Over 90,000 killed in Syrian crisis - UN

[NeverSure]

Bullshit. The US pays no attention to the UN security council, nor do most members of NATO. Who was it that took out Libya, and who's permission did they need, led I think by France?

The Security Council approved the actions in Libya. Don't confuse Russian's non-participation in that action with its tacit approval of it.

In this case, no military actions will be approved by the Security council, because Russia and China are in bed with the "enemy".

And if the US or Europe decided to try their own action, they might find they're fighting MIGs with Russian pilots instead of Syrian ones.

No way are they going to risk that.

Otherwise a volley of cruise missiles would already have been launched, let's face it.

And the US is still frightened to give the rebels the weapons they need to win, not least because they might end up being used against it.

We'll probably be having the same conversation in a year's time.

As I said, the US and NATO pay no attention to the UN Security Council.

"NATO reaffirms power to take action without U.N. approval" Link cnn.com

If the US or NATO decided to take action in Syria they wouldn't even ask the Security Council.

As for Russian Migs, hahaha. They need to come up against some stealth fighters that they can't even see and some drones with precision missiles that fly far above their ability to reach even with missiles. That will be a picnic for them.

[F430murci]

God or alah or whatever you believe in help those poor people. There is no good solution.

[Chicog]

Bullshit. The US pays no attention to the UN security council, nor do most members of NATO. Who was it that took out Libya, and who's permission did they need, led I think by France?

The Security Council approved the actions in Libya. Don't confuse Russian's non-participation in that action with its tacit approval of it.

In this case, no military actions will be approved by the Security council, because Russia and China are in bed with the "enemy".

And if the US or Europe decided to try their own action, they might find they're fighting MIGs with Russian pilots instead of Syrian ones.

No way are they going to risk that.

Otherwise a volley of cruise missiles would already have been launched, let's face it.

And the US is still frightened to give the rebels the weapons they need to win, not least because they might end up being used against it.

We'll probably be having the same conversation in a year's time.

As I said, the US and NATO pay no attention to the UN Security Council.

"NATO reaffirms power to take action without U.N. approval" Link cnn.com

If the US or NATO decided to take action in Syria they wouldn't even ask the Security Council.

As for Russian Migs, hahaha. They need to come up against some stealth fighters that they can't even see and some drones with precision missiles that fly far above their ability to reach even with missiles. That will be a picnic for them.

You seem quite happy to send yet more Americans into the firing line. Fortunately there are others that look at the big picture. Going to war with Middle East countries has not worked out well for America, in case you have not noticed.

The last time the UN and NATO ignored the Security Council was Kosovo. But then again, prior to that conflict, most people had never even heard of Kosovo.

[wooloomooloo]

You seem quite happy to send yet more Americans into the firing line. Fortunately there are others that look at the big picture.

Going to war with Middle East countries has not worked out well for America, in case you have not noticed.

Personally I hope they are allowed to just kill each other off with no intervention from the West or the ME, but that's just me. I think we've all "liberated" too many Muslim countries only to see the next regime be even worse.

Am I missing something, Chicog.

Anyway, I find myself agreeing with NeverSure.

[NeverSure]

You seem quite happy to send yet more Americans into the firing line. Fortunately there are others that look at the big picture.

Going to war with Middle East countries has not worked out well for America, in case you have not noticed.

Personally I hope they are allowed to just kill each other off with no intervention from the West or the ME, but that's just me. I think we've all "liberated" too many Muslim countries only to see the next regime be even worse.

Am I missing something, Chicog.

Anyway, I find myself agreeing with NeverSure.

Thanks.

[Credo]

There are so many factors that make intervention in Syria, and most countries in the region, counter productive. First, the people are tribal in nature and their allegiance is to their tribal/linguistic grouping more than a national identity. Second, they are extremely divided by religions, including different sects of Islam, Christianity and others. Finally, they are ethnically divided.

Most importantly, the culture is not conducive to reconciliation or any type of democratic principals. They operate with revenge as a guiding principle.

[F430murci]

The Syrian government accused rebels of using chemical weapons Saturday and warned the United States not to launch any military action against Damascus over an alleged chemical attack last week, saying such a move would set the Middle East ablaze.

The accusations by the regime of President Bashar Assad against opposition forces came as an international aid group said it has tallied 355 deaths from a purported chemical weapons attack on Wednesday in a suburb of the Syrian capital known as Ghouta.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=20055527&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

Ominous warning.

[F430murci]

I would say it about to go down.

KEVIN Rudd suspended his campaign to attend a national security briefing in Canberra on the unfolding chemical weapons crisis in Syria.

The Prime Minister said in Sydney yesterday he was aware of media reports that the US was readying missile strikes on Syrian government forces, but said Australia would not rush into responding.

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/rudd-halts-campaigning-for-national-security-meeting-on-syria/story-fn9qr68y-1226703274257

[simple1]

I would say it about to go down.

KEVIN Rudd suspended his campaign to attend a national security briefing in Canberra on the unfolding chemical weapons crisis in Syria.

The Prime Minister said in Sydney yesterday he was aware of media reports that the US was readying missile strikes on Syrian government forces, but said Australia would not rush into responding.

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/rudd-halts-campaigning-for-national-security-meeting-on-syria/story-fn9qr68y-1226703274257

Other than words, what meaningfull response can be acheived by Australia, just BS by Rudd

[NeverSure]

I would say it about to go down.

KEVIN Rudd suspended his campaign to attend a national security briefing in Canberra on the unfolding chemical weapons crisis in Syria.

The Prime Minister said in Sydney yesterday he was aware of media reports that the US was readying missile strikes on Syrian government forces, but said Australia would not rush into responding.

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/rudd-halts-campaigning-for-national-security-meeting-on-syria/story-fn9qr68y-1226703274257

Other than words, what meaningfull response can be acheived by Australia, just BS by Rudd

As I said, I hope this doesn't go down. I hope we all stay out of it and let them settle it themselves.

That said, Australia is no wimp and as part of a group would be a big factor. They regularly practice with the US too. Recall the bombs the US recently dropped near the reefs off Australia? That was during a joint exercise.

Usually, if only for international relations cya, these strikes are joint efforts as was Libya.

The way I'm reading it the targets would be Assad and his group and there was mention of cruise missiles. Libya was a series of strikes to get Gaddafi and his group. A lot of good that did but at least it was over quickly.

I suspect that there's a lot of talk flying around the world right now, trying to decide what if anything to do.

[boomerangutang]

God or alah or whatever you believe in help those poor people. There is no good solution.

That's a part of the problem. The deep-set hocus pocus belief systems, which sizzle mens' brains more than crack. A crack head will punch his fist through a car windshield. A crazed deist will unleash poison gas on a city. Which is scarier?

[simple1]

I would say it about to go down.

KEVIN Rudd suspended his campaign to attend a national security briefing in Canberra on the unfolding chemical weapons crisis in Syria.

The Prime Minister said in Sydney yesterday he was aware of media reports that the US was readying missile strikes on Syrian government forces, but said Australia would not rush into responding.

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/election-2013/rudd-halts-campaigning-for-national-security-meeting-on-syria/story-fn9qr68y-1226703274257

Other than words, what meaningfull response can be acheived by Australia, just BS by Rudd

As I said, I hope this doesn't go down. I hope we all stay out of it and let them settle it themselves.

That said, Australia is no wimp and as part of a group would be a big factor. They regularly practice with the US too. Recall the bombs the US recently dropped near the reefs off Australia? That was during a joint exercise.

Usually, if only for international relations cya, these strikes are joint efforts as was Libya.

The way I'm reading it the targets would be Assad and his group and there was mention of cruise missiles. Libya was a series of strikes to get Gaddafi and his group. A lot of good that did but at least it was over quickly.

I suspect that there's a lot of talk flying around the world right now, trying to decide what if anything to do.

As a point of detail, Australian involvement would be symbolic and in reality contribute zero to any final outcome, as it was with the Iraqi wars. Guarantee any involvement would not be supported by the Australian public. Australia should stay out of involvement in Syria. Rudd has already stated his government will not permit Syrian refugees to enter Australia

Australian Special Forces have been operational in Afghanistan and effective in their area of operations, but the majority of the public do not support Australian involvement. Off topic, but an analysis of Australian support for the war in Afghanistan at:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3656956.html

[Chicog]

The idea of getting Australia on board would be to build another "Coalition of the willing"..

This is one case in which I'd hope the British would tell America to stuff it, but Hague is desperate to show himself to be a global statesman instead of a rent boy, so we'll probably waste taxpayers money on another action in which the British people have no interest.

[Chicog]

Am I missing something, Chicog.

Yes.

[NeverSure]

The idea of getting Australia on board would be to build another "Coalition of the willing"..

This is one case in which I'd hope the British would tell America to stuff it, but Hague is desperate to show himself to be a global statesman instead of a rent boy, so we'll probably waste taxpayers money on another action in which the British people have no interest.

Don't I wish that Roosevelt had told Churchill to "stuff it" when Churchill begged for help with ships, planes and troops in WWII. The US resisted for a few years and finally gave a few ships and then a few planes and then went all in.

My Dad was there. D. Day.

Look Chicog, as much as you like to bash the US, Britain (and Tony Blair) have been up to their eyeballs in the "weapons of mass destruction let's get Saddam" deal and the Afghan war. Then most recently Britain was up to its eyeballs going after Libya.

If there's action against Syria, and I hope not, Britain will be up to its eyeballs in that too.

And if you think that Europe has no interest in what happens in the Middle East you haven't be paying attention. It's the US that doesn't need the Middle East. Canada is our #1 supplier of oil followed by Mexico and then Brazil. In two years the US will pass Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest oil supplier and by 2020 the US will be a net exporter of oil.

Fk those Arabs and their oil. If we go after Syria it will be for humanitarian reasons, although I disagree that it will do any good.

[simple1]

The idea of getting Australia on board would be to build another "Coalition of the willing"..

This is one case in which I'd hope the British would tell America to stuff it, but Hague is desperate to show himself to be a global statesman instead of a rent boy, so we'll probably waste taxpayers money on another action in which the British people have no interest.

Don't I wish that Roosevelt had told Churchill to "stuff it" when Churchill begged for help with ships, planes and troops in WWII. The US resisted for a few years and finally gave a few ships and then a few planes and then went all in.

My Dad was there. D. Day.

Look Chicog, as much as you like to bash the US, Britain (and Tony Blair) have been up to their eyeballs in the "weapons of mass destruction let's get Saddam" deal and the Afghan war. Then most recently Britain was up to its eyeballs going after Libya.

If there's action against Syria, and I hope not, Britain will be up to its eyeballs in that too.

And if you think that Europe has no interest in what happens in the Middle East you haven't be paying attention. It's the US that doesn't need the Middle East. Canada is our #1 supplier of oil followed by Mexico and then Brazil. In two years the US will pass Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest oil supplier and by 2020 the US will be a net exporter of oil.

Fk those Arabs and their oil. If we go after Syria it will be for humanitarian reasons, although I disagree that it will do any good.

Don't wish to yet again start a review of WW11, but just to clarify, US did not just give away old destroyers etc UK paid by money and concessions. UK did not complete payments back to the US for assistance with material & loans until 2006, US assistance was not "free".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6215847.stm

[Scott]

And with the above post we will end the discussion of WWII.

[jpinx]

Now we have another Afghanistan, Iraq, etc situation brewing and what happens ???

As soon as the previous politicans - the ones who screwed it up totally last time -- have receded into the background, the new ones set about making the same mistakes again -- unbelieveable!!!

It is a religious/tribal war which is nothing to do with them.

What's unacceptable to western culture is perfectly normal for them, but if the western worlds leaders are getting uncomfortable, here is a chance for the UN to shine -- get Russia and USA to sit down and agree to observers and enforce their respective "friends" in the conflict to accept and protect those observers. If the fighting factions don't want observers - don't send them in because if you DO send them in and there are casualties, then the folks back home will start to demand justice/revenge for them and here we go again..............

Ring-fence Syria, take care of fleeing refugees. There's really not much else can be done without the same bloody pantomime all over again....

[Credo]

These situations take many, many years to develop. Thai politics is a small example of how these things start and fester.

Intervention is seldom effective; there are simply too many divergent, resentful groups and the ensuing power struggle will be as deadly as the war. Syria is like watching a stage 4 cancer patient, there simply isn't a lot that can be done.

Who will likely replace Assad? Will he be better or just different?

[jpinx]

These situations take many, many years to develop. Thai politics is a small example of how these things start and fester.

Intervention is seldom effective; there are simply too many divergent, resentful groups and the ensuing power struggle will be as deadly as the war. Syria is like watching a stage 4 cancer patient, there simply isn't a lot that can be done.

Who will likely replace Assad? Will he be better or just different?

Agreed -- but the thing that really "grips" me is the sheer stupidity and short-sightedness of the "leaders". They certainly do not represent me or my family or friends opinions. Or am I despairing about the efficacy of democracy?

" I bomb therefore I am. "

[Credo]

I don't think there is anything anyone can do. I don't blame any of the Western leaders. The biggest problem is that it is very, very difficult to sit back and watch the slaughter, even if it is of people we don't particularly care for.

The other big problem, and this one is a very big one, is how far will the disintegration of Syria spread? How many refugees will it generate and how will neighboring countries cope with it before taking action?

[jpinx]

I *DO* blame the western leaders over generations of empire-building and colonialisations with borders drawn up by beaurocrats with zero knowledge of the local situation and the pre-disposition of a handover to a wealthy autocrat when the colony "fails".

The human cost is enormous, but put it in perspective with road deaths - for example. The western world has a very different perspective on the value of human life, compared to cultures such as those involved in this particular mess.

As to the fall-out..... Let them sort themselves out without interference from outside other then taking care of refugees, but even that can be mis-construed.

The perpetrators of these conflicts know that the "west" is in a lose-lose situation -- that's why they keep the conflict going -- because they can......

[geriatrickid]

I *DO* blame the western leaders over generations of empire-building and colonialisations with borders drawn up by beaurocrats with zero knowledge of the local situation and the pre-disposition of a handover to a wealthy autocrat when the colony "fails".

The human cost is enormous, but put it in perspective with road deaths - for example. The western world has a very different perspective on the value of human life, compared to cultures such as those involved in this particular mess.

As to the fall-out..... Let them sort themselves out without interference from outside other then taking care of refugees, but even that can be mis-construed.

The perpetrators of these conflicts know that the "west" is in a lose-lose situation -- that's why they keep the conflict going -- because they can......

Please restrict that to the Europeans and their dear friends, Turkey. The rest of the west had no hand in the creation of Syria or in its current behaviour. Syria has been a client state of Russia for over 50 years. Let the Turks and the EU fix the mess that they created. Let Putin go make peace. The USA wasn't responsible for the Ottoman Empire that enslaved the arab countries for generations. The biggest mistake of the USA and other non implicated western countries is to get involved. Syria isn't attacking anyone outside its borders and this is just tribal/clan warfare typical of the local culture. Despite all the hype in the western media about resistance to Assad, the reality is that just as many Syrians support his regime as oppose it. If the French want to intervene, good for them. They can respond to the riots in France that will result.

All that the poison gas and brutality of the Syrian insurrection show is that the Israelis have been right all along in responding to the threats on its border. If the Syrians can easily gas Syrians, just consider the likelihood of a gas attack on Tel Aviv.

[Chicog]

The idea of getting Australia on board would be to build another "Coalition of the willing"..

This is one case in which I'd hope the British would tell America to stuff it, but Hague is desperate to show himself to be a global statesman instead of a rent boy, so we'll probably waste taxpayers money on another action in which the British people have no interest.

Look Chicog, as much as you like to bash the US, Britain (and Tony Blair) have been up to their eyeballs in the "weapons of mass destruction let's get Saddam" deal and the Afghan war. Then most recently Britain was up to its eyeballs going after Libya.

If there's action against Syria, and I hope not, Britain will be up to its eyeballs in that too.

And if you think that Europe has no interest in what happens in the Middle East you haven't be paying attention. It's the US that doesn't need the Middle East. Canada is our #1 supplier of oil followed by Mexico and then Brazil. In two years the US will pass Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest oil supplier and by 2020 the US will be a net exporter of oil.

Fk those Arabs and their oil. If we go after Syria it will be for humanitarian reasons, although I disagree that it will do any good.

I'm not quite sure where this particular observation came from, personally I'm against any independent action, however in this case, doing nothing may make the situation worse as others get sucked into the conflict. If any action is to be taken, it *has* to be agreed by the three big players.

I was against the invasion of Iraq, but then again that's more for the fact that it was unnecessary, and it's created an even bigger mess than there was after Gulf War I; at least we had stability whereas now we have the makings of a full on Sunni-Shi'a civil war - with Syria at it's epicentre.

Regarding the US and the Middle East, I think you're missing a very big point. If the Middle East oil flow disappeared overnight, it really wouldn't make a difference where your oil came from, the bill for it would still go through the ceiling, and even if you could get any, with the rest of the world in economic ruin, your economy would get dragged down with it.

I'm fully aware of Shale Gas and Oil, but the effects of that on your environment are already more than most people know, and the ones in control of it are more interested in selling it to Asia at three or four times the price than they are in selling it to you, in case you didn't notice.

I think the big problem in Syria now is that it's gone too far. Stand by and do nothing, and risk the Sunni-Shi'a conflict escalating, or replace Assad with the Sunni and watch a mirror image in Syria of what is happening in Iraq.

In my dreams, the best thing would be for Syria to expel all Shia to Iraq/Iran, and Iraq to expel its Sunni to Syria.

Then build one of those Korea-style buffer zones to keep them apart.

Of course Hizbollah would be a bit pissed off, but if they and their supports left Lebanon for Tehran, no-one would miss them too much.

[Chicog]

the reality is that just as many Syrians support his regime as oppose it.

And where did you unearth that gem?

[jpinx]

I *DO* blame the western leaders over generations of empire-building and colonialisations with borders drawn up by beaurocrats with zero knowledge of the local situation and the pre-disposition of a handover to a wealthy autocrat when the colony "fails".

The human cost is enormous, but put it in perspective with road deaths - for example. The western world has a very different perspective on the value of human life, compared to cultures such as those involved in this particular mess.

As to the fall-out..... Let them sort themselves out without interference from outside other then taking care of refugees, but even that can be mis-construed.

The perpetrators of these conflicts know that the "west" is in a lose-lose situation -- that's why they keep the conflict going -- because they can......

Please restrict that to the Europeans and their dear friends, Turkey. The rest of the west had no hand in the creation of Syria or in its current behaviour. Syria has been a client state of Russia for over 50 years. Let the Turks and the EU fix the mess that they created. Let Putin go make peace. The USA wasn't responsible for the Ottoman Empire that enslaved the arab countries for generations. The biggest mistake of the USA and other non implicated western countries is to get involved. Syria isn't attacking anyone outside its borders and this is just tribal/clan warfare typical of the local culture. Despite all the hype in the western media about resistance to Assad, the reality is that just as many Syrians support his regime as oppose it. If the French want to intervene, good for them. They can respond to the riots in France that will result.

All that the poison gas and brutality of the Syrian insurrection show is that the Israelis have been right all along in responding to the threats on its border. If the Syrians can easily gas Syrians, just consider the likelihood of a gas attack on Tel Aviv.

I agree with your sentiments in that the Chinese, for example, were not involved with the creation of the political map of the middle east, but to say that the USA are innocent is stretching things a bit far. The whole of the middle east was basically re-aligned after the 2 world wars and USA had big input to it - witness the huge protection Israel enjoys Agreed that Putin should go and bang heads together, but the reality is that Obama and Cameron and cooking something up ..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23830590#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

[jpinx]

the reality is that just as many Syrians support his regime as oppose it.

And where did you unearth that gem?

To be fair - - if it was not close to the truth, one side would have won the current civil war a while ago......

[Credo]

the reality is that just as many Syrians support his regime as oppose it.

And where did you unearth that gem?

To be fair - - if it was not close to the truth, one side would have won the current civil war a while ago......

Not necessarily. The side with the most ammunition and guns (and chemical weapons) will win.

[jpinx]

the reality is that just as many Syrians support his regime as oppose it.

And where did you unearth that gem?

To be fair - - if it was not close to the truth, one side would have won the current civil war a while ago......

Not necessarily. The side with the most ammunition and guns (and chemical weapons) will win.

Not really -- if it was an arms race the government would have won a year ago - they have/had a HUGE stockpile of arms

[Chicog]

the reality is that just as many Syrians support his regime as oppose it.

And where did you unearth that gem?

To be fair - - if it was not close to the truth, one side would have won the current civil war a while ago......

The difference in population between the two sides is counterbalanced by the fact that one is very well armed, but the other have become dab hands at guerilla warfare (not to mention they have quite a few veterans who've joined in their fight).

And as evinced by the inability of the US to put down insurgencies in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it is quite a good tactic.