What I'm trying to understand is this. We have all been watching from the sidelines while the civil war in Syria has been murdering and mass killing each other in horrific ways, what makes the sudden use of chemicals more horrific?

The US says, "it's only about the use of chemicals". Is it really?

Why a war?

If Assad is truly the evil monster, and found to be so by the UN, why not whack him with one of those precision drones? Collateral victims would probably include a few henchmen. 

Start an air assault and it's ordinary everyday people who get hurt, killed, mutilated and maimed… as well as being gassed. Going in with ground troops (no-one seems to want to risk that yet) and it would all be even worse.

I good first step towards peace would be to shut down a few arms manufacturers and suppliers — especially any who distribute small arms, mines and anti-personnel devices … the kinds of weaponry that kill thousands of innocent people every year.

Who needs another Iraq? Another Afghanistan? Another Vietnam? Another Somalia?  … forget it; some folks with too much power are clearly having a ball. 

Hi Waterfall,

My understanding is that the intended involvement will be similar to that of the involvment in Libya.  The US will establish air superiority that takes away the strategic advantage of Syrias airforce and launch strikes at what it believes to be targets directly connected to the chemical weapons.

Or so they say.

If the UN was truly a world peace outfit then they wouldn't allow the US and Russia to us the UN to play their political games.  That said, the UN has conventions in place that forbid the use of certain weapons.  If the UN moved faster when those abuses were reported (and in theory they could if the US and Russia would actually committ to full support of UN conventions and not half-hearted only when convenient support) then we wouldn't be left wondering if we could convince the US or Russia to play world police.

If innocent civilians are threatened by their own government then neighbours should act.  Just as if I know my neighbour is beating his wife or kid I should not hop in the car and run errands out of town until he is done.  Of course I cannot take any action I feel like.  The US doesn't see itself limited as neighbour in the same way I know myself to be limited as neighbour.

So, whether it is justifiable for them to involve themselves or not it will probably not pay them any dividends.

In that part of the world it is fashionable to blame the Americans for everything.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Mike,I agree, what's the rush to go to war? The US is using that old "pre emptive tactic" of going in to stop chemical production (Syria has around 50 sites close to urban areas) because it might be used on the US.  Any strikes to destroy these sites would most likely cause civilain injuries.

So far there is no evidence of chemicals being used, but the US wants to go ahead anyway, dispite lack of support from other nations.

Same "Iraq" formula, does the US really think it's people are going to fall for this again?

A little diplomacy PLEASE!

Revjohn, this "red line" that nations shouldn't cross mentions chemical weapons not being used, but really what's the difference in someone asking "do you want long sleeves or short sleeves?" (referring to chopping off ones hands or whole arms). Or butchering children with machetes? Or bombing civileans to shreds? I wonder why we are more upset with people dying with foam coming out of their mouths instead of blood?

Could it be the strategic positioning of Syria towards Iran? Or something other than what they're letting on?

In some ways it seems inevitable when you have a country that wants to see "democracy" in every country on earth, while embracing being a tyrant to enforce it. I even find myself questioning their motives.

Hi waterfall,

The problem with chemical weapons is that they cannot distinguish between military and civilian targets. (which is the problem with WMD's).  With other types of weapons "collateral damage" is accidental and not intentional (in theory at any rate).

Claims that Syria is firing on civilians is difficult to make in a civil war scenario when standard weapons are used.  As soon as WMD's enter into the picture it is taken as given that there is no concern given to the reality of "collateral damage."

It is the targetting method which is causing the concern.  Civilian blood is an issue, we iparticularly in the West feel better when it is "accidental" rather than deliberate and as chemical weapons requires the wind to be the chief delivery agent it could go anywhere and actually not hit the intended target.

As evidenced by events in Rwanda the rest of the world only cares when the flow of blood might interfere with regular commerce.

Who really knows.  That Syria is friendly with Russia is probably enough concern for the US to want to get involved.  I mean if they support the rebels and the rebels for the new government then it should be friendly towards the US and not so friendly to the Russians.

Should that happen the US will not likely be too concerned if the new government employs chemical weapons.   So long as it stays friendly its own atrocities will be overlooked.  Regrettably that seems to be a key feature of American Foreign Policy.  Friends and Allies can get away with murder and they will agree to ally themselves with murderers if it means they can topple a government that is not friendly.

Who armed the Taliban in Afghanistan so it could fight the Russians?

See how well that worked out for the Americans.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Dervla Murphy (in her 2002 book 'Through the Embers of Chaos') detailed the dreadful impact of NATO bombings of Serbia. An enormous impact was from destroyed petrocbemical facilities which poisoned rivers, air and essental services: it ran far deeper than the immediate impact of missile explosions and hurt ardinary, good people along with some of the monsters.

Broken infrastructure meant job losses and hunger, community breakdown… mental illness and bitterness.

I recommend her book (all her books actually: she's a brilliant travel writer — a travel writer with soul, courage and compassion)…

From a review of 'Through the Embers of Chaos':

"The international community is the target for much of Murphy's righteous ire. She believes Nato's undeclared war on Serbia was a criminal act by a "rogue superpower", a punishment of the population for the transgressions of Milosevic - a leader who, she recalls correctly, the west once believed was "a man we can do business with". She rages at uncaring aid workers engaged in pointless, fund-wasting projects. She is disgusted that the arms industry profits both from selling land mines and clearing them, and at the cynicism of those who use depleted uranium and cluster bombs, knowing civilians will suffer.

"She concludes that Nato and the arms industry combine in an amoral politico-military union with vested interests in power and profits rather than peace and justice: 'Clearly the Rich World's main concern is the extension not of democracy but of the Free Market. A façade of 'democracy' satisfies, if behind it corporations may safely wheel and deal.'

"The relentless barrage of facts, acronyms and grim vignettes can become rather wearing, but the likeable Murphy manages to navigate the reader through them with less confusion than could be expected. Although Murphy is repeatedly subjected to the rants of nationalist headbangers who would willingly fight again, she encounters many others who contradict the established clichés.

"As events in Afghanistan demonstrate, a war's end is only the beginning of a long, often dangerous struggle to re-establish normality. In its personal, humane, angry way, Through the Embers shows just how rocky that road can be."

---

Syria would be no different, as Libyans are discovering. And Egypt's agonies won't be solved by foreign military intervention either. 

Mike, that woman has some very interesting points. It's unfortunate that people in general cant be effective against the powers we have put into office. We have too few choices when it come to elections and even those who run are chosen from within the "party".

Inanna, that's an interesting video, but he seems to think that diplomacy and peaceful resolution are lost on our "enemies", why do you think that is?

That guy is obnoxious, Inanna. Why post videos so often? Why not put your own views in the limelight. You've better inputs to offer than that tiresome, egocentric  crank.

I agree, he seemed constipated right from the onset.

personally, i don't get that read from the video

for me, it's a 'bird's eye view' of the issue with Syria

not just one 'cause' or issue, but a whole bunch of them, together :3

here's a previous one from him

EDIT:  waterfall, Howard Bloom is quite approachable -- why don't you start up a conversation with him?

Another question: When is it legal to attack another nation without UN approval? Congress approval? Is Obama crossing a "red line"?

Also I thought the US was in debt up to their ying yang. How can they afford another war that probably won't stop?

It's NOT "legal" without UN sanctioning, but the U.S. wields abslute power because itd "defence" spend is about the same as the rest of the World put together. It demonstrates that naked power controls the playing field. The U.S. is just not all that good at the controls.

How do they afford it all? They borrow… and borrow… and borrow… to a point where calling them to task would really implode your own economy. It's one of the deep idiocies of "The Economy" where are hearts truly lie.

After the debacle of Iraq, I suspect most people don't believe Obama when he says he as proof the regime used the poison gas.  Most of the world is going to pay a price for the eagerness of the US, Russia and Brittain in particular to meddle with the politics of other countries.  I went to the exhibition on the work of the Agha Khan IV of the Ismaeli Muslims last evening.  Diuring the section lifting up educational and community development projects of the Agha Khan Foundation, I thought of how 1/10 of the money spent by the US on military activity could have been directed to providing education, health care and community development projects in Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and many other countries.  That 1/10 I believe would have provide more security for the US than it achieved using military support of dictatorships.  I hope sanity emerges on the international scene and that Obama backs down from the use of military action in Syria.

I wonder how many people in the US are thinking like Sarah Palin?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/31/sarah-palin-syria_n_3848819.html

Dramatis personae for the Syrian conflict

(soverign entities...acting in their world...thermobaric weapons allegedly were used? *shudder*

More wacky crazy human shenanigans:  "Al Qaeda calls on egypt, syria to renounce peace & 'join jihad,' slams muslim brotherhood"

(man, it sucks being sucked into ancient hatreds...or does it blow?)

(will we ever be free from the horrors of history?)

Hi waterfall,

I'm kind of hoping her thinking is unique.

The whole "let Allah sort it out" is bringing up bad vibes for me.

It sounds like the Islamic conclusion to the horrid Christian declaration, "KIll them all and let God sort it out."

Grace and peace to you.

John

Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

Full article:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-c...

That's interesting Gecko.

It's too bad the US doesn't focus more on developing technologies that make us less dependent on oil for almost everything. They have a huge "war budget", imagine if it was spent on supporting goals through research to free us from polluting our planet with this black oil?

I also wonder what a middle east democracy would look like, rather than what the americans and others think it should look like.

See:

The US has no qualms with chemicals weapons. It simply matters to them which chemical it is, who they are used on and when. They had no qualms about napalm. They also blamed "insurgents" for using white phosphorus and called it "reprehensible" and that it should be noted by the human rights community. They said that about "them", the "insurgents". They said it when we heard the story of Razia and her skin grafts. Maj, Jenny Willis, spokesperson for the US said it would cause, "unneccessary suffering" as defined in the laws of warfare. Except, they don't believe any of that to be true. Because, then, then the good ol' US of A admitted doing the "reprehensible" and also using white phosporus on people. The difference, this time, they didn't call it "reprehensible" and they did not want human rights groups talking about it and they don't think it goes against the laws of warfare. They simply say  something like, "it ain't on no list of banned chemicals and them buggers had it comin"

...what a horrible monster she is...

Its become a real dilemma. Sit back and watch or get involved. Part of the world just sat back and did nothing during the holocaust until it became personal. More recently the civil war in Croatia and Serbia. What IYO should Obama do? Get involved or not? In what other way could the world prevent more civilian deaths?

Would Obama look weak if he chose a different method of intervention after positioning warships to strike? Shades of the Cuban missile crisis?

There appears to have been some possibly credible claims that the 'rebels' in Syria accidentally set off chemical weapons, not understanding what they were. This news was only available briefly and seems to have disappeared, except for some sort of strange sources.

I hadnt heard that. Interesting. Chemicals are clearly labelled though. Is that believable? Are they saying they just didnt know what chemical it was?

I think that for almost any circumstance where one wants to go to war OR one wants to call for action, one can invoke the shoah. It is evocative and provacative. I might also say that it pisses me off... millions of people, largely who died for their beliefs- which largely were made up of a belief in nonviolence and that all people belong to God- did not die horrible deaths to to be trotted out and invoked each time someone want to call for war or more killing. By the same token, my step-dad served in the "conflict" that was a war in Vietnam and it gets trotted out each and every time someone wsnrs to caution about war. Why can't we say what we believe without citing a whole pile of dead bodies? Perhaps, because on both sides of the issue evoking old dead bodies distracts from new dead bodies. Perhaps that we care about position and not people....

But SG shouldnt we recall how we may have handled things otherwise or remember if weve ever got it right?

Can we not look back on history to help us create a better strategy?

SG, invoke the shoah? Can you explain please?

In my sometimes less than humble opinion, we should not dance on other people's graves while doing our saber rattling. Speaking of leaders to abusing their citizens and running amuck and death is easily done without mentioning the Shoah (The Holocaust) or Hitler. We tend to invoke that for sensationalistic value or because we have little else. It is evocative and provacative. It seeks to end conversation and win the point. Who wants to be seen defending the Shoah or letting another Holocaust happen? It shuts down discussion. It does not engage wise decison making, it hinders it IMO. It is something every single nation on the face of this planet could say of another government should they wish to. It can be policies limiting movement, cracking down on citizens, enacting laws, limiting freedom, creating or maintaining segregation, creating laws that target certain groups... The list is endless. I mean people could use it about Russia and LGBTQ laws. They could use it about the US and the Patriot Act. We can haul it out every time we think something needs stopped. We most often do. I admit that there is pain associated with it for me, it is personal and not merely an event to caution people about..Yet, we do it. It is Godwin's law. There are those who do not think glibly of the Holocaust. They do not compare each passing event to the Shoah and every leader to Hitler. Now, for what it means to a "someone like me", imagine that someone's child is being cautioned to stay on this side of the sidewalk because the reality is that the road can indeed be dangerous. Would it be ok to do so by bringing up the neighbour's family who was slaughtered by a out of control vehicle while standing at the bus stop? How would you expect the family member to feel hearing it done repeatedly eve time somone wanted to talk about the danger? Hope that helps someone today to understand just a bit.

The world should not band together and make war against Syria.

Here's an article of interest in the Van. Sun.

Can it really be true that some  Christians are happy about what is happening in Syria ?

I don't think Obama should take any action and I sure hope he doesn't.

 
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2013/09/06/destruction-of-syria-welcomed-by-christian-fundamentalists/

..the X Zone radio program with Rob McConnell on the Syrian problem.

...an astrological perspective...

...a psychic perspective...

...a scholarly perspective...

...a problem of evil...

No. Question is, what do they do? What will stop the civil war/ tyranny? People are dying- 120,000 in 2 years, including children. That's horrifying. There's a refugee crisis. The violent atrocities have to stop. Regardless of who's doing it and it looks like one side is no better than the other. Diplomatic efforts should have been pressed for harder a long time ago. I believe they must find a diplomatic solution or else it could be a long war with no 'winners'. I'm with the pope on this.

I agree with you Kimmio. What did Francis say?

Here is another view from the left  http://www.nationalmemo.com/syria-and-the-return-of-dissent/2/

I have only quickly perused the comments so far and generally concur with what is being expressed.
A few points that I feel are important:

Why does everyone believe the news? I don't for a minute buy that there are clear heroes and villains here. I do buy that atrocities have been committed by both the Assad regime AND the rebels - and I don't believe it when the US states confidently who is behind the chemical attack(s).
I am cynical enough to understand this is all BS. Another False Flag Scam.

Modern warfare is Corporate-driven. Powerful lobbies are are doing the happy dance. $$$$ in contracts and services.

The Keystone XL will be fast tracked. Way to move it forward...

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/09/08/322693/us-after-provocation-to-b...

note who is press tv 

About PressTV

Press TV takes revolutionary steps as the first Iranian international news network, broadcasting in English on a round-the-clock basis.

Our global Tehran-based headquarters is staffed with outstanding Iranian and foreign media professionals.

Press TV is extensively networked with bureaus located in the world's most strategic cities.

Thanks Kimmio. Well then, I guess I agree with Francis as well.

Here are his words-

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3887849

Hi Kimmio

Here's the 4 hr. video  of the prayer vigil.

Its wonderful....let us all pray together.

Amen.

Prayer is the last thing this conflict needs more of. Both sides are praying for victory every day. The Christians in Syria mostly support Assad and the Alawites, and fear what will happen if the mostly Sunni opposition is successful. They dare not give up because that will probably result in their deaths at the hands of the Sunni majority.

I don't know if chemical weapons were used on the Syrian people. I do know the American government has gotten such accusations hopelessly wrong before, or outright lied - they have no credibility. Also, what's the difference between shooting your citizens and gassing them? Why isn't shooting your citizens as bad?

Once again, it's a giant clusterfark in the middle east. Once again, we see sectarian (religious) groups squaring off. Once again, religion isn't helping, so stop it with the stupid prayer requests. Prayer helped them get to this point in the first place.