Hans Blix on Syria

[bannination]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-ga ... 19367.html


Hm....

[rstrong]

Blix's point is well taken that the US isn't the world's police. As I've said before, "America didn't become the world's cop, but the world sure calls on them when we need a SWAT team. Which is often, and they're damn good at it."

I'm not the local police. But if a woman or child being beaten or someone being robbed and there's no police present, I'm going to act to stop it.

The US hasn't acted as police in Syria. But when a significant percentage of a population is in refugee camps in other countries, the SWAT team sees a lot of people looking in their direction. The use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons makes a pretty clear threshold for when it's time to act, and Syria crossed it.

This ain't Bush II's internationally unpopular invasion based on faked WMD intelligence. The chemical weapons aren't just a possibility; they've been used. The 22-nation Arab League is on board. Most of the western world is on board. Even France is on board.

But Republicans need not worry. The Syrian opposition doesn't have clean hands either. Fox News and other branches of the party are no doubt writing claims linking Obama to opposition atrocities even as we speak. Christmas is coming early for Republicans.

[bannination]

I blame Canada.


Seriously though, war is just going to cause more deaths and suffering.

[rstrong]

Saddam fired missiles into Israel during Gulf War I, to try to provoke a response. The hope was that Israel's counter-attack would automatically rally the Arab world to his side.

Assad is saner and smarter than Saddam, but watch for him to do the same.

[neoplacebo]

Saddam fired missiles into Israel during Gulf War I, to try to provoke a response. The hope was that Israel's counter-attack would automatically rally the Arab world to his side.

Assad is saner and smarter than Saddam, but watch for him to do the same.

Yeah, I think so, too. It's certainly unfortunate, and criminal, about what has already happened. But I feel US involvement in a military way is not a good idea for several reasons; yours first on the list. Maybe Assad is the anti Christ and we're all just doomed anyway. Or maybe we just need to facilitate the support and creation of more terrorists. It's almost become tradition.

[bannination]

I always though we'd wipe ourselves out in a nuclear war before we achieved any meaningful space travel and settlement.

Thanks Obama. :-)

[rstrong]

...The Syrian opposition doesn't have clean hands either...

When that is the case I strongly favor doing everything other than making it easier for more killing. Sure, it's possible to speculate as to what course might lead to fewer deaths and more stability in the long run, but the only certainty is that someone destroys more. We don't arm single murderers because they might, might take out a serial killer.

If you see a big kid beating a small kid, it's one thing to remain uninvolved because the small kid is also not likable. But when the big kid starts beating him with a rock, it's time to step in.

We Canadians played a major role in peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The war crimes, atrocities, massacres and ethnic cleansing continued. And it would no doubt still be going on if NATO hadn't intervened. They did not intervene with cookies.

It was the same story three years later in Kosovo. Thousands dead. Hundreds of thousands of refugees. Systematic murders and rapes with the goal of ethnic cleansing. Only two things would have ever stopped it: The eradication of the entire Albanian population, or military intervention. We chose the latter, and it worked.

The civil war in Syria has dragged on for two and a half years with no end in site. The US estimates 100,000 dead; the UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimate is 120,000. 2.5 to 3 million people internally displaced, with another 2 million refugees outside the country. Another 130,000 are detained or missing. (citation)

Without intervention, one of two things will happen:

a) Syria doesn't continue to use chemical weapons. And the numbers above double over a couple more years until there's a decisive victory. If you're optimistic about a decisive victory; really, there's no end in sight. Russia and others have too much invested in Syria; Syria will be backed just enough to keep it from falling.

b) Syria discovers that it can use chemical weapons with impunity. And the numbers above double - quickly and briefly.

[rstrong]

We didn't have reason to believe that the opposition to Serbia was as sketchy as we know the opposition to Assad is.

Sure we did. Atrocities tend to get responded to with atrocities, and Serbia was no exception. There were reprisals.

In WWII the Allies were certainly on the moral high ground compared to the Axis, but we weren't saints. We didn't just firebomb Dresden and Hamburg; we firebombed the city centers first, and when the fire fighters rushed in to fight the fires, THEN we firebombed outside the city centers to trap them in the inferno. As Chuck Yeager commented on a "strafe anything that moved" order - which included civilians - "If we are going to do things like this, we sure as hell better make sure we are on the winning side."

[rstrong]

Personally I'd rather see the money spent on an attack instead be spent on providing accommodations for the refugees. And more press coverage of their plight. Let those who want to stay and fight, fight it out.

Alas, refugee camps have a way of becoming permanent. Especially when ethnic cleansing is the whole point of forcing them out, as has happened in Bosnia, Kosovo, Lebanon, Iraq and many other wars. And two million refugees aren't front page material. It takes smart bombs to compete with Miley Cyrus for front page coverage.

[bannination]

Perhaps if the U.S. were more interested in spying on Syria than it's own population it could have been prevented before it happened.

[rstrong]

Perhaps if the U.S. were more interested in spying on Syria than it's own population it could have been prevented before it happened.

Syria was a brutal dictatorship with ethnic divisions. What did the US need to know before-hand that wasn't already obvious? How would they have prevented the civil war without, you know, going to war?

[bannination]

Perhaps if the U.S. were more interested in spying on Syria than it's own population it could have been prevented before it happened.

Syria was a brutal dictatorship with ethnic divisions. What did the US need to know before-hand that wasn't already obvious? How would they have prevented the civil war without, you know, going to war?

I've not kept up with the story to be honest, so, if what I say sounds absurd forgive me. Couldn't we have strategically bombed where the chemical weapons were being produced if we had that intel?

I'm not really talking about preventing all atrocities, but then, it seems we weren't interested until chemical weapons became involved. For whatever reason that seems to be the crux of that matter. Killing people all day long is fine.... but nope, bring in the chemical weapons.... and oh shiat!

It's the consistency of the whole matter that bothers me. It's not like the U.S. is innocent in the matter of chemical or biological weapons including experimenting on it's own citizens.

[rstrong]

Couldn't we have strategically bombed where the chemical weapons were being produced if we had that intel?

First, you have to know where they are. A bunch of barrels or shells are easy to hide. Second, bombing them wouldn't so much incinerate them as blow them apart and release their contents. The factory especially could be in a populated area.

Killing people all day long is fine.... but nope, bring in the chemical weapons.... and oh shiat!

It's the consistency of the whole matter that bothers me.

"Weapons of Mass Destruction" is an appropriate term. You can wipe out whole towns full of people at once - scour a whole area clean of people - with little warning and no way for the people to take cover. Regular artillery just doesn't compare. Dump the bodies in a pit, and your own people can move right in to the still-intact buildings.

The US wisely got rid of its chemical and biological weapons, and let others know its policy: A chemical weapon equals a biological weapon equals a nuclear weapon. Any attack on the chemical/biological attack on the US would be responded to with nukes.

The use of WMDs is a good "Do Not Cross No Matter The Circumstances" line for the world's wars that most can agree on.

[bannination]

Couldn't we have strategically bombed where the chemical weapons were being produced if we had that intel?

First, you have to know where they are. A bunch of barrels or shells are easy to hide. Second, bombing them wouldn't so much incinerate them as blow them apart and release their contents. The factory especially could be in a populated area.

Killing people all day long is fine.... but nope, bring in the chemical weapons.... and oh shiat!

It's the consistency of the whole matter that bothers me.

"Weapons of Mass Destruction" is an appropriate term. You can wipe out whole towns full of people at once - scour a whole area clean of people - with little warning and no way for the people to take cover. Regular artillery just doesn't compare. Dump the bodies in a pit, and your own people can move right in to the still-intact buildings.

The US wisely got rid of its chemical and biological weapons, and let others know its policy: A chemical weapon equals a biological weapon equals a nuclear weapon. Any attack on the chemical/biological attack on the US would be responded to with nukes.

The use of WMDs is a good "Do Not Cross No Matter The Circumstances" line for the world's wars that most can agree on.

All those rules go right out the window in a real war against comparable enemies.

The US got rid of it's chemical and biological weapons? Sure.................................................... of course I have no evidence, but just saying.

I'm not saying that intervening in Syria isn't a horrible idea, I just have my reservations. It's also something we SHOULD NOT rush into.