Syria

[Awol]

 

No matter how this plays out, Obama has been exposed as totally inept even in doing the wrong thing. He showed his hand 10 days ago, but had to backtrack. Now every stockpile of chemical weapons Assad has has surely been moved, rendering whatever strike plan Obama had useless now. Well done, Barack. Masterful.

 

Yep, almost as well played as Cameron, ie not very.  So that's France on their own now then.  France.

 

They've already said they'll only go as part of a coalition so no chance of the Frogs steaming into Assad on their own.

 

The incredible thing is that an off the cuff, unguarded remark by Kerry at a press conference was then jumped on by the Russians as a means to disrupt US planning, and now Obama has actually started running with it.

 

If nothing else it tells you that the US has no actual policy on Syria and are literally making it up as they go along. Given that this is one of the most dangerous situations in foreign policy terms since the end of the cold war (if not the most dangerous), that's an illuminating and incredibly worrying revelation.

[LondonLax]

Everyone has been saying the US is in an impossible position on this from the start and now people are getting on their backs because they haven't sorted it out yet.

[Awol]

Everyone has been saying the US is in an impossible position on this from the start and now people are getting on their backs because they haven't sorted it out yet.

Not me, they should act in whatever way bests supports their own interests. My point was that team Obama don't see to know what they actually want to achieve and are therefore almost entirely reactive. Not a problem if you are Montenegro, more so if you are the leader of the free world.

[blandy]

They [the U.S.] should act in whatever way bests supports their own interests. ....

 Not in my view. That's half the problem.  It's like if you come across someone lying in the road, hurt - if you can get away with it, it's in your best interests to take their wallet and then leave the mess for someone else to deal with.

 

It's not in your best interests to help them back to their feet, give them first aid and the taxi fair to the hospital, or wait for an ambulance to come....

 

The whole concept of international relations is supposed to be about an international community, not simply everyone for themselves.

[blandy]

..it tells you that the US has no actual policy on Syria and are literally making it up as they go along. Given that this is one of the most dangerous situations in foreign policy terms since the end of the cold war (if not the most dangerous), that's an illuminating and incredibly worrying revelation.

I think the first part is right, but not the second - it's not worrying, it's encouraging, in a sense.

I think it confirms a few things (to me). Obama doesn't actually want to do an attack.

If someone can come up with a way to defuse the situation (the use of chemical weapons) then they'll look at it. They're (he) is not hell bent on launching cruise misiles and so on.

The feedback from the UK, Europe and and US populations is "we don't want you to..." and this counts more than whatever lobbyists for Israel or wherever might be saying. In this instance at least.

The US and Russia might between them get somewhere and improve their own relations as a result.

 

But then I'm an optimist, sometimes.

[maqroll]

 

 

No matter how this plays out, Obama has been exposed as totally inept even in doing the wrong thing. He showed his hand 10 days ago, but had to backtrack. Now every stockpile of chemical weapons Assad has has surely been moved, rendering whatever strike plan Obama had useless now. Well done, Barack. Masterful.

 

Yep, almost as well played as Cameron, ie not very.  So that's France on their own now then.  France.

 

They've already said they'll only go as part of a coalition so no chance of the Frogs steaming into Assad on their own.

 

The incredible thing is that an off the cuff, unguarded remark by Kerry at a press conference was then jumped on by the Russians as a means to disrupt US planning, and now Obama has actually started running with it.

 

If nothing else it tells you that the US has no actual policy on Syria and are literally making it up as they go along. Given that this is one of the most dangerous situations in foreign policy terms since the end of the cold war (if not the most dangerous), that's an illuminating and incredibly worrying revelation.

 

It's in keeping with form though. When US forces took Baghdad, the commanders on the ground asked for instructions (what to do next)...there weren't any. THERE WAS NO PLAN.

[Awol]

 

They [the U.S.] should act in whatever way bests supports their own interests. ....

 Not in my view. That's half the problem.  It's like if you come across someone lying in the road, hurt - if you can get away with it, it's in your best interests to take their wallet and then leave the mess for someone else to deal with.

 

It's not in your best interests to help them back to their feet, give them first aid and the taxi fair to the hospital, or wait for an ambulance to come....

 

The whole concept of international relations is supposed to be about an international community, not simply everyone for themselves.

 

For me the primary duty of an elected government in any country is to do what they feel is in the best interests of their own people first. When it comes right down to it history shows that on a national level the world is very much everyone for themselves. One could argue that is exactly what happened during WW2, the US didn't get involved until it was absolutely in their best interests to do so - and they were our 'friends' then too.  I don't seriously knock them for that, it's what I'd expect our government to do. Countries generally only act together when their common interests align, or at least where acting doesn't actively harm their own interests.

 

If the US Gov genuinely felt that Syria posed a national security threat to them then they should be compelled to act on that basis. Persuading Assad to hand over a limited amount of his CW stocks (they'll never give up everything) is just PR in my view.

[AshVilla]

Why do i get the idea that the US really want to go in and attack Syria

 

I read today that John Kerry said the only way to avert an attack would be for Syria to hand over its chemical weapons within a week i also read in a later paragraph that Syria has more than 1000 tons of the stuff

 

Pretty unrealistic deadline don't you think

[tonyh29]

Syrian government forces were "almost certainly" responsible for the two chemical weapons attacks on opposition-controlled areas of Damascus last month, an investigation by Human Rights Watch has found.

Analysis of the type of rockets and launchers used in the August 21 attacks outside Damascus, as well as photos and videos from the attack sites, implicated Syrian government forces, HRW found. Interviews with survivors and medical workers, also supported this finding.

There was no evidence to suggest, as President Bashar al-Assad has said, that the opposition fighters were responsible for the attacks, the report noted

 

full article here

[bickster]

Stopped reading at "almost certainly".

[LondonLax]

Why do i get the idea that the US really want to go in and attack Syria

 

I read today that John Kerry said the only way to avert an attack would be for Syria to hand over its chemical weapons within a week i also read in a later paragraph that Syria has more than 1000 tons of the stuff

 

Pretty unrealistic deadline don't you think

 

Why bother saying there is a way to avert an attack at all then? They could have stuck to their original script where using chemical weapons would mean a US response. 

 

I don't think Obama wants to be involved and never has throughout this whole Arab spring. I'd say there are probably plenty of interests pulling in all different directions behind the scenes but Obama seems almost relieved that he doesn't have to follow through with the bombing threat from the other week. 

[tonyh29]

bickster, on 10 Sept 2013 - 5:40 PM, said:

Stopped reading at "almost certainly".

I hope I'm not going to go back through this thread and find you've been given credence to every blog and nut job theory out there

[LondonLax]

Stopped reading at "almost certainly".

 

There is no smoking gun evidence from either side but on the balance of probabilities I'd say it was most likely government force, quite probably a trigger happy general fighting in the area, not necessarily an order coming down from Assad. 

 

Still, I think there can be no retaliation from the international community without that 'smoking gun'.

[bickster]

Stopped reading at "almost certainly".

 

There is no smoking gun evidence from either side but on the balance of probabilities I'd say it was most likely government force, quite probably a trigger happy general fighting in the area, not necessarily an order coming down from Assad. 

 

Still, I think there can be no retaliation from the international community without that 'smoking gun'.

I still think that the idea of, "you killed lots of your own innocent civilians with chemical weapons, so we're going to retaliate by attacking you and in the process there's bound to be some collateral damage and more of your innocent civilian will die but that will be your fault too", it absolutely and utterly laughably insane logic. It is the thought process of a lunatic.

I still also think that helping the "rebels" who include AQ in their number who I believe we're still at war with in other theatres is just as bonkers.

There is no easy solution but an escalation of violence is definitely not the answer, the UN and bringing Russia and maybe China into play has to be the way forward, not one peaceful option appears to have been genuinely explored.

[bickster]

bickster, on 10 Sept 2013 - 5:40 PM, said:

Stopped reading at "almost certainly".

I hope I'm not going to go back through this thread and find you've been given credence to every blog and nut job theory out there

Actually I went to that website and read an article that claimed that until Aussies started working in London coffee shops all coffee in London was crap and the Aussie coffee is the best. Aussie coffee is shit, I've been there and I've had plenty of great coffee in London not connected to any antipodean.

I also read the article you linked, it contained zero proof of anything and was just speculation, lots of probably blah

[tonyh29]

bickster, on 10 Sept 2013 - 6:03 PM, said:

 

tonyh29, on 10 Sept 2013 - 5:44 PM, said:

 

bickster, on 10 Sept 2013 - 5:40 PM, said:

bickster, on 10 Sept 2013 - 5:40 PM, said:

Stopped reading at "almost certainly".

 

.

I also read the article you linked, it contained zero proof of anything and was just speculation, lots of probably blah

 

 

PS

can't find the coffee story , where is it as I'll give my Aussie mate a load of abuse for it

[LondonLax]

 

 

Stopped reading at "almost certainly".

 

There is no smoking gun evidence from either side but on the balance of probabilities I'd say it was most likely government force, quite probably a trigger happy general fighting in the area, not necessarily an order coming down from Assad. 

 

Still, I think there can be no retaliation from the international community without that 'smoking gun'.

 

I still think that the idea of, "you killed lots of your own innocent civilians with chemical weapons, so we're going to retaliate by attacking you and in the process there's bound to be some collateral damage and more of your innocent civilian will die but that will be your fault too", it absolutely and utterly laughably insane logic. It is the thought process of a lunatic.

I still also think that helping the "rebels" who include AQ in their number who I believe we're still at war with in other theatres is just as bonkers.

There is no easy solution but an escalation of violence is definitely not the answer, the UN and bringing Russia and maybe China into play has to be the way forward, not one peaceful option appears to have been genuinely explored.

 

 

 

No option of any kind has been seriously explored. That's the point, there is not easy option here and yet people still feel fit to have a pop at the Americans for not doing something about it. 

 

P.S. Australians (and Kiwi's) have transformed London coffee in the last 5-10 years

Edited September 10, 2013 by LondonLax

[bickster]

Stopped reading at "almost certainly".

 

There is no smoking gun evidence from either side but on the balance of probabilities I'd say it was most likely government force, quite probably a trigger happy general fighting in the area, not necessarily an order coming down from Assad. 

 

Still, I think there can be no retaliation from the international community without that 'smoking gun'.

I still think that the idea of, "you killed lots of your own innocent civilians with chemical weapons, so we're going to retaliate by attacking you and in the process there's bound to be some collateral damage and more of your innocent civilian will die but that will be your fault too", it absolutely and utterly laughably insane logic. It is the thought process of a lunatic.

I still also think that helping the "rebels" who include AQ in their number who I believe we're still at war with in other theatres is just as bonkers.

There is no easy solution but an escalation of violence is definitely not the answer, the UN and bringing Russia and maybe China into play has to be the way forward, not one peaceful option appears to have been genuinely explored.

 

 

No option of any kind has been seriously explored. That's the point, there is not easy option here and yet people still feel fit to have a pop at the Americans for not doing something about it. 

 

P.S. Australians (and Kiwi's) have transformed London coffee in the last 5-10 years

Not seen anyone have a pop at America for not doing anything, plenty have a pop for their govt wanting to do the wrong thing. Big difference

[maqroll]

The only ones having a go at the USA for not bombing are the "rebels"

[LondonLax]

The only ones having a go at the USA for not bombing are the "rebels"

 

Not just bombing, people are still looking to America to provide a diplomatic solution and complaining that they are not doing it fast enough.