Un Observers Confirms Death Of 92 People In Syrian Town

[Baloo22]

Some people are not going to like this comment but that's too bad for them.

As an American, I don't want the United States involved at all. Every time we go in all we end up getting is a bunch of shit for our efforts and our sacrifices. If the Syrians want to kill each other by the thousands, go for it. I really don't care anymore. And if Turkey or any European countries want to go in and stop it, go right ahead. Just as long as they do it with their blood and their money. I don't want one drop of American blood nor one American dollor spent on it. Of course, that dumbass piece of crap, Obama, will probably get us involved anyway.

[Colin Yai]

Some people are not going to like this comment but that's too bad for them.

As an American, I don't want the United States involved at all. Every time we go in all we end up getting is a bunch of shit for our efforts and our sacrifices. If the Syrians want to kill each other by the thousands, go for it. I really don't care anymore. And if Turkey or any European countries want to go in and stop it, go right ahead. Just as long as they do it with their blood and their money. I don't want one drop of American blood nor one American dollor spent on it. Of course, that dumbass piece of crap, Obama, will probably get us involved anyway.

Thanks for your valued opinion, out of curiosity how do you think Reagan would have handled the situation?

[Credo]

Some people are not going to like this comment but that's too bad for them.

As an American, I don't want the United States involved at all. Every time we go in all we end up getting is a bunch of shit for our efforts and our sacrifices. If the Syrians want to kill each other by the thousands, go for it. I really don't care anymore. And if Turkey or any European countries want to go in and stop it, go right ahead. Just as long as they do it with their blood and their money. I don't want one drop of American blood nor one American dollor spent on it. Of course, that dumbass piece of crap, Obama, will probably get us involved anyway.

With the exception of the remarks about Obama, I would have to agree. The US really has much more to lose by any involvement in this situation than it has to gain. Relations with Syria have been strained for many years and there are few US interests to protect in the country. The moral obligation falls on neighboring countries such as Turkey and the Arab League, whether they have a mandate or not. They are in a much, much better position to negotiate with all parties.

US involvement would no doubt create more problems than it would solve. Turkey can talk to Iran, for instance. The US cannot.

[geriatrickid]

['folium' - I respond in the order of your points (in italics with no editing of your comments);;

Please don't take this personally but your ideas are quite extraordinary!

Why is Turkey "obliged to intervene"?

Turkey has repeatedly laid claim to a position of leadership in the region. It has made tremendous efforts to assert this position. If wants to be a leader, then it will have to start asserting itself in respect to the Syrians. Do you recall Turkey's role in the Egyptian crisis? It demanded that the democratic aspirations of the Egyptians be recognized and that Mubarak had to go. The Egyptian crisis was a picnic compared to the Syrian crisis. Is it possible that the Turks were opportunistic, meddling in Egypt, which was always the rival to Turkish leadership desires? The one man that stood in Erdogan's way was Mubarak. The Syrians have backed Turkey's attempts to gain a leadership role.

The Arab League has absolutely no "obligation to intervene" as one of its founding principles is respect for the sovereignity of is its member countries.

If that is the case, why did they Arab League support intervention in Libya?

"A proxy war to send a message to Iran"...who being proxy to whom and how would this send a message to Tehran?

There can be no denying the presence of Iranian Republican guards and other Iranian advisers in Syria. Syria has previously sent thousands onto the Golan frontier in an attempt to provoke Israel, which brings us to the next point;

"Syria launch an attack on Israel", perhaps the Syrian military is a bit tied up fighting a civil war and butchering its own citizens art the moment, and thus might be in no shape for conventional warfare.

In some countries, there is always time to pick a fight with Israel in the hopes of uniting a feuding demographic. In the event that there was a border clash, I would anticipate that Iran would come to the "assistance" of Syria. Such an event, would provide the excuse some people are looking for to bomb the stuffing out of the Iranians.

You then leap to Israel taking Iran out while the Arab world steps aside. And all this in a US Presidential election year. Whatever you had for breakfast please let me know where you got it from!

Israel wouldn't necessarily take out Iran. It is no secret that the Gulf States detest and loathe the Iranians. Iran illegally occupies a part of the UAE and meddled in Bahrain. Iran meddles in Iraq and it meddles in Lebanon. If the Israelis were to take on Iran, the arab world wouldn't care too much as long as most of the deaths were Iranian or Israeli.

And yes, a Presidential year. Yesterday Mitt Romney was demanding that the USA provide materiel and other assistance to the Syrian opposition groups. So what if this twit doesn't know who or what makes up the opposition, he wants them armed. Maybe he'll send them some magical under garments. With harebrained demands to arm the opposition groups now, I expect the demands will only heat up as we get closer to November.

Lebanese civil war as a result of regime change in Syria? Probably quite the opposite as one of the drivers of unrest in Lebanon has been Syrian/Iranian occupation/interfering/funding/arming. An imploded Syria removes much of that potential at least in the short to medium term.

On the contrary. Many Lebanese are fed up of the Iranian and Syrian support of Hizbollah and the Shiite groups that have made life miserable for many Lebanese. Any sign of a loss of foreign support for the Shiite militias will encourage opposing Lebanese groups to take advantage of the potential to hit the militias.

And finally Turkey is forced to "act responsibly" (does that mean invading Syria?) having been funded by the EU (when actually relations between the EU & Turkey are regrettably at an all time low).

Relations might be at a low as you describe it, but Turkey is still able to wring deals out of the EU. Are you aware that Turkey is the largest receipient of aid from the EU? British MPs have recently been shining the spotlight on this and asking why £703 million of aid is earmarked for Turkey in 2012. Turkey needs that money and will at some point have to dance for its dinner. It has blocked NATO surveillance flights out of its airspace. Turkey cannot continue to sit quietly as thousands die on its borders.

"Dominos, anyone?" Presume you mean Eisenhower's 1954 Domino Theory, rather than the pizza chain! if not I'd love a thin crust 12inch Chicken & Bacon Carbonara, thanks.

No, I mean dominos where they are stacked against each other and where one that falls causes others to fall. I was not alluding to the asian domino theory, (BTW I'd gladly settle for Dominos. Have you had the "experience" of a Pizza Co. product?)

If I am wrong please point me to the evidence that backs up your claims, you are never too old to learn!

It is not an issue of right or wrong, but one of using past events in the region to anticipate future events.

I trust this provides an explanation for my position.

[geriatrickid]

Some people are not going to like this comment but that's too bad for them.

As an American, I don't want the United States involved at all. Every time we go in all we end up getting is a bunch of shit for our efforts and our sacrifices. If the Syrians want to kill each other by the thousands, go for it. I really don't care anymore. And if Turkey or any European countries want to go in and stop it, go right ahead. Just as long as they do it with their blood and their money. I don't want one drop of American blood nor one American dollor spent on it. Of course, that dumbass piece of crap, Obama, will probably get us involved anyway.

You are confused. Republicans are the ones demanding more US involvement.

Yesterday, Romney called for the United States to “work with partners to organize and arm Syrian opposition groups so they can defend themselves” . Past activities indicate that such a policy would eventually have dire consequences.

Airirstrikes have been strongly advocated by Republicans Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

The White House has rejected arming rebel groups, saying it does not know enough about them and does not want to “further militarize the situation.”

[Baloo22]

Some people are not going to like this comment but that's too bad for them.

As an American, I don't want the United States involved at all. Every time we go in all we end up getting is a bunch of shit for our efforts and our sacrifices. If the Syrians want to kill each other by the thousands, go for it. I really don't care anymore. And if Turkey or any European countries want to go in and stop it, go right ahead. Just as long as they do it with their blood and their money. I don't want one drop of American blood nor one American dollor spent on it. Of course, that dumbass piece of crap, Obama, will probably get us involved anyway.

Thanks for your valued opinion, out of curiosity how do you think Reagan would have handled the situation?

Most likely he would have stupidly gotten us involved. He did in Lebanon. The result of theat "peacekeeping" mission was the bombing of the US and French barracks and the killing of hundreds of "peacekeepers". That's one of the reasons why I say screw these "peacekeeping" missions. We simply end up in the middle of a bunch of medieval morons who want nothing more than to kill each other. Let them do so.

[Baloo22]

Some people are not going to like this comment but that's too bad for them.

As an American, I don't want the United States involved at all. Every time we go in all we end up getting is a bunch of shit for our efforts and our sacrifices. If the Syrians want to kill each other by the thousands, go for it. I really don't care anymore. And if Turkey or any European countries want to go in and stop it, go right ahead. Just as long as they do it with their blood and their money. I don't want one drop of American blood nor one American dollor spent on it. Of course, that dumbass piece of crap, Obama, will probably get us involved anyway.

You are confused. Republicans are the ones demanding more US involvement.

Yesterday, Romney called for the United States to “work with partners to organize and arm Syrian opposition groups so they can defend themselves” . Past activities indicate that such a policy would eventually have dire consequences.

Airirstrikes have been strongly advocated by Republicans Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

The White House has rejected arming rebel groups, saying it does not know enough about them and does not want to “further militarize the situation.”

No, I'm not confused at all. Candidate Romney and various yahoos from the Senate can say whatever they want. They don't have the authority to order the US military anywhere. It's the President that has that authority. And whoever is in that office should keep us out of it. Let those medieval morons keep on killing each other.

[chuckd]

This from today's Drudge Report:

_______________________________________________________

Report: Iran using passenger jets to smuggle weapons to Syria, Lebanon

By msnbc.com staff

Iran’s government has repeatedly used commercial aircraft to smuggle weapons and explosives to Syria and Lebanon, the German broadcaster ZDF reported Wednesday.

ZDF, citing Western security sources and unspecified information it said it had obtained, reported that Iran Air and Yas Air, both based in Iran, have repeatedly used aircraft designated as passenger planes to transport weapons to Damascus and Beirut. It was not clear from the report what type of weaponry was involved.

ZDF, a content partner of NBC News, said the weapons were supposedly ordered by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, which supports the regime of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad and the terrorist group Hezbollah in Lebanon.

http://openchannel.m...ia-lebanon?lite

[folium]

My turn! Responses in bold.

['folium' - I respond in the order of your points (in italics with no editing of your comments);;

Please don't take this personally but your ideas are quite extraordinary!

Why is Turkey "obliged to intervene"?

Turkey has repeatedly laid claim to a position of leadership in the region. It has made tremendous efforts to assert this position. If wants to be a leader, then it will have to start asserting itself in respect to the Syrians. Do you recall Turkey's role in the Egyptian crisis? It demanded that the democratic aspirations of the Egyptians be recognized and that Mubarak had to go. The Egyptian crisis was a picnic compared to the Syrian crisis. Is it possible that the Turks were opportunistic, meddling in Egypt, which was always the rival to Turkish leadership desires? The one man that stood in Erdogan's way was Mubarak. The Syrians have backed Turkey's attempts to gain a leadership role.

Turkey/Syria is a very different ball-game to Turkey/Egypt. Classic long-running neighbourly disputes eg ownership of Hattay province, water management issues of major rivers, sanctuary/support for PKK, and Cold War alliance hangovers. A more recent thawing in relations has now collapsed, but despite sabre rattling and political pressure Turkey is unlikely to intervene physically in what is fast becoming a brutal civil war, because like many countries it wants to be part of a "coalition of the willing" and not be seen to disrupt "Arab consensus". Recent conflicts in the region have highlighted the unintended consequences of military intervention and the serious repercussions that can follow.

The Arab League has absolutely no "obligation to intervene" as one of its founding principles is respect for the sovereignity of is its member countries.

If that is the case, why did they Arab League support intervention in Libya?

Ironically the Arab League is following a similar path to the Libyan conflict. As with Libya, Syria was suspended from the AL late last year, a resolution was forwarded on to the UN Security Council for a ceasefire etc but was vetoed by Russia/China. The AL cannot be seen to sanctioning direct intervention in the affairs of a member state (Libya was a fudge about imposing a no-fly zone without any mention of how or who would do the enforcing, but which enabled NATO to take as regional backing for its operations plus the UN resolution) as it would open up a can of worms re interventions across the region against repressive regimes.

"A proxy war to send a message to Iran"...who being proxy to whom and how would this send a message to Tehran?

There can be no denying the presence of Iranian Republican guards and other Iranian advisers in Syria. Syria has previously sent thousands onto the Golan frontier in an attempt to provoke Israel, which brings us to the next point; Still confused by this one, Iran is the physical presence in support of Assad plus hardware, Russia inputs the logistics and political side. Where/who are the proxies?

"Syria launch an attack on Israel", perhaps the Syrian military is a bit tied up fighting a civil war and butchering its own citizens art the moment, and thus might be in no shape for conventional warfare.

In some countries, there is always time to pick a fight with Israel in the hopes of uniting a feuding demographic. In the event that there was a border clash, I would anticipate that Iran would come to the "assistance" of Syria. Such an event, would provide the excuse some people are looking for to bomb the stuffing out of the Iranians. Looks like a "pop" at Israel to overcome sectarianism is unlikely to work at this stage. The Russians desperately want some form of continuity to preserve their strategic and economic interests plus be able to play the power-broker role. Picking a fight with Israel would not help these. The US would also be leaning on Israel mightily not to escalate or get involved.

You then leap to Israel taking Iran out while the Arab world steps aside. And all this in a US Presidential election year. Whatever you had for breakfast please let me know where you got it from!

Israel wouldn't necessarily take out Iran. It is no secret that the Gulf States detest and loathe the Iranians. Iran illegally occupies a part of the UAE and meddled in Bahrain. Iran meddles in Iraq and it meddles in Lebanon. If the Israelis were to take on Iran, the arab world wouldn't care too much as long as most of the deaths were Iranian or Israeli. Sure no one really likes Iran but it's big, powerful and dangerous. Israel probably could not bring it down on its own with air/sea power and overland intervention is impossible. The political and particularly economic negative fallout of such a conflict would massively outweigh the schadenfreude for Iran's Arab neighbours.

And yes, a Presidential year. Yesterday Mitt Romney was demanding that the USA provide materiel and other assistance to the Syrian opposition groups. So what if this twit doesn't know who or what makes up the opposition, he wants them armed. Maybe he'll send them some magical under garments. With harebrained demands to arm the opposition groups now, I expect the demands will only heat up as we get closer to November. Out of power Romney can and will say all sorts of things to paint Obama in a negative light, but the President makes the call, and any sane President would resist a messy foreign intervention at this stage of the political cycle, especially given the Iraq/Afghan legacy.

Lebanese civil war as a result of regime change in Syria? Probably quite the opposite as one of the drivers of unrest in Lebanon has been Syrian/Iranian occupation/interfering/funding/arming. An imploded Syria removes much of that potential at least in the short to medium term.

On the contrary. Many Lebanese are fed up of the Iranian and Syrian support of Hizbollah and the Shiite groups that have made life miserable for many Lebanese. Any sign of a loss of foreign support for the Shiite militias will encourage opposing Lebanese groups to take advantage of the potential to hit the militias. The last thing that most Lebanese want is a return to civil war, they know what it means. A weakening of Hizbollah would bring them into line politically and might enable central government to regain some degree of the military monopoly. Quite who are you suggesting could/would "hit the militias"?

And finally Turkey is forced to "act responsibly" (does that mean invading Syria?) having been funded by the EU (when actually relations between the EU & Turkey are regrettably at an all time low).

Relations might be at a low as you describe it, but Turkey is still able to wring deals out of the EU. Are you aware that Turkey is the largest receipient of aid from the EU? British MPs have recently been shining the spotlight on this and asking why £703 million of aid is earmarked for Turkey in 2012. Turkey needs that money and will at some point have to dance for its dinner. It has blocked NATO surveillance flights out of its airspace. Turkey cannot continue to sit quietly as thousands die on its borders. Turkey was somewhat prickly in the early stages of the Libyan conflct but then did a complete u-turn and fully supported NATO activity (without committing any troops). Turkey is of supreme strategic importance, eg the basing of the missile shield there, Incirlik airbase, etc etc $1 billion is chicken feed for both the EU and even Turkey today (world's 17th largest economy, comfortably north of $1 trillion GDP). It's probably fair to say that it is in everyone's interest to try and manage the situation to avoid a complete collapse into anarchy and even stage a controlled change of regime in Syria, but Russia does appear to hold the trump card at present and is relishing its role.

"Dominos, anyone?" Presume you mean Eisenhower's 1954 Domino Theory, rather than the pizza chain! if not I'd love a thin crust 12inch Chicken & Bacon Carbonara, thanks.

No, I mean dominos where they are stacked against each other and where one that falls causes others to fall. I was not alluding to the asian domino theory, (BTW I'd gladly settle for Dominos. Have you had the "experience" of a Pizza Co. product?) That is the essence of the domino theory, as originally forecast in SE Asia and widely recycled (invariably inaccurately as it is way too simplistic) since. Steer well clear of Pizza co. though I have had some excellent pizza in Syria in years gone by, but that's a whole different story...!

If I am wrong please point me to the evidence that backs up your claims, you are never too old to learn!

It is not an issue of right or wrong, but one of using past events in the region to anticipate future events. Projecting forward past events to try and predict future events is fraught with danger and has filled many a cemetery. A more effective use of history is as a way of not repeating mistakes. Sadly this rarely happens.

I trust this provides an explanation for my position.

Edited May 31, 2012 by folium

[folium]

My Deepest Sincere apologies Folium for having an opinion that differs from yours ,however I did write that there should be an Independent Inquiry ,maybe you agree with that, or is your mind already made up as to EXACTLY what took place?.

My Deepest Sincere apologies Folium for having an opinion that differs from yours ,however I did write that there should be an Independent Inquiry ,maybe you agree with that, or is your mind already made up as to EXACTLY what took place?.

Looks like job done as far as the Assad regime is concerned (see below). Can't see a real inquiry into Houla massacre under the present government in Damascus.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18291795

[Steely Dan]

Well here is the WMD card. A bit of a paradox playing it I must say when the most effective way of stopping Syrian WMD's getting into the hands of Al-Qaeda would be to sure up the Assad regime, not try to replace it. P.S Libyan weaponry is already in the hands of sundry terrorist groups.

http://www.debka.com/article/22043/Exclusive-Obama-weighs-action-to-prevent-Al-Qaeda-grabbing-Syrian-WMD-

US President Barack Obama, though widely expected to pursue direct action against Syrian ruler Bashar following the Houla atrocity, is preoccupied with what he regards as a greater threat to the world: a potential grab for the huge Syrian stock of chemical and biological weapons by Al Qaeda’s or other terrorist organizations. This is reported exclusively by debkafile’s Washington and intelligence sources.

[folium]

Well here is the WMD card. A bit of a paradox playing it I must say when the most effective way of stopping Syrian WMD's getting into the hands of Al-Qaeda would be to sure up the Assad regime, not try to replace it. P.S Libyan weaponry is already in the hands of sundry terrorist groups.

http://www.debka.com...ing-Syrian-WMD-

US President Barack Obama, though widely expected to pursue direct action against Syrian ruler Bashar following the Houla atrocity, is preoccupied with what he regards as a greater threat to the world: a potential grab for the huge Syrian stock of chemical and biological weapons by Al Qaeda’s or other terrorist organizations. This is reported exclusively by debkafile’s Washington and intelligence sources.

Almost as good as Koheesti's Onion link re gay parades!

Love the idea of Obama talking about "Caucasian terrorist groups", would that be the Aryan Nations or even the Michigan Militia?

Aren't Debka the organization that promised hard intelligence on the location of Iraqi WMD in 2002/3, and then had it in Syria and then Lebanon, all rather like the search for the Holy Grail?

Debka's entry on Wikipedia throws this up:

Yediot Achronot investigative reporter Ronen Bergman states that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as neo-conservative elements of the US Republican Party, "whose worldview is that the situation is bad and is only going to get worse," and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf calls Debka his "favorite alarmist Israeli website trading in rumors."

Sorry to keep harping on about sources, must be my long-ago training as a historian.

Edited June 1, 2012 by folium

[chuckd]

Well here is the WMD card. A bit of a paradox playing it I must say when the most effective way of stopping Syrian WMD's getting into the hands of Al-Qaeda would be to sure up the Assad regime, not try to replace it. P.S Libyan weaponry is already in the hands of sundry terrorist groups.

http://www.debka.com...ing-Syrian-WMD-

US President Barack Obama, though widely expected to pursue direct action against Syrian ruler Bashar following the Houla atrocity, is preoccupied with what he regards as a greater threat to the world: a potential grab for the huge Syrian stock of chemical and biological weapons by Al Qaeda’s or other terrorist organizations. This is reported exclusively by debkafile’s Washington and intelligence sources.

Almost as good as Koheesti's Onion link re gay parades!

Love the idea of Obama talking about "Caucasian terrorist groups", would that be the Aryan Nations or even the Michigan Militia?

Aren't Debka the organization that promised hard intelligence on the location of Iraqi WMD in 2002/3, and then had it in Syria and then Lebanon, all rather like the search for the Holy Grail?

Debka's entry on Wikipedia throws this up:

Yediot Achronot investigative reporter Ronen Bergman states that the site relies on information from sources with an agenda, such as neo-conservative elements of the US Republican Party, "whose worldview is that the situation is bad and is only going to get worse," and that Israeli intelligence officials do not consider even 10 percent of the site's content to be reliable.Cornell Law professor Michael C. Dorf calls Debka his "favorite alarmist Israeli website trading in rumors."

Sorry to keep harping on about sources, must be my long-ago training as a historian.

I expect the "Caucasian terrorist groups" Obama is allegedly talking about are terrorists groups from the Caucasus.

But then, you already knew that, didn't you.

[Steely Dan]

I expect the "Caucasian terrorist groups" Obama is allegedly talking about are terrorists groups from the Caucasus.

But then, you already knew that, didn't you.

I think the Russians are being advised to watch their steppes.

[folium]

I expect the "Caucasian terrorist groups" Obama is allegedly talking about are terrorists groups from the Caucasus.

But then, you already knew that, didn't you.

I think the Russians are being advised to watch their steppes.

I'm sure Obama will Putin a good word for the Russians, if he survives those caucasian varmints.