Syria's Assad says Western strike could trigger regional war

[JDGRUEN]

Hold the Front Page

By Mark Steyn

September 15, 2013 10:59 AM

Hence, the cooing coverage of this weekend’s “agreement”. A “deal” that pretends to be about chemical weapons inspections is, in fact, a deal that “the US will not interfere in Syria’s civil war“. Under the absurd plans to send international inspectors into a war-zone is an agreement by Obama and Putin that what happened to a US client in Egypt and a French client in Tunisia and an Anglo-American-French client in Libya will not be permitted to happen to a Russo-Iranian client in Syria.

(http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/358536/hold-front-page-mark-steyn?fb_action_ids=649107185108398&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%22649107185108398%22%3A516990691711692}&action_type_map={%22649107185108398%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[])

[Publicus]

Hold the Front Page

By Mark Steyn

September 15, 2013 10:59 AM

Hence, the cooing coverage of this weekend’s “agreement”. A “deal” that pretends to be about chemical weapons inspections is, in fact, a deal that “the US will not interfere in Syria’s civil war“. Under the absurd plans to send international inspectors into a war-zone is an agreement by Obama and Putin that what happened to a US client in Egypt and a French client in Tunisia and an Anglo-American-French client in Libya will not be permitted to happen to a Russo-Iranian client in Syria.

(http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/358536/hold-front-page-mark-steyn?fb_action_ids=649107185108398&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map={%22649107185108398%22%3A516990691711692}&action_type_map={%22649107185108398%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map=[])

The world knows the principal factor in Prez Obama not bombing Syria is the strong and pervasive view among the vast majority of the US body politic not to become involved in another Middle East war.

Neither Assad nor Putin is stopping Obama from acting. The US public won't allow Prez Obama to act.

The public was deceived by Bush and the neocons and their Words of Mass Deception in Iraq, which turned out to be a disaster for the United States.

A major reason Barack Obama was elected and reelected was to get the US out of wars, not to conduct even a limited standoff naval and air campaign from afar in the Middle East.

Assad and Putin are powerless to stop the US military. Only the US public can do that, and did do that.

Meanwhile the people of Syria continue to be massacred by Murder Incorporated led by Assad and Putin.

[Chicog]

It was only a matter of time before Mr Anti Putin threw China into a topic about Syria. What a shock.

Are you completely ignorant of UN Security Voting patterns then?

[Robby nz]

Putin's unwavering support of Assad and his regime assures that the bloodbath will continue.

The US's unwavering support, arming and now helping to train the rebels assures that the bloodbath will continue.

Would be a good idea for the US to destroy their stockpiles of chemical weapons along with those of Syria.

Fortunately the stupidity of attacking Syria with missiles seems to have been forgotten.

Since the conflict in Syria began in March of 2011, two million of the country's citizens have become refugees in foreign countries, according to the U.N.

Two million refugees — but 1.8 million over the last 12 months. That's 5,000 people a day — the majority of them kids.

Agence France-Presse reported on Monday that some 110,000 people had been killed in the conflict, about 40,000 of whom were civilians.

This 'conflict' was started because of a rebel uprising against the Govt of Assad.

Therefor the deaths and refugees can all be blamed directly on the rebel forces that are trying to take over the Govt.

Had there been no rebel uprising, (supported by guess who), then there would have been none of the deaths or need for anyone to flee the country.

To blame everything on Assad who was and is fighting an armed insurrection is just silly.

To slam Putin for supporting Assad while the US is supporting the rebels is plain bigotry.

Assad may be a bad bastid but he is only doing what any leader of any country would do when faced with a rebel uprising.

Sure chemical weapons have been used but there is still no proof as to who used them.

[F430murci]

Putin's unwavering support of Assad and his regime assures that the bloodbath will continue.

The US's unwavering support, arming and now helping to train the rebels assures that the bloodbath will continue.

Would be a good idea for the US to destroy their stockpiles of chemical weapons along with those of Syria.

Fortunately the stupidity of attacking Syria with missiles seems to have been forgotten.

Since the conflict in Syria began in March of 2011, two million of the country's citizens have become refugees in foreign countries, according to the U.N.

Two million refugees but 1.8 million over the last 12 months. That's 5,000 people a day the majority of them kids.

Agence France-Presse reported on Monday that some 110,000 people had been killed in the conflict, about 40,000 of whom were civilians.

This 'conflict' was started because of a rebel uprising against the Govt of Assad.

Therefor the deaths and refugees can all be blamed directly on the rebel forces that are trying to take over the Govt.

Had there been no rebel uprising, (supported by guess who), then there would have been none of the deaths or need for anyone to flee the country.

To blame everything on Assad who was and is fighting an armed insurrection is just silly.

To slam Putin for supporting Assad while the US is supporting the rebels is plain bigotry.

Assad may be a bad bastid but he is only doing what any leader of any country would do when faced with a rebel uprising.

Sure chemical weapons have been used but there is still no proof as to who used them.

US had been criticized for not arming the rebels for last two years. There is actually evidence of both sides using chemical weapons according to UN human rights investigation team that is responsible for investigating and charging war crimes. Pinheiro and Del Ponte have indicated that interviews with defected Syrian army members have provided evidence of Assad's use.

Del Ponte has openly said that the brutal torture methods being utilized by Assad and Syrian forces are unlike anything the commission has ever seen. I guess you are cool with the todture if women and children and the shooting execution style of infants. Candidly, this is a far more compelling reason to intervene than some limited chemical discharges, but . . . world politics make sure focus is warped.

[F430murci]

Robby NZ et al seems to know something US congress and president don't know about this supply of arms to rebels. US is supposed to be carefully vetting which groups they assist IF and WHEN they finally assist and they have to because Pinheiro and Del Ponte have clearly stated that supplying group committing war crimes, like Putin has done, makes the supplier a war criminal. Be interesting to see if UN human rights commission tries to go after Putin as they have clearly stated he is guilty of war crimes by virtue of arming Assad.

-----

July 23, 2013

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama will move forward with a plan for the United States to arm the struggling Syrian rebels after some congressional concerns were eased, officials said on Monday.

"We believe we are in a position that the administration can move forward," House of Representatives Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers told Reuters.

. . .

But both Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate intelligence committees had expressed worries that the arms could end up in the hands of Islamist militants in Syria like the Nusra Front, and would not be enough to tip the balance of the civil war against President Bashar al-Assad anyway.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE96L0W520130723?irpc=932

Edited September 15, 2013 by F430murci

[boomerangutang]

If the Earth was a person's body, then the M.East would be a mass of staph infection, and Syria would be its most recent open sore. More to come.

[simple1]

Putin's unwavering support of Assad and his regime assures that the bloodbath will continue.

The US's unwavering support, arming and now helping to train the rebels assures that the bloodbath will continue.

Would be a good idea for the US to destroy their stockpiles of chemical weapons along with those of Syria.

Fortunately the stupidity of attacking Syria with missiles seems to have been forgotten.

Since the conflict in Syria began in March of 2011, two million of the country's citizens have become refugees in foreign countries, according to the U.N.

Two million refugees — but 1.8 million over the last 12 months. That's 5,000 people a day — the majority of them kids.

Agence France-Presse reported on Monday that some 110,000 people had been killed in the conflict, about 40,000 of whom were civilians.

This 'conflict' was started because of a rebel uprising against the Govt of Assad.

Therefor the deaths and refugees can all be blamed directly on the rebel forces that are trying to take over the Govt.

Had there been no rebel uprising, (supported by guess who), then there would have been none of the deaths or need for anyone to flee the country.

To blame everything on Assad who was and is fighting an armed insurrection is just silly.

To slam Putin for supporting Assad while the US is supporting the rebels is plain bigotry.

Assad may be a bad bastid but he is only doing what any leader of any country would do when faced with a rebel uprising.

Sure chemical weapons have been used but there is still no proof as to who used them.

Rob, you have completely ignored that the rebel uprising was a direct result of the Assad regime, a dictatorship by a 10% minority sect, violently suppressing demonstrations seeking a more representative form of government. As said above the regime, prior to the 2011 demonstrations, was supressing any objection to his dictatorship, activities included the detention & torture of children.

[LawrenceChee]

Putin's unwavering support of Assad and his regime assures that the bloodbath will continue.

The US's unwavering support, arming and now helping to train the rebels assures that the bloodbath will continue.

Would be a good idea for the US to destroy their stockpiles of chemical weapons along with those of Syria.

Fortunately the stupidity of attacking Syria with missiles seems to have been forgotten.

Since the conflict in Syria began in March of 2011, two million of the country's citizens have become refugees in foreign countries, according to the U.N.

Two million refugees — but 1.8 million over the last 12 months. That's 5,000 people a day — the majority of them kids.

Agence France-Presse reported on Monday that some 110,000 people had been killed in the conflict, about 40,000 of whom were civilians.

This 'conflict' was started because of a rebel uprising against the Govt of Assad.

Therefor the deaths and refugees can all be blamed directly on the rebel forces that are trying to take over the Govt.

Had there been no rebel uprising, (supported by guess who), then there would have been none of the deaths or need for anyone to flee the country.

To blame everything on Assad who was and is fighting an armed insurrection is just silly.

To slam Putin for supporting Assad while the US is supporting the rebels is plain bigotry.

Assad may be a bad bastid but he is only doing what any leader of any country would do when faced with a rebel uprising.

Sure chemical weapons have been used but there is still no proof as to who used them.

Rob, you have completely ignored that the rebel uprising was a direct result of the Assad regime, a dictatorship by a 10% minority sect, violently suppressing demonstrations seeking a more representative form of government. As said above the regime, prior to the 2011 demonstrations, was supressing any objection to his dictatorship, activities included the detention & torture of children.

I always wonder if the incoming western backed rebels later turned into a bunch of crazy zealots in Syria ...

The weapons they have or posses to create that mass destruction...who have given it to them ?

Easy for Obama to talk about the destruction of the chemical weapons of a sovereign nation...how about the USA removing it from their own arsenal and see if the powers will sit easy

History has shown the west understand themselves best only and was never good in geo politics and meddling in the Middle East or Asia.

Honestly I think the resources are best served trying to eradicate the poor and homeless situation back home.

[StasD]

I do not know, maybe somebody sit in Washington or London and know better then Russian citizens who is mr.Putin: tyrant or dictator. But he trys to stop war or at least not let its expand. Therefore I like him. BTW the reason of any war is money. Syria is not an exeption

I think most Russians see through and distrust Putin, but what are they to do? Putin controls media, recently taken over social media such as vk.com, and has any legitimate or outspoken opposition arrested on trumped up charges. Those exposing voting fraud in 2011 where jailed or fled before being jailed. One journalist was executed. Yeah, great guy that Putin and most Russians fear him more than love him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-alan-kennedy/russias-new-exiles_b_3430867.html

you read what you want to read. http://exile.ru is managed by american. maybe it will be a little bit interesting for you

[Credo]

The US has either destroyed all existing stockpiles of chemical weapons or is in the process of destroying them. Destroying them without environmental damage is not easy. Current regulations prevent them being moved around, so if any do exist, they have to be destroyed where they are located. They can't be relocated to a different facility for destruction. If there are any chemical weapons remaining, they would most likely be so seriously degraded as to be unusable (but potentially quite dangerous).

The US stand on chemical weapons has been this: A policy of 'calculated ambiguity' warns of an “overwhelming and devastating” response in the event of CBW (chemical or biological weapons) being used against the United states or its allies.

People may speculate on exactly who used chemical weapons, but it is known that the Assad gov't possesses them and he is therefore the most likely culprit.

The ultimate outcome in Syria is most likely going to be a chaotic mess and will not be sorted out for a very long time. There will not be any real winners only losers.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/conley.html

[F430murci]

I do not know, maybe somebody sit in Washington or London and know better then Russian citizens who is mr.Putin: tyrant or dictator. But he trys to stop war or at least not let its expand. Therefore I like him. BTW the reason of any war is money. Syria is not an exeption

I think most Russians see through and distrust Putin, but what are they to do? Putin controls media, recently taken over social media such as vk.com, and has any legitimate or outspoken opposition arrested on trumped up charges. Those exposing voting fraud in 2011 where jailed or fled before being jailed. One journalist was executed. Yeah, great guy that Putin and most Russians fear him more than love him.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-alan-kennedy/russias-new-exiles_b_3430867.html

you read what you want to read. http://exile.ru is managed by american. maybe it will be a little bit interesting for you

Does not necessarily come from reading, but directly from people people living there and from there.

[Publicus]

Putin's unwavering support of Assad and his regime assures that the bloodbath will continue.

The US's unwavering support, arming and now helping to train the rebels assures that the bloodbath will continue.

Would be a good idea for the US to destroy their stockpiles of chemical weapons along with those of Syria.

Fortunately the stupidity of attacking Syria with missiles seems to have been forgotten.

Since the conflict in Syria began in March of 2011, two million of the country's citizens have become refugees in foreign countries, according to the U.N.

Two million refugees — but 1.8 million over the last 12 months. That's 5,000 people a day — the majority of them kids.

Agence France-Presse reported on Monday that some 110,000 people had been killed in the conflict, about 40,000 of whom were civilians.

This 'conflict' was started because of a rebel uprising against the Govt of Assad.

Therefor the deaths and refugees can all be blamed directly on the rebel forces that are trying to take over the Govt.

Had there been no rebel uprising, (supported by guess who), then there would have been none of the deaths or need for anyone to flee the country.

To blame everything on Assad who was and is fighting an armed insurrection is just silly.

To slam Putin for supporting Assad while the US is supporting the rebels is plain bigotry.

Assad may be a bad bastid but he is only doing what any leader of any country would do when faced with a rebel uprising.

Sure chemical weapons have been used but there is still no proof as to who used them.

It is a grotesque folly to blame conflict on the oppressed and repressed population that reacts against a tyrant ruler.

It is absurd to try to deny Assad is a tyrant.

It is ridiculous to blame conflict on a people who are forced by a brutal military regime to take up arms against it after it has oppressed and repressed its population over an extended period of time.

The Arab Spring, which has gone through several cycles of evolution, and continues to do so, is sweeping across the Middle East. If one condemns the people of Syria for rising up against a tyrant ruler, then one must necessarily condemn all oppressed and repressed people everywhere for rising up in arms against their long time tyrant rulers.

Not all populations have had to rise up in arms against their long standing authoritarian elites who rule in one party states where there is no democratic alternative, or no viable democratic alternative, to their rule. However, many oligarchs who rule by cruelty have a massive and brutally violent repressive state apparatus in place to protect themselves against the people they rule.

Ruling authoritarians never at any time hesitate to use violence to repress their populations while enriching themselves and their cronies.

It is more than ironic to blame the repressed when they decide enough is enough and decide to confront their long time oppressor. It is a perverse inversion of logic and reasoning. The argument blaming the victim contradicts history. Moreover, the argument protects dictators and tyrants.

What a choice to make!

[Robby nz]

It is a grotesque folly to blame conflict on the oppressed and repressed population that reacts against a tyrant ruler.

It is absurd to try to deny Assad is a tyrant.

It is ridiculous to blame conflict on a people who are forced by a brutal military regime to take up arms against it after it has oppressed and repressed its population over an extended period of time.

The Arab Spring, which has gone through several cycles of evolution, and continues to do so, is sweeping across the Middle East. If one condemns the people of Syria for rising up against a tyrant ruler, then one must necessarily condemn all oppressed and repressed people everywhere for rising up in arms against their long time tyrant rulers.

Not all populations have had to rise up in arms against their long standing authoritarian elites who rule in one party states where there is no democratic alternative, or no viable democratic alternative, to their rule. However, many oligarchs who rule by cruelty have a massive and brutally violent repressive state apparatus in place to protect themselves against the people they rule.

Ruling authoritarians never at any time hesitate to use violence to repress their populations while enriching themselves and their cronies.

It is more than ironic to blame the repressed when they decide enough is enough and decide to confront their long time oppressor. It is a perverse inversion of logic and reasoning. The argument blaming the victim contradicts history. Moreover, the argument protects dictators and tyrants.

What a choice to make!

So once again your argument comes back to Assad bad ( something I or no one else denies) so therefore it is all right for a rebel group to rise against him in armed rebellion.

And because he chooses to attempt to put down that armed rebellion he is responsible for all the deaths, no responsibility on the rebels at all.

So what should he have done, rolled over and let them take over the country?

Had he done that would they be any better than him?

We read that where they have taken over they have imposed Sharia law, remember the girl who was given 100 lashes for pre-marital sex who was raped, (not in Syria) stoning women to death, part of Sharia law, right ? do you think that is what the Syrian people want ?

How many have been killed by the rebels or fled from them rather than Assad?

The people were living under Assad, tyrant or not, they were not running away before the rebels arrived on the scene.

I am not making choices only looking at things with both eyes and at the same time remembering what has happened when the US got 'involved' in the past.

It is only a small step in perception from the worlds self styled policeman to the worlds bully.

[Credo]

The repression that has been going on in Syria has been going on for a long time. When groups, especially in large numbers, start expressing that dissatisfaction, it is probably a good idea for those in power to listen. If and when they don't, they run the risk of an insurrection such as the one going on.

What should Assad do to maintain power? First he should listen to the people in the country and second, he should have included them in the gov't long before things reached the current point. Instead, he has attempted a rather ruthless campaign that is aimed as much at killing the civilian population as it is at crushing the insurgency. He is making no attempt at winning the 'hearts and minds' of his people. He is hell bent on terrorizing them into submission.

The rebels, for their part, probably aren't a lot better than Assad, but they probably aren't as bad either. When you control an area, you must institute some form of law. In western countries it would be martial law; in Islamic countries it would be Sharia law. The point is the locals have to know what is permitted.

The US involvement is minimal. The US has had no strategic interests in Syria for a very, very long time. But please feel free to criticize US involvement, or lack thereof, if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Credo

[simple1]

The repression that has been going on in Syria has been going on for a long time. When groups, especially in large numbers, start expressing that dissatisfaction, it is probably a good idea for those in power to listen. If and when they don't, they run the risk of an insurrection such as the one going on.

What should Assad do to maintain power? First he should listen to the people in the country and second, he should have included them in the gov't long before things reached the current point. Instead, he has attempted a rather ruthless campaign that is aimed as much at killing the civilian population as it is at crushing the insurgency. He is making no attempt at winning the 'hearts and minds' of his people. He is hell bent on terrorizing them into submission.

The rebels, for their part, probably aren't a lot better than Assad, but they probably aren't as bad either. When you control an area, you must institute some form of law. In western countries it would be martial law; in Islamic countries it would be Sharia law. The point is the locals have to know what is permitted.

The US involvement is minimal. The US has had no strategic interests in Syria for a very, very long time. But please feel free to criticize US involvement, or lack thereof, if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.

Just to add a few comments that has already been made and probably 'lost' due to the volume of posts. The FSA were originally composed of defectors from the Syrian Army, Assad named them as rebels or more commonly terrorists. In the early days of the rebellion the Syria Army and the militias launched full scale attacks on Sunni towns and villages using aerial bombing, tanks and heavy artillery, killing thousands of civilians; plus ethnic cleansing that was allotted to the militias. A large majority of the first waves of refugees were composed of Sunnis fleeing the Assad regime's murderous military campaigns.

As I've said a few times the risk is that the civil war and the huge numbers of refugees could lead to instability and a possible contagion of sectarian killing into Lebanon, Jordon and as we know already in Iraq.

Edited September 16, 2013 by simple1

[Publicus]

<<<snip>>>

The US stand on chemical weapons has been this: A policy of 'calculated ambiguity' warns of an “overwhelming and devastating” response in the event of CBW (chemical or biological weapons) being used against the United states or its allies.

<<<snip>>>.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/conley.html

The US has made clear that any attack against it using chemical or biological weapons will get a swift nuclear response.

This includes any such attack by terrorists wherever they may be. There are different sized nuclear warheads to include tactical that would be limited to a small area.

The US will not use chemical or biological weapons in warfare of any kind.

The US has destroyed 90% of its chemical weapons. Only 3000 tons remain of the original 31,500 tons that existed when Prez Richard Nixon renounced US use of chemical weapons towards the end of the Vietnam conflict. The US is completing construction and testing of new two chemical weapons destruction facilities which will be operational in 2015 and 2021 respectively. One is in the US west and the other is in the east.

Russia continues to have the world's largest stockpile of chemical weapons, consisting of 44,000 tons. So it's no wonder that Assad's stockpile of 1000 tons and its recent use don't disturb Putin in the least.

[Publicus]

This all but settles it.

What remains is for the report to issue and be placed in its proper and accurate context by the weapons inspectors who will speak from their own professional point of view that the chemicals could only have been used by a state authority

.

Syrian dictator Bashar Assad IS guilty of crimes against humanity, says UN chief ahead of report on poison gas attack

• Ban Ki-Moon said Syrian regime guilty of 'many crimes against humanity'
• Chief weapons inspector says report to be handed to Mr Ban this weekend

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon yesterday said the Syrian regime is guilty of 'many crimes against humanity', but stopped short of blaming it for chemical weapons attacks.

Speaking at the UN yesterday, Mr Ban said he believes there will be 'an overwhelming report' from UN inspectors that chemical weapons were used in the attack.

But two UN diplomats said the report could point to the perpetrators, saying that the inspectors collected many samples from the attack and also interviewed doctors and witnesses.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420510/Syrian-dictator-Bashar-Assad-IS-guilty-crimes-humanity-says-UN-chief-Ban-Ki-Moon.html#ixzz2f3Jg1vdJ

[Scott]

An off-topic post and reply have been deleted.

[Loptr]

<<<snip>>>

The US stand on chemical weapons has been this: A policy of 'calculated ambiguity' warns of an “overwhelming and devastating” response in the event of CBW (chemical or biological weapons) being used against the United states or its allies.

<<<snip>>>.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj03/spr03/conley.html

The US has made clear that any attack against it using chemical or biological weapons will get a swift nuclear response.

This includes any such attack by terrorists wherever they may be. There are different sized nuclear warheads to include tactical that would be limited to a small area.

The US will not use chemical or biological weapons in warfare of any kind.

The US has destroyed 90% of its chemical weapons. Only 3000 tons remain of the original 31,500 tons that existed when Prez Richard Nixon renounced US use of chemical weapons towards the end of the Vietnam conflict. The US is completing construction and testing of new two chemical weapons destruction facilities which will be operational in 2015 and 2021 respectively. One is in the US west and the other is in the east.

Russia continues to have the world's largest stockpile of chemical weapons, consisting of 44,000 tons. So it's no wonder that Assad's stockpile of 1000 tons and its recent use don't disturb Putin in the least.

Isn't it wonderful when the world's top cop threatens a country with obliteration if they don't bow to the demands of the US. Even if the US is the antagonist in the situation by funding the enemies of Syria and fabricating chemical weapons attacks to further the agenda of the US.

[Credo]

There was never a threat to obliterate anyone, but when one can't argue with facts, then I guess inflammatory statements is the way to go.

The point is, the US doesn't really have an agenda with Syria.

Your anti-American stand, or should I say anti-Obama shines through. Perhaps you should do some reading about Syria and the situation there.

Chemical weapons are a serious problem and they are more serious for civilians than they are for the military.

[Sing_Sling]

Ok, let's say that the report shows that Assad did use chemical weapons, which no-one would really put past this guy

What then?

The Russian proposal will be followed and the civil war continues as before . . .

[Credo]

Yes. There is no one interested in really stopping it. There are some cheering for Assad, there are some cheering for various factions of the rebels, but in the end, not too many with the stomach to intervene.

There are probably more people with a vested interest in keeping Assad in power. He is a known entity and he has some friends. The rebels are an unknown entity and those backing them are largely those that just don't like Assad.

[LawrenceChee]

Ok, let's say that the report shows that Assad did use chemical weapons, which no-one would really put past this guy

What then?

The Russian proposal will be followed and the civil war continues as before . . .

I agree with this ...the west needs to understand some of these conflicts have been going on for years and will go on long after the west retreat from the casualty, political pressure and running out of $$$.

The people in the middle east wants peace and not the western ideals of democracy and voting ...this peace will come in time when they are ready...the culture there is different and interference is unwanted.

Iraq still has sectorial violence, Taliban still at the forefront in Afghanistan and these rebels in Syria are hard line jihadists and the CIA and the USA is providing intelligence, training and light weapons ...

Hard lessons to learn and the USA never seems to learn.

I can only imagine the money spent on rebuilding crappy roads in downtown New York, flood relief in Colorado and upgrading Amtrak are better uses for the funding than trying to win Mr Popular Unwanted Cop of the World award .

[StasD]

Yes. There is no one interested in really stopping it. There are some cheering for Assad, there are some cheering for various factions of the rebels, but in the end, not too many with the stomach to intervene.

There are probably more people with a vested interest in keeping Assad in power. He is a known entity and he has some friends. The rebels are an unknown entity and those backing them are largely those that just don't like Assad.

somebody say terrorists, somebody say rebels so now Al-Quaeda with its branches are good guys ?

[Credo]

Nothing like putting words in other people's mouths. I don't recall saying that AQ are good guys.

The people fighting the Syrian government are rebels. Some of the rebels, if we are to believe what is reported, are jihadists, Islamists and members of Terrorists groups, including AQ. A significant portion of the rebels are former members of the Assad military, as I understand it.

[Publicus]

It is a grotesque folly to blame conflict on the oppressed and repressed population that reacts against a tyrant ruler.

It is absurd to try to deny Assad is a tyrant.

It is ridiculous to blame conflict on a people who are forced by a brutal military regime to take up arms against it after it has oppressed and repressed its population over an extended period of time.

The Arab Spring, which has gone through several cycles of evolution, and continues to do so, is sweeping across the Middle East. If one condemns the people of Syria for rising up against a tyrant ruler, then one must necessarily condemn all oppressed and repressed people everywhere for rising up in arms against their long time tyrant rulers.

Not all populations have had to rise up in arms against their long standing authoritarian elites who rule in one party states where there is no democratic alternative, or no viable democratic alternative, to their rule. However, many oligarchs who rule by cruelty have a massive and brutally violent repressive state apparatus in place to protect themselves against the people they rule.

Ruling authoritarians never at any time hesitate to use violence to repress their populations while enriching themselves and their cronies.

It is more than ironic to blame the repressed when they decide enough is enough and decide to confront their long time oppressor. It is a perverse inversion of logic and reasoning. The argument blaming the victim contradicts history. Moreover, the argument protects dictators and tyrants.

What a choice to make!

So once again your argument comes back to Assad bad ( something I or no one else denies) so therefore it is all right for a rebel group to rise against him in armed rebellion.

And because he chooses to attempt to put down that armed rebellion he is responsible for all the deaths, no responsibility on the rebels at all.

So what should he have done, rolled over and let them take over the country?

Had he done that would they be any better than him?

We read that where they have taken over they have imposed Sharia law, remember the girl who was given 100 lashes for pre-marital sex who was raped, (not in Syria) stoning women to death, part of Sharia law, right ? do you think that is what the Syrian people want ?

How many have been killed by the rebels or fled from them rather than Assad?

The people were living under Assad, tyrant or not, they were not running away before the rebels arrived on the scene.

I am not making choices only looking at things with both eyes and at the same time remembering what has happened when the US got 'involved' in the past.

It is only a small step in perception from the worlds self styled policeman to the worlds bully.

In February, 2012 the UN General Assembly voted 137-12 for Assad to step down so that a democratic unity government might be formed and the violence stopped.

You do know the UN General Assembly is comprised of all of the ambassadors of all of the member states of the United Nations.

That's the world community of nations, the international community.

You stand with the 12 who voted against the non-binding resolution, to include Russia and the CCP-PRC.

Congratulations, because I'm sure you've won some sort of prize - I'm just afraid to think of what the prize might be. The Assad Gas 'em and Bomb 'em Prize? The Putin Supports Assad Prize? I don't know, but it must be something along these lines.

[Sing_Sling]

^ The UN? Really?

You mean the body that is continuously disregarded by he US and Israel, among others? Perhaps you should choose your examples a bit more cautiously or all sorts of UN resolutions will be dragged up.

Please don't get me wrong, I am a firm supporter of the UN - not the populist mistakes that are dredged up by those with an agenda, rather for the good it does, both militarily and socially

Fact is that no-one really cares about regime change (lovely new-ish terminology) due to chemical weapons usage. As usual the big boys have their stake in this, so yes: a western strike (the US and F, that is) could trigger a regional war . . . as per the thread title.

Nothing like putting words in other people's mouths. I don't recall saying that AQ are good guys.

The people fighting the Syrian government are rebels. Some of the rebels, if we are to believe what is reported, are jihadists, Islamists and members of Terrorists groups, including AQ. A significant portion of the rebels are former members of the Assad military, as I understand it.

It's a such a quagmire, best of all options - to just let it run its course

[Publicus]

Ok, let's say that the report shows that Assad did use chemical weapons, which no-one would really put past this guy

What then?

The Russian proposal will be followed and the civil war continues as before . . .

I agree with this ...the west needs to understand some of these conflicts have been going on for years and will go on long after the west retreat from the casualty, political pressure and running out of $$$.

The people in the middle east wants peace and not the western ideals of democracy and voting ...this peace will come in time when they are ready...the culture there is different and interference is unwanted.

Iraq still has sectorial violence, Taliban still at the forefront in Afghanistan and these rebels in Syria are hard line jihadists and the CIA and the USA is providing intelligence, training and light weapons ...

Hard lessons to learn and the USA never seems to learn.

I can only imagine the money spent on rebuilding crappy roads in downtown New York, flood relief in Colorado and upgrading Amtrak are better uses for the funding than trying to win Mr Popular Unwanted Cop of the World award .

The United States in 1917, in Prez Woodrow Wilson's brilliant words, entered the Great European War to "make the world safe for democracy." The consequence was that the US and its democratic allies Britain and France won World War I and the absolute monarchies of Europe collapsed.

Making the world safe for democracy, i.e., the United States and its always increasing number of democratic allies, has since been ongoing and shall continue to be the purpose of the United States. The process involves many aspects.

You resist this purpose. China has never had democracy, save for a blip under Sun Yat Sen. China hates democracy and is absolutely opposed to it. To the Chinese, democracy is a modern idea that contradicts the 2500 year old tradition of Chinese dictatorship.

Democracy is a Western idea that has already permeated Asia and most of the world. Many dictatorships remain and some US allies are dictatorships, which reflects the world of realpolitik and nothing more. The US works with what there is, seeks to change what it can change, accepts what it cannot yet change.

Now the world accepts the use of chemical warfare in Syria - against civilians. This shall not stand in the longer term because it endangers all of us, sooner or later. It makes the world safe for no one.

Edited September 16, 2013 by Publicus

[rubin]

The British newspaper the Daily telegraph reports:

Syria: nearly half rebel fighters are jihadists or hardline Islamists, aka AL QUAEDA (remember 9/11)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10311007/Syria-nearly-half-rebel-fighters-are-jihadists-or-hardline-Islamists-says-IHS-Janes-report.html