Atom Kraft:
1. What's the difference between killing a thousand civvies with guns and shells, and killing a thousand civvies with chemicals? As far as I can tell, there's no difference. We don't give a flying f*ck when he kills 10,000 with guns- but if he kills a few hundred by gassing them- we get
all outraged and something must be done.
Point well made. That said, we do give a hoot about the other killings, otherwise the support to rebels would not happen.
Some points later made, various participants.
1. No amount of good tactics can compensate for second-rate strategy.
2. This is Syrians, killing other Syrians, in Syria. What exactly has
it got to do with the UK?
3. How on earth can you have a near air-tight circumstantial case? It's like being a little bit pregnant!
4. The only people getting worked up about this are the US, UK and Fr - all
countries with centre / centre left administrations and a generally Liberal outlook on life, who are keen to send other people to war when their dinner table conversations get a bit too close for comfort and they need to feel as though they are doing something.
If Syria is such a problem, why are the Arab states not squaring up to Assad? Why are they not front and centre, after all, this is in their own back yard, not ours. They are the ones with the most to lose when this all goes horribly wrong.
I asked the same question in the early 90's about the European nations, and Bosnia.
Or alternatively, just what do the Arab states know or understand that we seemingly don't?
That they do OK at defending their own homelands, but they really suck these days at fighting outside of their own borders. The days of the spread of Islam by the sword are long gone. Why? Their soldiers / conscripts are more cynical than you or I.
Atom Kraft
1. What do we hope to achieve by our action?
2. When we've done it, will we and the Syrians be better or worse
off?
3. What are the chances that our intervention will make things worse or
better, in the long term?
4. If we go in, how will we leave?
All, as I'm sure you appreciate, the 'nuts and bolts' of any military operation.
FWIW, while I concur with your points, point 3 doesn't fit lobbing missiles to make a statement. Your missiles go in, blow stuff up, and there is no group of folks who need to leave.
Robert Cooper
Our concern should be preventing those chemical weapons from falling into hands of Hezbollah, that should be guiding our action, not expressing moral outrage and widening the conflict.
Aye.
Today (Tuesday) the White House began to lay out a public justification for a possible bombing of Syria, saying the nation’s use of chemical weapons is a threat to U.S. interests — a scenario that would allow Obama to order military strikes against Syria without requiring authorization from Congress or the United Nations.
I suppose that once again, the War Powers Act comes in handy for a sitting president. Not the first, won't be the last.
I don’t quite see what the threat to our interests is, but I guess he does.
I don't see it either.
aviate 1138
The UN is as effective as a chocolate fireguard
Well said.
Eclectic:
Your suggestion is that America want Iran to become involved as a pretext for destroying their nuclear ambitions. In this case, hitting Syria is bait to get Iran to do something they wouldn't normally do.
I don't think the Ayatollahs and RG leadership got to where they are today by being idiots. I don't care for them, but that doesn't make them stupid.