Can We Have a Peaceful Resolution with Syria?

[Fan of Reason]

The AHA is advocating for the U.S. to respond with a peaceful resolution. Is it possible?

 

http://americanhumanist.org/news/details/2013-08-humanists-urge-peaceful-solution-to-syrian-conflict

[fun4alll]

Oh absolutely, no problem, it's such a peace-loving part of the world. :-P

[Martin F. Atkins]

Why does the US want to get involved? We did not get involved with Rwandan genocide. This should be a UN and not a US decision. It is the oil again, isn't it? So 2, 000 people got gassed and US bombs will kill 20,000 non-combatants in collateral damage as a response. Let them fight it out. Or let the UN and NATO take care of it. If the US bombing would be "successful," I would say, "Go for it" but we all know how this will end. We have historical examples.

[fun4alll]

Dropping firecrackers on a giant ant mound sure has that calming effect we all want. If Syria was in Africa or South America, we would turn our backs, and let them fight it out. However, we have many interests in that region. It's the realtors manta, location, location, location, that's all it is.

[sudo]

Just listened to Obama on Al Jazeera America (Comcast channel 107). The commentators were flabbergasted at his moxie. I think it was a good move considering that all options are bad options. I like Fun4alll's comparison of dropping firecrackers on ant hills for the calming effect... and can it be said too often? Those middle eastern people are irrational and angry.. not a good combo.

sudo

[Fan of Reason]

I can't imagine what good it will do for the US to go to war over there. I will be dissappointed in Obama if he is quick to get the US involved in another war we have no business fighting. There was a time when I think the US averaged several years between wars. Now it seems more like every week.

I can understand the US attempting diplomacy in the aftermath of such horrible crimes against humanity, but if that fails (as it probably will) then we should stay out of it.

What did we accomplish in Iraq?? How many innocent civilians were killed there? If the US goal is to save innocent lives, then I don't get it.

[Martin F. Atkins]

What are the goals? If the goals are...

1). Punishing the government for use of chemical weapons.
2). Reduce the number of non-combatant deaths.

Will bombing them accomplish these goals? If not, what should be done or not done?

Here is an idea. The UN should agree that chemical weapon should not be used and determine the punishment ahead of time. When (or if the weapons are used), the UN should target strategic military sites for a 48 hour (or longer depending on the death toll) bombing and bomb them immediately. Then wait. If chemical weapons are used again, engage in another strategic bombing for, say, 48 hours (or longer for higher death tolls).. Make it clear with the media and leaflets ahead of time that any confirmed chemical weapons use will result in a bombing campaigne within 24 hours of the confirmation and that the US and UN does not want to get involved with the civil war but will punish each chemical weapons use.

[Martin F. Atkins]

Remember the rule would be to punish groups who use chemical weapons so if the group that the USA supports uses those weapons, the UN must bomb the military infrastructure of the group that the USA supports.

[fun4alll]

The law of unintended consequences: As an example, there is a law in the US that says that companies that lay off over 100 people must announce the reduction to the media in advance. Oddly, there are large numbers of layoffs effecting 90 people, often one after another after another, but not over 100 in the same month, fancy that.

If we announce in advance that there is a threshold below which there will be no retaliation, guess what we will see more of on the battlefield. The UN looks the other way when millions die in the Congo, and throws a fit when 25k die in former Yugoslavia. There is no global fixed standard. If the Chinese kill millions in Tibet, we will stand by and ignore this 'internal' matter within a permanent member of the veto-empowered UN security counsel. There is no double sided standard, no, it's a decahedron standard at least. It's not a fair world. There are no trivially simplistic solutions. Each case will be treated individually, probably capriciously. That's just the way it is.

[Tom]

The goal should be to end the violence/body count and allow for some stability and peace.  Unilaterally throwing bombs into this mess won't resolve that.   Some type of ceasefire/partitioning may work.  

Syria is part of a wider Islamic Sunni-Shiite civil war.  It's a real mess.  

There are many factions.

The Assad Govt:

-the official Syrian military

-Secularists

-Christians

-Allawite tribe

-Shiites

Hezbollah

-Iranian Revolutionary Guards

-Many people terrified of a fundamentalist Muslim takeover

-Russian military advisors

-middle class business people wanting stability

The Opposition

-Kurds,who have effectively partitioned away their area of control in the north.

-Sunnis

-various Sunni backed groups including fundamentalist militants and Al Qaeda

-various militias/tribes with their own goals

-pro democracy people

Choose your side.  

I'm sure the Sunni House of Saud (Saudi Arabia) and the Gulf states are pushing us for action.  Someone at the State Dept. probably made them a promise we would intervene if poison gas was used.  Bashir's father killed 20,0000 in an uprising with traditional means - that's ok I guess.

If there were worldwide issues and we can make a strong legitimate,case it should get wide support - but that isn't happening.  A big part of this is the legacy of Bush's use of Colin Powell at the UN justifying the pre-emtive war in Iraq.. The US lost it's legitimacy.  China brought this up.

The borders of Syria are arbitrary anyways.  It WILL give Carte Blanche to Internet attacks on US interests - the Syrian Electronic Army - an Assad front - took down the NY Times website last week.

Iran has said any attack on Syria will be followed with attacks on Israel.  The Soviets only Port in the Med is in Syria.  They have 16+ ships in the Eastern Med.  The Soviets are very threatened by this.  

NATO has refused involvement.  Britain too.  I think Obama finally figured at the 11th hour that the administration had better at least advise Congress.  There are good reasons smart people are staying away from military action on this.

On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 9:45 PM, Martin F. Atkins <mfafree...@gmail.com> wrote:

Remember the rule would be to punish groups who use chemical weapons so if the group that the USA supports uses those weapons, the UN must bomb the military infrastructure of the group that the USA supports.

--
--
Disclaimer: This MFA Forum is a public site and does not necessarily express the official opinion of Memphis Freethought Alliance, Inc. or its members.  Posters on this forum include MFA members as well as non-members.  People are encouraged to give their honest opinion about ideas and critique other people's ideas and not to attack people personally. Please keep posts open, honest, and civil.  Please review the the rules and guidelines to this forum: http://www.memphisfreethought.com/DiscussionForum.html (copy and paste the web address into your browser if necessary)

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to
memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Orson Zedd]

No we can't have a peaceful resolution with Syria, don't be silly.
They're stupid puppies and they need a smack on the nose to be taught
that peeing sarin all over their civilians is not acceptable.

> this up<http://english.people.com.cn/90777/8381603.html>
> .

[Martin F. Atkins]

The minimum threhold would be 48 hours of bombing within 24 hours of any use of chemical weapons ... or possible longer if the death toll is high. The difference is bombing for all uses.

[Martin F. Atkins]

I don't know if having the goal of "ending the violence/body count and allow for some stability and peace" is achievable, specifically, because it directly contradicts the goal of various factions within Syria who want to systematically increase the death toll of the opposing factions. Besides, I thought that the US wanted to bomb them because of there use of chemical weapons and not thwart a faction's goal of killing people to achieve power. I thought that the US was okay with (but not thrilled by) the killings with conventional weapons but would not tolerate the use of banned weapons.

If the US can't get their story, rules, and motives straight, the US should stay the hell out of it. Again, my original post called for a UN and not a US intervention.

[Martin F. Atkins]

If implemented, the UN would have had several bombing campaignes already. The US "had already allowed muliple chemical weapons attacks to come and go without any clear consequences beyond modest US support for a disorderly rebel movement" (Time Magazine, Sept 9, 2013, p. 30). Why now decide not to tolerate chemical weapons? Does it have anything to do with the US supported rebels being close to defeat so a massive bombing campaigne my change the direction of the war? Is this really primarily about chemical weapons?

[Robert]

Your post illustrates why we should do nothing.  Where is the Arab league in all of this?

 

The only reason this matters to the US is because it is in a very oil-rich region of the world.  There is no humanitarian argument that the US can make as there are plenty of horrible atrocities across the world (e.g. Africa) to which we give no or just signatory attention.  The hypocrisy is suffocating as I hear politicians and pundits bemoaning the use of chemical weapons as if  the other armaments used around the world (many of US corporate make) are somehow more humane.  Shrapnel killing children and blowing off limbs is no less horrid than using gas or any other killing device.

 

Unfortunately, as with Iraq, our leaders are incapable of telling the truth behind why Syria matters.

mailto:memphisfreethoughtalliance%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:memphisfreethoughtalliance%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Martin F. Atkins]

From reading this thread, everyone appears to have the opinion that gassing 1,500 people with a banned weapon is not justification for US intervention in Syria. The arguments against US interventions are as follows:

 

1. A bombing campaign will only increase the death toll and not stop or reduce the use of chemical weapons.

2. The US should take on more of an isolationist stance with Middle Eastern affairs for our own self-interest. 

3. The US has ignored other crimes against humanity (African genocides, etc) so we should ignore this one too. 

4. The US should not maintain the role of "global police" (or never really had that role) and the UN should take on that responsibility.

5. There are too many factions competing for power to establish any real, lasting peace and stability and a bombing campaign will only be like putting a "firecracker on an anthill."

6. Anything else?  

 

Is that about right?

 

Does anyone want the US to intervene?  If so, why?

memphisfreethoughtalliance+unsub...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memphisfreethoughtalliance+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[Tom]

I liked Elizabeth Warren's comments:

Senator Elizabeth Warren: "The Assad regime's actions are reprehensible, but it is critical that we recognize the complexity of the conflict on the ground and that we consider the potential for unintended consequences of U.S. intervention, no matter how good our intentions."

memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com.

[sudo]

One other thing... I'm not convinced the Assad regime did the gassing... I don't see overwhelming evidence. At least not the good rock solid kind we had of the presence of weapons of mass destruction before we went into Iraq. 

sudo

[Tom]

It gets even worse - Foreign Policy broke this story --US aided Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war after he used gasattacks vs Iran and his own people.  The CIA may have helped carry out further gas attacks - I hope this 2nd part is untrue :-(.  

 CIA 'helped Saddam Hussein carry out chemical weapons attack on Iran' in 1988 under Ronald Reagan

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2402174/CIA-helped-Saddam-Hussein-make-chemical-weapons-attack-Iran-1988-Ronald-Reagan.html#ixzz2do76y9TE 

memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com.

[sudo]

If I may add one more article from today's WSJ. A column about the return of Taft Republicans which was a nice refresher course for me..

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324432404579050821624966890.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_BelowLEFTSecond

sudo

mailto:memphisfreethoughtalliance%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:memphisfreethoughtalliance%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
--
Disclaimer: This MFA Forum is a public site and does not necessarily express the official opinion of Memphis Freethought Alliance, Inc. or its members. Posters on this forum include MFA members as well as non-members. People are encouraged to give their honest opinion about ideas and critique other people's ideas and not to attack people personally. Please keep posts open, honest, and civil. Please review the the rules and guidelines to this forum: http://www.memphisfreethought.com/DiscussionForum.html (copy and paste the web address into your browser if necessary)
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to

memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

memphisfreethoughtalliance+unsubsc...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memphisfreethoughtalliance+unsubsc...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Martin F. Atkins]

Sudo,

So you doubt the global warming and Assad's recent use of chemical weapons? A few questions:

1) What about the few other times Assad used chemical weapons after President Obama threatened retaliation? These were small scale gas killings--too small to attract international attention but enough to poke at President Obama.

2) What do think about the lack of evidence for the moon landing, the evidence for the CIA 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers, and lack of evidence for the Holocaust and OJ Simpson murders?

3) Considering philosophical doubt isn't a bad thing, at what point do you decide that there is enough evidence to make a reasonable guess one way or the other?

[Martin F. Atkins]

Also, if not Assad, who gassed those 1, 500 people? Do you think that it was one of the other factions attempting to frame the Assad regime? The CIA attempting to start a war? The KGB trying to force the US into an awkward international situation and further deplete our resources? Military corporations provoking a war to increase profits and hardware production? And are there chemical weapons deniers who like holocaust and moon landing deniers claim that this whole chemical gassing was just a fictional Hollywood production? How do we decide which--or another-- scenario is the most believable?

[Tom]

This intervention is not popular among Americans.  I thought this piece from the Atlantic was interesting - that according to a poll only 9% want US intervention is Syria - only 25% even if chemicals are used.  So there is no purely democratic consensus on this although Congress will likely approve.

How an Insular Elite Makes Wars of Choice More Likely

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Martin F. Atkins <mfafree...@gmail.com> wrote:

Also, if not Assad, who gassed those 1, 500 people?  Do you think that it was one of the other factions attempting to frame the Assad regime?  The CIA attempting to start a war?  The KGB trying to force the US into an awkward international situation and further deplete our resources? Military corporations provoking a war to increase profits and hardware production? And are there chemical weapons deniers who like holocaust and moon landing deniers claim that this whole chemical gassing was just a fictional Hollywood production?  How do we decide which--or another-- scenario is the most believable?

--
--
Disclaimer: This MFA Forum is a public site and does not necessarily express the official opinion of Memphis Freethought Alliance, Inc. or its members.  Posters on this forum include MFA members as well as non-members.  People are encouraged to give their honest opinion about ideas and critique other people's ideas and not to attack people personally. Please keep posts open, honest, and civil.  Please review the the rules and guidelines to this forum: http://www.memphisfreethought.com/DiscussionForum.html (copy and paste the web address into your browser if necessary)

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to
memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com.

[Martin F. Atkins]

Sacco,

 

From what you wrote, it sounds like the CIA purposely worked with Saddam Hussein to plan a chemical weapons attack on an opposing faction.  However, from what I read, the CIA helped Saddam Hussein fight Iran.  When Hussein's regime was almost in power, Hussein and his military leaders decided to use the CIA intelligence to launch a chemical weapons attack on troublesome faction and, thus, kill a bunch of them and instill fear in their hearts and minds.  Risky; however, this psychopathic dictator and his military council likely logically deduced and strategically planned on the CIA/US not retaliating against his regime for these crimes against humanity because of (1) the amount of effort and resources that CIA/US already spent putting the Hussein regime into a position to take power and (2) if the CIAUS  destroyed the Hussein regime for using chemical weapons, that betrayal would send that region, again, into turmoil (disrupting the oil flow) and no regime would likely want the help of the US after seeing what happened to Hussein's regime.   Honestly, it was a rather brilliant but psychopathic strategy for disabling a dangerous faction that could potentially challenge the power of Saddam Hussein.  The real mistake of the CIA was in estimating the psychopathic brutality of Saddam Hussein and his military council. After he used these chemical weapons against this hated faction, attacking Saddam Hussein was not in the best interest of the US or CIA--or at least I bet that was the logic.

 

 

On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 1:14:57 AM UTC-5, Sacco wrote:

mailto:memphisfreethoughtalliance%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to mailto:memphisfreethoughtalliance%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
--
Disclaimer: This MFA Forum is a public site and does not necessarily express the official opinion of Memphis Freethought Alliance, Inc. or its members. Posters on this forum include MFA members as well as non-members. People are encouraged to give their honest opinion about ideas and critique other people's ideas and not to attack people personally. Please keep posts open, honest, and civil. Please review the the rules and guidelines to this forum: http://www.memphisfreethought.com/DiscussionForum.html (copy and paste the web address into your browser if necessary)
 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.
To post to this group, send email to

memphisfreeth...@googlegroups.com

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

memphisfreethoughtalliance+unsubsc...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memphisfreethoughtalliance+unsubsc...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Tom]

Martin:  Not sure if we are looking at the same Daily Mail/Foreign Policy Article ?  

You mentioned "When Hussein's regime was almost in power" but Saddam came to power in 1979, the article is about 1988 and not about an internal faction, but attacks against Iranians) as part of the Iran-Iraq war:

"In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent."

Further:

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. (and again in 1985)

So the documents show US intelligence knew Iraq had used WMDs multiple times.  Not only did we continue to support Iraq with this knowledge, we gave them targets knowing that WMDs could likely be used on those targets.  That's the gist of the article as I understand it.  I think it's clear at least that we helped Iraq knowing the used WMDs multiple times.  

Perhaps there is plausible deniability that we didn't know Iraq might gas those targets, given the history maybe not. 

memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance Public Forum" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to memphisfreethoughta...@googlegroups.com.

[Martin F. Atkins]

Sacco,

Those are condemning points for the CIA's prior knowledge of the use of chemical weapons and lack of punishment to chemical weapons users.

Yes, scratch that "about to take power" sentence to unwillingness to punish someone who the US put into power and willingness to provide military intelligence to someome who would likely use chemical weapons.

So it is now pretty safe for Assad to continue to use chemical weapons, right?

[Martin F. Atkins]

I wonder what would've happened if the USSR decided to bomb the Saddam Hussein regime that the US put in power after Saddam used chemical weapons? Would the US tell the USSR that it didn't have the right or moral authority to interfere and punish countries who used chemical weapons? What if China and the USSR approached the UN for permission to attack the then US supported Saddam Hussein regime? Would've the US thrown a fit during this Cold War Era?

[Tom]

War is not just an expenditure of $'s and lives.  It's also spends initiative and diplomatic capital.

I see a comparison to the long drawn out Vietnam War, followed by the horrible genocide in Cambodia.  The was a certain bankruptcy to act after Vietnam that prevented the US or the international community from taking action against the Khmer Rouge.  

I think that's why we have to be careful to choose our large initiatives wisely.  The West spent ourselves on  a pre-emptive war in Iraq and now we are hamstrung to act.  

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:13 PM, Martin F. Atkins <mfafree...@gmail.com> wrote:

I wonder what would've happened if the USSR decided to bomb the Saddam Hussein regime that the US put in power after Saddam used chemical weapons? Would the US tell the USSR that it didn't have the right or moral authority to interfere and punish countries who used chemical weapons?  What if China and the USSR approached the UN for permission to attack the then US supported Saddam Hussein regime? Would've the US thrown a fit during this Cold War Era?