The Brits voted down action on Syria.

 

No Congressional authority, no U.N., no NATO, and now not even our closest ally.

 

Wonder if the Nobel Peace Award is boxed up to ship back yet.

I find this Syria quandary quite fascinating in all honesty. There are so many different factors at play in regards to our potential response.

 

1) What are our goals?

Are we looking regime change? Do we want to just strike at military targets? If we strike military targets we would by default be helping the opposition, however would that take out the potential of more chemical attacks? Lobbing a few cruise missiles and launching a couple airstrikes might take care of the political egos of those who have been speaking against the use of chemical weapons, but really what kind of true impact would it be in the grand scheme of things? If we did a "no-fly zone" it wouldn't eliminate the potential for more attacks since gas can easily be deployed via artillery as well as via air drops.

 

 

2) Are we supporting anyone?

The opposition to Assad's regime varies from people who would like a secular society with open democracy to the folks that mountain ref talks about every time the word "Muslim" is mentioned. Is any one group in this fractious environment capable of implementing a stable govenmental setup that wouldn't just lead to a breeding ground for more trouble in the region for just about every country involved? I am not just saying Israel here either. Jordan, Iraq, Turkey even Iran and Egypt would all have to deal with potential fallout from this.

 

 

3) Is the fall of Assad's regime beneficial to us?

Do we want yet another unstable country in the region? The fact of the matter is that many of the moderate types that would be in opposition to the Assad regime that the west would probably rather see take over won't be nearly as organized as the groups that have long been opposing the government in an almost insurgent like manner. Meaning when the time would come for elections, how would they turn out? Not likely to our benefit.

 

 

 

4) Should chemical weapons even be placed in the WMD category?

I can't even begin to pretend that chemical and nerve agents are pleasant weapons and frankly the thought of their use is somewhat unpleasant to me in most situations. That being said, should we really put them in the same category as nuclear and other radiological weapons? Nuclear weapons have long lasting effects on the environment, whereas most chemical agents are ineffective after only a few hours. A few can persist in the environment for weeks, but that doesn’t really put it in nearly the same category as nuclear weaponry. Also, how is it that we didn’t do anything about Saddam’s chemical weapons use during his war with Iran? What about the fact that using tear gas technically, in the international definition, constitutes chemical warfare? In that case there are a number of times we have violated that in our own borders within the last 50 years. What about Vietnamese usage of phosgene against Cambodian fighters in the 80s? In all honesty, incendiary weapons cause more damage than chemical and biological agents. Through the course of the most gas usage in warfare(WWI) only 85,000 were killed by the use of chemical weapons. I know that saying “only” 85,000 is a bit callous but let’s look at some other numbers regarding weapons usage throughout the 20^th century. Incendiary weapons used in WWII resulted in 500,000 or so Japanese casualties alone, not even taking into account the number of deaths in the firestorms in Dresden and Wurzburg caused by incendiary bombing. Estimates indicate that anywhere from 50-70% of deaths in combat in WWII were due to artillery, again a much higher number than gas in WWI. In fact accidental friendly fire with artillery killed 75,000 French soldiers in WWI alone. Even the WMD in the truest sense, nuclear weapons, in their only use in combat on 2 occasions have at the highest estimates 246,000 killed. That number is still less than half of the Japanese deaths alone from incendiary bombing. By these standards incendiary weaponry should fit the bill more than anything(before anyone says anything I am aware that most countries outside of the US, Russia and a few others have signed treaties banning their use as well). Why do I bring up all these details? Chemical weapons, in my estimation are really not deserving of the “red line” that was publicly announced. Nuclear weapons? You better believe it as they have more global ramifications, chemical weapons? Not so much in my mind.

 

5) What of the international situation?

China and Russia already are against any involvement on our part and while I doubt things would spiral out of control with the world’s greater powers there are some things we should probably take into account. China is one of our biggest trading partners and they know that conflict of a military nature is inherently bad for business and they would rather we spend money on their products than on bombing Syrian targets. The only solid support the U.S. would have is from Turkey it seems. Without U.N. backing we would be wading into a situation where we are by ourselves in an area that is about as stable as a house made of toothpicks(bad analogy as a number of the countries around Syria, outside of Lebanon are rather stable) that could collapse into a cesspool of warring factions unable to restore any semblance of order without considerable U.S. involvement. Not a desirable outcome. On top of that we would have heightened tension with Russia. Not that I am going to make any Cold War comparisons, but I think the two big boys butting heads over one little country is not worth the trouble at this point. This started on its own and it needs to end on its own. This not to mention Iran that has already threatened the Straight of Hormuz with closure to international shipping. Not that our navy can't take them, but this would just further bog us down and do nothing to help the average Iranian's perception of the U.S. if we're targeting their people. I would rather stay away there.

 

 

 

My assessment at this point. As such I really would not be in favor of involvement as it unfortunately does not directly concern us.

IMO if Turkey doesn't like Assaad let them go take him out, but US needs to stay out of this mess.

Frankly, I think self-determination is better than oppression, even if oppression provides short-term stability. It's fostered radicalism and stifled education and experience with pluralism. The transitions toward self-determination and hopefully eventual democracy have been messy, violent, and uncomfortable, but I think it is a better system in the end.

Without a doubt democracy is a better system. But most the middle east doesn't know how to handle it as proven in Egypt. Egypt was one of the more advanced society's in the area and now its a shell of itself. I honestly believe to large of population over there is fueled by the hatred of the West. A much larger population than some want to admit. America should leave in power those leaders who are in the best interest of our nation first and fore most. If nations over there can't elect leaders in our best interest then quit helping them elect future enimeies .

The Syria 'crisis' seems to have done its job - anyone seen much on NSA, IRS, Benghazi in the news in the last 2 weeks?

The Brits voted down action on Syria.

 

No Congressional authority, no U.N., no NATO, and now not even our closest ally.

 

Wonder if the Nobel Peace Award is boxed up to ship back yet.

 

OK, really fascinating, tangentially related fact of the day: the last time a sitting British prime minister was denied a war powers motion by the House of Commons was in 1782... when the Commons refused to continue paying for the crown to go on fighting the restless Americans warring for independence.

 

For what it's worth, despite the British voting against military action, French President Francois Hollande has committed France to join the U.S. in any such intervention in Syria.

The Syria 'crisis' seems to have done its job - anyone seen much on NSA, IRS, Benghazi in the news in the last 2 weeks?

 

Don't put that in quotes like it's not news and not a crisis. A BBC News crew this morning caught a government air force plane dropping some sort of incendiary bomb onto a school playground. 10 dead. Another 40 or so students with burns all over their bodies that appear to have been caused by napalm.

 

You can say a lot of things about whether or not the United States should intervene, but let's not pretend like there's some sort of wag the dog situation happening here. It's real news and it's a real crisis.

Don't put that in quotes like it's not news and not a crisis. A BBC News crew this morning caught a government air force plane dropping some sort of incendiary bomb onto a school playground. 10 dead. Another 40 or so students with burns all over their bodies that appear to have been caused by napalm.

 

You can say a lot of things about whether or not the United States should intervene, but let's not pretend like there's some sort of wag the dog situation happening here. It's real news and it's a real crisis.

 

'Crisis' only from the view point of the US and a reckless 'line in the sand'. Its a real war with real deaths - sadly.

OK, really fascinating, tangentially related fact of the day: the last time a sitting British prime minister was denied a war powers motion by the House of Commons was in 1782... when the Commons refused to continue paying for the crown to go on fighting the restless Americans warring for independence.

 

For what it's worth, despite the British voting against military action, French President Francois Hollande has committed France to join the U.S. in any such intervention in Syria.

 

The same France that refused to make good on granting a little country in SE Asia its independence after WWII and lead to an elongated war for us? It probably a little concerning that France is supporting this.

The same France that refused to make good on granting a little country in SE Asia its independence after WWII and lead to an elongated war for us? It probably a little concerning that France is supporting this.

 

Well it and the UK have swapped places from their position on Iraq so the whole thing is puzzling. In the end, France wouldn't be involved if it didn't mean something for France... I'm unsure of what that is.

The Brits voted down action on Syria.

 

No Congressional authority, no U.N., no NATO, and now not even our closest ally.

 

Wonder if the Nobel Peace Award is boxed up to ship back yet.

 

The president has had a hard time building consensus on Syria, not only with Arab nations, but now Britian. If you can't get Britian to join in, you have no chance at a coalition.

 

And there's no way you can involve Israel.

Kerry beating the war drums hard right now. Claims rockets only came from government facilities.

 

But reports are flying that this was rebel false flag attack.

 

Don't Show Obama This Report About Who Really Is Behind The Syrian Chemical Attacks | Zero Hedge

4 page report from US Government:

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2013/08-2/USGassessmentonSyria08302013.pdf

 

"We have identified one hundred videos attributed to the attack, many of which show large numbers of bodies exhibiting physical signs consistent with, but not unique to, nerve agent exposure.

 

...

 

At least 12 locations are portrayed in the publicly available videos, and a sampling of those videos confirmed that some were shot at the general times and locations described in the footage.

 

We assess the Syrian opposition does not have the capability to fabricate all of the videos, physical symptoms verified by medical personnel and NGOs, and other information associated with this chemical attack."

 

Not sure if they are on youtube yet...

And now for something completely (and very recently) written by John Cleese.

 

 

ALERTS TO THREATS

IN 2013 EUROPE

 

From JOHN CLEESE

 

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

 

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

 

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

 

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

 

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

 

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..

 

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

 

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

 

Regards,

John Cleese

British writer, actor, and tall person

 

And as a final thought - Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.

 

Life is too short...

And now for something completely (and very recently) written by John Cleese.

 

ALERTS TO THREATS

IN 2013 EUROPE

 

From JOHN CLEESE

 

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Syria and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

 

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.

 

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

 

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

 

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbour" and "Lose."

 

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels ..

 

The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

 

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the last final escalation level.

 

Regards,

John Cleese

British writer, actor, and tall person

 

And as a final thought - Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.

 

Life is too short...

 

Absolutely brilliant! :lol: Thanks for posting!