Posted                       

quote:

---

"Like one who grabs a dog by the ears
is one who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own." Prov 26: 17

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
I just wonder how throwing rockets and missiles at a problem changes anything.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Sometimes I'm glad not to be a politician.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

1. Conflicts that only have two sides such as Iraq v Kuwait (acknowledging your caveat). In this case, it's a matter of backing the oppressed over the oppressor.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why not just do nothing at the moment?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by lowlands_boy:

1. Conflicts that only have two sides such as Iraq v Kuwait (acknowledging your caveat). In this case, it's a matter of backing the oppressed over the oppressor.

---

If only life were so simple. Sometimes there is clearly a "good" side and a "bad" side. Sometimes the two sides are just different kinds of oppressors, and sometimes neither one really is.

Who is the "oppressor" in Kashmir? In Egypt, the Mubarak regime was bad, but are the Muslim Brotherhood the good guys? There's a similar dynamic in Syria - the Assad regime is unquestionably foul, but the opposition aren't exactly champions of liberty either.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by betjemaniac:
Sometimes I'm glad not to be a politician.

---

Well put.

I don't like the idea of a thugish government shooting chemical weapons at civilians. I also don't know that I trust the opposition not to be Al Qaida.

Why not just do nothing at the moment? I mean, what are the vital interests of the US/UK and would they be served by attacking or by refraining from the attack?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

But didn't assad know all along that the West would intervene if he used chems ? Either he's running out of conventional ways of dealing out death to his own citizens , or more likely someone ,(and not necessarily assad), has baited a trap for the West to walk into.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Proverbs 26:17 (KJV)
He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Of course, it's possible that a rogue rebel unit fired this, but hopefully Western intelligence will check this to buggery. Well, OK, 'intelligence' in quotes. ...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure that you can assume either total rationality by the Syrian leadership, or even more importantly, a unified command. There may be some pretty wild guys roaming around Syria now, fighting for Assad, but doing their own thing. Both sides may be fragmenting, as often happens in civil war.

---

quote:

---

Of course, it's possible that a rogue rebel unit fired this, but hopefully Western intelligence will check this to buggery.

---

quote:

---

Well, OK, 'intelligence' in quotes.

---

Exactly - if it wasn't so troubling you'd have to . It all sounds like WMDs, 45 minutes, dodgy dossiers all over again...

--------------------
A not particularly-alt-worshippy, fairly mainstream, mildly evangelical, vaguely post-modern-ish Baptist

Posted                       

quote:

---

Fletcher Christian I agree with you on lobbing bombs, but am not so sure there's much similarity with the Easter Rising....

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rolyn:

But didn't assad know all along that the West would intervene if he used chems ? Either he's running out of conventional ways of dealing out death to his own citizens , or more likely someone ,(and not necessarily assad), has baited a trap for the West to walk into.

---

This is what I don't understand - surely now was a terrible time* for Assad to use chemical weapons; it really doesn't make sense for him to have used them knowing it would likely provoke western intervention against him (unless he's completely loco...).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Heavenly Anarchist:
I read recently that Assad's brother is in charge of the military and is particularly brutal, ordering the beheading of civilians.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why not just do nothing at the moment?

---

The most compelling reason I can see to do something is that doing nothing is effectively affording a free pass to anyone who chooses to use weapons outlawed by international conventions.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Rather than the US, UK, France et al getting together to bomb Assad into decency (VERY likely, not) they should call Putin's bluff and give the following reasons:

1. If the regime were responsible for the chemical attack(s) then they are far more likely to be listened to than we are.

2. If it was not the regime then they, being perceived as friends by the regime, will be most likely to ensure that the regime's response is reasonable.

3. Putin is most likely to be able to persuade the regime to allow in specialist investigative teams.

No, not what we all want to hear when we see newsreel of refugee children and dying civilians but I'd have thought we'd learned by now that, however well-meaning, we aren't welcome in the middle east.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by New Yorker:
Why not just do nothing at the moment?

---

The most compelling reason I can see to do something is that doing nothing is effectively affording a free pass to anyone who chooses to use weapons outlawed by international conventions.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by L'organist:
Rather than the US, UK, France et al getting together to bomb Assad into decency (VERY likely, not) they should call Putin's bluff and give the following reasons:

1. If the regime were responsible for the chemical attack(s) then they are far more likely to be listened to than we are.

2. If it was not the regime then they, being perceived as friends by the regime, will be most likely to ensure that the regime's response is reasonable.

3. Putin is most likely to be able to persuade the regime to allow in specialist investigative teams.

No, not what we all want to hear when we see newsreel of refugee children and dying civilians but I'd have thought we'd learned by now that, however well-meaning, we aren't welcome in the middle east.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
I think there’s a debate to be had over whether military intervention ever helps a situation or just makes the violence worse.

If two boys are fighting in the playground, having a teacher come to break them up might work. Having a teacher come to join in the fight, and to attack one boy in support of the other, would be considered criminal and would get the teacher fired for abusing his position of power.

Is military intervention in any situation an abuse of the power status of the intervener?

What other methods of conflict resolution could be used instead?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Fletcher Christian I agree with you on lobbing bombs, but am not so sure there's much similarity with the Easter Rising....

---

Actually, I think there is. Syria is a country in political meltdown with the party in power seemingly using force inappropriately against another force that seemingly strikes randomly for small victories. It's muddled mess, but history is littered with muddled messes. Nobody felt the need to lob bombs into Indonesia in '92 when the country went into political meltdown. Nobody is suggesting that we lob bombs into Egypt as a cure to lead to political stability. What makes Syria the focus of attention now? If it really is the use of chemical weapons, what exactly is the difference between killing a few hundred people with a scud missile or killing them with a chemical bomb (apart from the question of time)?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

It depends on how much they are thinking about Milosevic, since I would think that military intelligence see that as a success. Milosevic was brought to the negotiation table via bombing.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

It depends on how much they are thinking about Milosevic, since I would think that military intelligence see that as a success. Milosevic was brought to the negotiation table via bombing.

---

Except that what actually happened is that a war of attrition was triggered where Milosevic gradually tapered up his attacks to the point that the planners were worried about running out of cruise missiles.

It was Russian action that finally forced him to the negotiation table.

I think politicians are addicted to the idea of neat surgical strikes that act as the diplomatic equivalent of a precise ju-jitsu move to coerce ones opponent to behave in an 'acceptable manner'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Imagine it as Assad calling the west's bluff - you said you'd do something, not so easy is it ?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mere Nick:
There are friends, friends of my kids, young folks at church, kids of friends, who have all seen duty in Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, Lebanon, and the like. I can't think of anything in Syria that is worth their lives being on the line.

---

There are human beings in Syria . The Western public is constantly duped into believing military action is carried out for humanitarian reasons. I'm often sceptical that this is the prime mover.

We all wish we had the solution to the woes of the Middle East . Fact is , it's oil-rich and for a long time all the major powers have constantly plied it with arms.
Support dictators and you have oppression of peoples and the threat of war . Take dictators out and you open the gate to a myriad of militia, each with a twisted agenda that only ever seems to manifest itself in bloodshed .

Gordian Knot hardly comes close . < Apologies for the bleak assessment >

For those involved.

--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk:
We must do something...

This is something...

We must do this.

A logical fallacy in action. The question is not between doing something or doing nothing. A world leader or a nation's media expressing disapproval is something. It has an effect, though less dramatic than other somethings.

The question about military intervention is the tricky conundrum of doing harm in order to prevent harm. And with both the harm we plan to cause and the harm we plan to prevent being impossible to fully predict.

We must weigh the harm we will likely cause by military intervention, and it would be significant and potentially catastrophic harm, against the harm of not intervening militarily. What is the accepted price we are willing to pay to prevent further chemical attacks?

Military intervention will cause the deaths of innocent Syrian civilians, it will escalate the situation and destabilise the state further than ever. It will destroy homes, and ruin lives. It will cost a great deal of money we cannot afford, expend valuable military resources that perhaps should be better reserved in order to protect us from future attacks. It will cost the lives of likely many tens of British servicemen and women. It will cause political unrest and instability among the region and create significant bad feeling among people who don't want us there. It may even cause the rise and power grab of a dictatorship far worse than Assad, or turn it into a failed state and a terrorist-den. The consequences of removing Assad may be worse in the long-term for the region and for us than leaving him in power.

This is a high price to pay. What are we hoping to achieve by intervening in this civil war to support one side against the other? To prevent further chemical attacks, both in Syria and abroad? Is this principle worth the cost? Are chemical attacks the line we want to draw, that a state can do anything in war or civil repression, but once it releases chemical weapons we will invade. What makes chemical weapons worse than any other atrocity we have tolerated, ignored, and in some cases supported up to now around the world?

---

quote:

---

But this is the Srebrenica complex, isn't it? With a side-helping of Milosevic. Western leaders are aware of the charge that they did nothing, over various atrocities, Rwanda as well. So they want to demonstrate that they are doing something, as a kind of self-exculpation.

---