Obama: "US should take military action against Syrian regime"

[vox nihili]

Trav, what would you have done in Kosovo, then? The problem with that intervention is there should have been more, earlier.

The biggest issue with Kosovo was the fact that the US decided to take a side. The KLA (which "represented" the Kosovar Albanians) was taken off the list of terrorist organisations days before the US announced that they would bomb Belgrade. The campaign was completely disproportionate and sent a clear message to the Albanians and to the rest of the world: through terrorism you can achieve your aims.

Milosevic's actions in Kosovo were despicable, but so were those of the KLA. They bombed Serb churches, slaughtered Serb families and ethnically cleansed the North of Kosovo of its traditional Serb population. They were just as guilty as Yugoslavia. Yet, supporting the KLA meant another blow to the world's largest socialist state at the time.

This is the problem with US interventions, they favour the side that favours them. They did not initiate one attack against the KLA, despite clear evidence that they were responsible for ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia. That's exactly why the action in Kosovo is a good example of a United States failure. That and the fact that they actually targeted civilians in Belgrade, trying to pass of a hospital as a legitimate military target.

[meganrobyn]

~110,000 people have died with bullets and now we suddenly care when up to a thousand are allegedly killed with chemical weapons? Seems like a very odd line in the sand. The bullets have and likely will do far far more harm than chemical weapons. As it stands now, they've caused 11,000% more deaths; based on the chemical attack killing 1000 people, for every 100 people killed by the chemicals, 11,000 were killed by bullets. It all seems absurd to me that we dont care much at all when bullets are causing 11,000% more harm but we all lose it when a different class of weaponry kills a mere 1000?

One death is one too many but i have trouble seeing this sudden flare up now, it seems hypocritical to me. 

No, no, it's not actually about the deaths! It's about trying to reinforce a global agreement. It's like, the world accepts that war will happen. It's not good, but it happens. So one of the very, tiny, precious few things the world has agreed on in terms of the "right" way to go about war is that chemical weapons shouldn't be used. My understanding is that around 70% or more of the victims of chemical attacks are civilians (much more than 'traditional' weapons), and since they are so ineffective at actually toppling armies or winning wars they are pretty much just used for terror purposes. To scare the bejesus out of people and demoralise, torture the population.

It's not about defending the deaths (although yes, that might be nice) - it's about taking a stand when someone breaks one of the few, very few things just about every country has agreed on to make the 'necessary evil' of war just a tiny bit less evil.

[BigAl]

Can I just point something out - I think that the main objective of the United States is literally to topple over the Middle East. They want it to become primitive again. I'd just like to say that there are so many claims made by the United States about 'Syrians against Assad' when over 75% of Syrians living in Syria want him to stay in government. It's crazy to think that the Syrians don't want him. How do I know this? I am a Syrian.

One thing - isn't it weird how the United States quickly decided that the chemical weapons were launched by the Assad regime, and they never, I mean NEVER, even put forward the idea that it could have been the rebels? Additionally, if the US were already making claims before UN inspectors went to Syria to investigate the matter that the chemical weapons were launched by Assad, what was the whole point of sending inspectors to make sure?

It's not even a civil war - because 3/4 of the terrorist rebels who are being given weapons from the United States come from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan. I seriously don't know what to say... there are so many countries like Egypt and Libya that are now pretty much corrupted in every way possible because of this strategy by the United States to remove the government from power, but a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in power and then, sit back, and watch the trouble unfold.

The United States are evil - they sit there and lie to the world with no shame or dignity. They stand there in front of millions of people talking about moral justice, as if they knew anything about morality!

Thank you so much for the insight. Good to hear some of the truth by someone who's somewhat involved with the issue. I totally agree with you. I don't know why the imperialistic powers have been trying so hard to re shape the Middle East. It was done before just after the ww1. I mean this isn't just a game...it's a matter of lives of millions. If there is something corrupted, it's the US not its players. Well if someone has to be taken down, please take Erdogan down

[Professor Polonsky]

~110,000 people have died with bullets and now we suddenly care when up to a thousand are allegedly killed with chemical weapons? Seems like a very odd line in the sand. The bullets have and likely will do far far more harm than chemical weapons. As it stands now, they've caused 11,000% more deaths; based on the chemical attack killing 1000 people, for every 100 people killed by the chemicals, 11,000 were killed by bullets. It all seems absurd to me that we dont care much at all when bullets are causing 11,000% more harm but we all lose it when a different class of weaponry kills a mere 1000?

One death is one too many but i have trouble seeing this sudden flare up now, it seems hypocritical to me.

Use of non-conventional weaponry is categorically prohibited by international law governing warfare, as opposed to what has been happening until now which is a very grey area. This is where we decided to draw the line decades ago, and that line has otherwise remained very clear. If you make up rules, you need to enforce them (and the lack of an enforcement mechanism is one of the main problems that we face). I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to changing international law, but we decided chemical warfare is a no-go and Syria violated that.

Can I just point something out - I think that the main objective of the United States is literally to topple over the Middle East. They want it to become primitive again. I'd just like to say that there are so many claims made by the United States about 'Syrians against Assad' when over 75% of Syrians living in Syria want him to stay in government. It's crazy to think that the Syrians don't want him. How do I know this? I am a Syrian.

The US objective is certainly not to topple over the Middle East or anything of the sort. The United States is generally interested in stability in the Middle East, which is why they had been propping up most Middle Eastern governments for decades by the start of the Arab Spring. The US is heavily invested in the long-term stability of the region. Given the changed conditions, US policy had to adapt. There is certainly no desire to run the Middle East over, though. Obama, Kerry, Carney, Hagel, and virtually everyone involved in planning the operation has confirmed it will be very limited in scope, and that they won't attempt to overthrow Assad.

Do you have a source regarding the 75% claim? It's not what I've heard, and with all due respect you don't sound very neutral on the matter.

One thing - isn't it weird how the United States quickly decided that the chemical weapons were launched by the Assad regime, and they never, I mean NEVER, even put forward the idea that it could have been the rebels? Additionally, if the US were already making claims before UN inspectors went to Syria to investigate the matter that the chemical weapons were launched by Assad, what was the whole point of sending inspectors to make sure?

They sound quite confident in their assessment that the attack was launched by the Syrian army. China has been briefed on the evidence, and they're not calling BS on it. It sounds like a lot of it comes from sensitive sigint and humint, which is why we don't have access to it.

Yes, this is reminiscent of Iraq in some ways, which is my worry. I hope my faith in the Obama (and even more so, Hollande) administrations is not misplaced.

It's not even a civil war - because 3/4 of the terrorist rebels who are being given weapons from the United States come from Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Jordan. I seriously don't know what to say... there are so many countries like Egypt and Libya that are now pretty much corrupted in every way possible because of this strategy by the United States to remove the government from power, but a member of the Muslim Brotherhood in power and then, sit back, and watch the trouble unfold.

A standing army against a group of citizens (or even a paramilitary group) is not much of a fair fight. This is primarily why the rebels were armed.

The US did not overthrow the Egyptian government, and in fact, would much rather if Mubarak was still in power. In fact, it has not been involved there at all. Libya has been very stable since the globally-supported overthrow of Gaddafi.

[Yacoubb]

Do you have a source regarding the 75% claim? It's not what I've heard, and with all due respect you don't sound very neutral on the matter.

I AM SYRIAN! -,-
Look, I'll tell you this much. I've been to Syria 4 times; 3 times before the conflict and the last time at the end of 2011 (November, when conflict was brewing). Believe me, even people who initially thought Assad should be replaced have changed their mind because they know that by taking Assad out of power, all the minorities will be targeted by the Muslim Brotherhood. Please don't pretend that the rebels are not committing atrocities; there are videos of innocent Syrians being killed by Muslim brotherhood extremists and then butchered. Also, the video of that terrorist eating the heart of a soldier of the Syrian army.

And can you provide me with proof that Assad's forces have launched the chemical weapon other than all the bullshit in the media? Every single excerpt that shows you recordings of children/women suffering from the chemical weapon attack is taken from a channel run by the terrorists. Seriously.. that's pretty much like saying that Tony Abbot is not a good person to be PM and using evidence to substantiate that by using excerpts from Kevin Rudd.

Did you know that in the beginning, all the 'supposed' things happening in Syria were fabricated by channels such as Al Jazeera, BBC, and many other channels? They would use excerpts from trouble in Libya, Lebanon and Iraq and used it as supposedly taking place in Syria. Now, why would you expect them to NOT lie again about chemical weapons being used by the government?

I pray for no intervention, and that justice be brought to all those who lie to our faces, shamelessly. Believe me, if I had time, I'd list you every bit of evidence I have, but I'm studying and I have no time for people who are, in all due respect, don't want to hear the truth, from someone somewhat involved in this.

[Yacoubb]

Plus, I don't understand how you can make these claims without consulting other sources and being open-minded; I'm telling you, I have relatives in Syria who tell everything that is happening. I have relatives who have been murdered by the rebels; our Bishop was bloody kidnapped by the rebels.

Ooh, and did you know that very close to Latakia, a whole Alawite village was butchered by the rebels. No one made any news of that. Now tell me, why on Earth would Assad, who the Islamic brotherhood want to rid the Earth of + the remaining Alawites, Shia and Christians, kill people of his own religion and sect?

[brenden]

You being Syrian isn't a source for the 75% claim at all. He's being fair in asking you to verify that.

Eg.

Drop bears exist in Australia.
I am Australian and I say that drop bears exist in Australia, so they must.

[Yacoubb]

You being Syrian isn't a source for the 75% claim at all. He's being fair in asking you to verify that.

Eg.

Drop bears exist in Australia.
I am Australian and I say that drop bears exist in Australia, so they must.

I never said that was my only source - sure, he is being fair. But I'm also being fair by asking him to provide me with substantial evidence that it was the Assad government that launched the chemical weapons attack. Sure, the US announced it, the whole world will suck up to the US and say its the Assad government that launched the attack. I mean, honestly, have you heard ANY sources even propose the possibility that the rebels did it?

[Professor Polonsky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

I'm not claiming either side is better here, or that the rebels are perfect human beings. I reiterated about a handful of times (if you'd actually bothered reading my posts) that I do not think toppling the Assad regime is in the West's interests, or humanitarian interests.

It's evident to me that you haven't really got the gist of my post, or at least have not attempted to respond to it. It is not pro-rebel (or even anti-Assad). I don't think we ought to take sides - just punish the use of chemical weapons.

[Yacoubb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

I'm not claiming either side is better here, or that the rebels are perfect human beings. I reiterated about a handful of times (if you'd actually bothered reading my posts) that I do not think toppling the Assad regime is in the West's interests, or humanitarian interests.

It's evident to me that you haven't really got the gist of my post, or at least have not attempted to respond to it. It is not pro-rebel (or even anti-Assad). I don't think we ought to take sides - just punish the use of chemical weapons.

Look I understand what you're saying - and definitely, the use of chemical weapons is beyond unacceptable. I have read your posts properly - your posts just seem to be more to the anti-Assad side. I just wish Syria would return to how it was before 2011.. it was honestly one of the safest countries..

[brenden]

France also investigated and concluded that it was the Government.
I have seen many sources suggesting it could have been the rebels and I do not think it would have been an illogical move on their behalf.

[Professor Polonsky]

As for whether it was Assad forces who used chemical weapons

They sound quite confident in their assessment that the attack was launched by the Syrian army. China has been briefed on the evidence, and they're not calling BS on it. It sounds like a lot of it comes from sensitive sigint and humint, which is why we don't have access to it.

Yes, this is reminiscent of Iraq in some ways, which is my worry. I hope my faith in the Obama (and even more so, Hollande) administrations is not misplaced.

Kerry statement, including evidence

China briefed by US regarding evidence

[JellyDonut]

The evidence linking Assad to the use of chemical weapons is still up in the air though.
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/02/conflicting-claims-syrian-chemical-weapons


I also highly doubt China would be calling BS unless they have concrete evidence to the contrary.

The Syrian dude was right in calling this a proxy war, which is absolutely is. Therefore considering the position the US already had in the war, I can't say I support a punitive strike, least by them anyway. Just seems like Obama got caught out with that "Red Line" comment (something he shouldn't have made politically) and now he's getting dragged into something he never wanted to be (most likely by the Sauds)