work these things out and the US (and allies) have made a mockery of the UN with it's refusal to enforce sanctions on Israel. Why the fuck would Russia or China approach the UNSC honestly when the US shows no respect to the institution. It's not broken because of some "the whole is greater than the parts" bollocks. It's broken because its member states treat it with no respect.

You seem to have drunk too much of the "exporting democracy" cool-aid. The US, China, Russia etc don't care about foreigners outside of their own interests. The problem for the US is that people see through all the bullshit spin. And all you can say in response to that is "oh please".