Syria's Assad says Western strike could trigger regional war

[Scott]

Post and reply deleted.

[Baloo22]

All this accusation/counter-accusation over this or that atrocity, brutality, or massacre is nonsense That's the stuff that all sides there have been doing there for centuries. And they will be doing things the same way for the next century no matter what we do. The only thing that changes is the technology.

If Western militaries start flinging cruise missiles in there, it will not change that. It may change who is doing the butchery and who is getting butchered but they will continue with the butchering. No doubt about that. So using this or that atrocity, brutality, or massacre as an excuse for western powers is Epic Fail!!

[Chicog]

All this accusation/counter-accusation over this or that atrocity, brutality, or massacre is nonsense That's the stuff that all sides there have been doing there for centuries. And they will be doing things the same way for the next century no matter what we do. The only thing that changes is the technology.

If Western militaries start flinging cruise missiles in there, it will not change that. It may change who is doing the butchery and who is getting butchered but they will continue with the butchering. No doubt about that. So using this or that atrocity, brutality, or massacre as an excuse for western powers is Epic Fail!!

I don't think you'll find the estimate of 100,000 deaths in Syria in two years to be "nonsense".

Otherwise we really wouldn't be discussing this here now would we?

As for the rest of the post, you may have no doubt, but you speak for yourself.

[Sing_Sling]

 

All this accusation/counter-accusation over this or that atrocity, brutality, or massacre is nonsense That's the stuff that all sides there have been doing there for centuries. And they will be doing things the same way for the next century no matter what we do. The only thing that changes is the technology.

If Western militaries start flinging cruise missiles in there, it will not change that. It may change who is doing the butchery and who is getting butchered but they will continue with the butchering. No doubt about that. So using this or that atrocity, brutality, or massacre as an excuse for western powers is Epic Fail!!

I don't think you'll find the estimate of 100,000 deaths in Syria in two years to be "nonsense".

Otherwise we really wouldn't be discussing this here now would we?

As for the rest of the post, you may have no doubt, but you speak for yourself.

I am wondering why you seem unable to grasp the concept that the US only got interested AFTER 100.000+ had been killed . . . when 1000 were killed by chemical weapons.

You're right, though - we hadn't been discussing this while 100.000+ were being butchered by both sides in a civil war that really interested no-one outside of the immediate neighbours and the usual power-brokers

[SinglePot]

Can someone remind me what the consensus is from the international community on this issue is please?

I've got a vague recollection about it being somehow connected to democracy and decency.

[Chicog]

 

All this accusation/counter-accusation over this or that atrocity, brutality, or massacre is nonsense That's the stuff that all sides there have been doing there for centuries. And they will be doing things the same way for the next century no matter what we do. The only thing that changes is the technology.

If Western militaries start flinging cruise missiles in there, it will not change that. It may change who is doing the butchery and who is getting butchered but they will continue with the butchering. No doubt about that. So using this or that atrocity, brutality, or massacre as an excuse for western powers is Epic Fail!!

I don't think you'll find the estimate of 100,000 deaths in Syria in two years to be "nonsense".

Otherwise we really wouldn't be discussing this here now would we?

As for the rest of the post, you may have no doubt, but you speak for yourself.

I am wondering why you seem unable to grasp the concept that the US only got interested AFTER 100.000+ had been killed . . . when 1000 were killed by chemical weapons.

You're right, though - we hadn't been discussing this while 100.000+ were being butchered by both sides in a civil war that really interested no-one outside of the immediate neighbours and the usual power-brokers

You seem adept at ignoring things like facts. The US and other countries have made several attempts to intervene through the UN and the Security Council, all of which have been stopped by Russia's veto.

And you presume to lecture me on "grasping concepts"?

In February 2012, 137/193 countries voted to condemn Assad and remove him from power; the only opponents? This motley bunch:

Bolivia

Belarus

Cuba

China

Ecuador

Iran

Nicaragua

North Korea

Russia

Syria

Venezuela

Zimbabwe

More than a year ago, Obama effectively said that if Assad uses chemicals there will be military action, whatever the Security council voted.

Assad used them, and Russia, knowing what the results of the UN inspections would be, intervened to buy time. Yet there is evidence to suggest they are not happy with how things are going.

There is still nothing stopping Assad using them again, and nothing stopping the US taking unilateral action, especially now that Russia have effectively agreed that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable, and even if Russia and China use the veto again.

And sorry, but I've been discussing this rebellion since its infancy; living in the region you do tend to pay a little closer attention to the subject in all forms of media, English and Arabic, than people probably do in the West.

I still have a piece of Scud from one of the squabbles that "interested no-one". It interested the participants enough to lob a few in my direction. **

** (Granted, not at me personally, but you get the idea )

Edited September 24, 2013 by Chicog

[Chicog]

I think people need to bear in mind that before this got out of hand, it would have been incredibly simple for Assad to make meaningful concessions and yet retain the power structure. That's how Jordan managed it.

He chose this path of genocide, and there is no turning back for the Sunni.

I wouldn't even say Assad had a difficult job balancing the obviously arse-about-face Sunni/Shi'a power balance; the rest of the Sunni Arabs were generally OK with how he ran things. They probably would have supported him, even financially if need be.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Chicog

[SinglePot]

Yep. Mötley bunch indeed.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted.

[boomerangutang]

Assad will have to go. We all know this. He knows this. A peaceful resolution of the violent confrontation is possible but not easy.

Just like 'oils ain't oils' the military intervention does not have to be devastating as in previous cases. And I do know history.

Just consider a scenario: A military force of many interested players comes in WITH Assad's consent. The conditions are agreed upon as follows.

Army and multinational forces remove the rebels by joint efforts.

Fighting and killings stop.

An election is conducted. Assad is not contesting the Presidency. Assad leaves political power to whoever is elected by Syrians.

The army is sworn to new Gov't.

International forces leave all at one day.

From this point my suggestion is not as crazy as some people here think. My head is not in need of examination...

The trick is not to attack Syria, but to get in forces in agreement with the current Gov't and army. These forces will not be a target for both sides.

Will Assad agree to such a course? I do not know. But it surely is a better option than bombing the sh*t of him and his army.

Patience, diplomacy and necessary force are far better than direct aggression. Especially in view of many past mistakes (genuine or deliberate).

It sounds like a plan devised by Assad himself. Absurd.

[Chicog]

Obama is about to address the UN.

[Chicog]

Well that post was well worth the read, eh?

[Rimmer]

Off topic post with messed up quotes removed

[Chicog]

Well it seems Russia don't want any kind of clock on their chemical weapons deal...

Speaking earlier in Moscow, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov reiterated Russia’s opposition to any threat of military action against Assad. He said Moscow would not accept a resolution stipulating automatic punitive measures if Assad fails to comply with the US-Russian deal.

What a surprise.

[SinglePot]

Well it seems Russia don't want any kind of clock on their chemical weapons deal...

Speaking earlier in Moscow, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov reiterated Russias opposition to any threat of military action against Assad. He said Moscow would not accept a resolution stipulating automatic punitive measures if Assad fails to comply with the US-Russian deal.

What a surprise.

Indeed.

[Baloo22]

Well it seems Russia don't want any kind of clock on their chemical weapons deal...

Speaking earlier in Moscow, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov reiterated Russia’s opposition to any threat of military action against Assad. He said Moscow would not accept a resolution stipulating automatic punitive measures if Assad fails to comply with the US-Russian deal.

What a surprise.

Good! Good! Good!

[boomerangutang]

What's good! good! good! ?

That the Russkies insist there be no strong retaliation if Syria doesn't comply?

For starters, it sounded like Syria made a promise to responsibly dispose of its CW arsenal, which is probably the largest in the ME. We knew it was a stalling tactic (to allay US's strikes) and also knew that Assad wouldn't pay for the disposal, which is estimated at just over a billion dollars, if all went smoothly.

With Russian heavies insisting on no reprisals if Syria doesn't comply, it's sounding even more evident that the whole thing is a ruse - to put the US off its course of punishing Assad's gov't for using chemical weapons. To 'ice the kicker' as it were.

[Chicog]

Yep, anything to keep their puppet in power.

[Scott]

Off-topic posts and replies deleted.

[Baloo22]

What's good! good! good! ?

That the Russkies insist there be no strong retaliation if Syria doesn't comply?

For starters, it sounded like Syria made a promise to responsibly dispose of its CW arsenal, which is probably the largest in the ME. We knew it was a stalling tactic (to allay US's strikes) and also knew that Assad wouldn't pay for the disposal, which is estimated at just over a billion dollars, if all went smoothly.

With Russian heavies insisting on no reprisals if Syria doesn't comply, it's sounding even more evident that the whole thing is a ruse - to put the US off its course of punishing Assad's gov't for using chemical weapons. To 'ice the kicker' as it were.

You ask the question "What's good! good! good! ?"

What is good is that removing such a "automatic punitive measures" resolution makes there one less encouragement/excuse for the "let's choose sides in a civil war and get to blasting" by western leaders. That reduces the chance of western strikes and thus also reduces the chance of such strikes triggering a regional war (which is the topic of this thread).

[LawrenceChee]

In relative good times, countries boggle with balancing budgets.

When your country is mired in civil war with a rollover effect on the economy, jobs and investments it's impossible to spare billions of dollars just to dispose weapons...a realistic expectation

We may not like the chap and what he did..however forcing him to give up his weapons come at a cost and the regional stability as the safe destruction and inspections that are expected will place again the burden on western powers who are keen to play a part in ME to bear the costs

Strange the ME other partners don't seem to play any active role at all or want to..they must know something about regional stability we don't

[FDog]

Can someone remind me what the consensus is from the international community on this issue is please?

I've got a vague recollection about it being somehow connected to democracy and decency.

Sure, the concensus is that the UK wants nothing to do with it and most of the US allies will say yes, go for it, we back you, but will not be providing any troops.

Oh, and the US congress doesn't want anything to do with it.

So really, France is it.

[Scott]

An off-topic post deleted.

[SinglePot]

And the cost of regional stability according to Assad is.......?

Free?

[Chicog]

What's good! good! good! ?

That the Russkies insist there be no strong retaliation if Syria doesn't comply?

For starters, it sounded like Syria made a promise to responsibly dispose of its CW arsenal, which is probably the largest in the ME. We knew it was a stalling tactic (to allay US's strikes) and also knew that Assad wouldn't pay for the disposal, which is estimated at just over a billion dollars, if all went smoothly.

With Russian heavies insisting on no reprisals if Syria doesn't comply, it's sounding even more evident that the whole thing is a ruse - to put the US off its course of punishing Assad's gov't for using chemical weapons. To 'ice the kicker' as it were.

You ask the question "What's good! good! good! ?"

What is good is that removing such a "automatic punitive measures" resolution makes there one less encouragement/excuse for the "let's choose sides in a civil war and get to blasting" by western leaders. That reduces the chance of western strikes and thus also reduces the chance of such strikes triggering a regional war (which is the topic of this thread).

I think you'll find the sides have pretty well been chosen.

And I don't think strikes would trigger a regional war, any more than they did in Iraq.

The main players in the Middle East are:

Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Iraq (Shi'a)

The rest (Sunni)

The obvious proxies:

Russia (and, sort of, China) (Shi'a)

The rest (Sunni)

The question you have to ask is how far would Russia go to protect one naval base that's basically a few piers that are falling apart + a few billion in arms sales.

To me that's the real issue here. If Russia wants it badly, you might see another Cuban Missile Crisis.

If its bluff is called, it might well suddenly swing its support to the Sunni to try and save face (and get a few more arms sales from the Sunni to make up the loss).

It must be doing quite nicely out of Iran and Iraq at the moment.

[boomerangutang]

What's good! good! good! ?

That the Russkies insist there be no strong retaliation if Syria doesn't comply?

For starters, it sounded like Syria made a promise to responsibly dispose of its CW arsenal, which is probably the largest in the ME. We knew it was a stalling tactic (to allay US's strikes) and also knew that Assad wouldn't pay for the disposal, which is estimated at just over a billion dollars, if all went smoothly.

With Russian heavies insisting on no reprisals if Syria doesn't comply, it's sounding even more evident that the whole thing is a ruse - to put the US off its course of punishing Assad's gov't for using chemical weapons. To 'ice the kicker' as it were.

You ask the question "What's good! good! good! ?What is good is that removing such a "automatic punitive measures" resolution makes there one less encouragement/excuse for the "let's choose sides in a civil war and get to blasting" by western leaders. That reduces the chance of western strikes and thus also reduces the chance of such strikes triggering a regional war (which is the topic of this thread).

Where do you stand regarding additional use of chemical weapons by Assad (who has most likely been using them thus far), or any other entity? Perhaps you think there should be no reprisals, and I can see some wisdom in that (staying out of other dogs' fights, etc). However, if there's international consensus for punishment, then it's most likely the US will be at the vanguard of action. It's got the strongest military, and the most resolve, in that regard.

Edited September 25, 2013 by boomerangutang

[Baloo22]

What's good! good! good! ?

That the Russkies insist there be no strong retaliation if Syria doesn't comply?

For starters, it sounded like Syria made a promise to responsibly dispose of its CW arsenal, which is probably the largest in the ME. We knew it was a stalling tactic (to allay US's strikes) and also knew that Assad wouldn't pay for the disposal, which is estimated at just over a billion dollars, if all went smoothly.

With Russian heavies insisting on no reprisals if Syria doesn't comply, it's sounding even more evident that the whole thing is a ruse - to put the US off its course of punishing Assad's gov't for using chemical weapons. To 'ice the kicker' as it were.

You ask the question "What's good! good! good! ?What is good is that removing such a "automatic punitive measures" resolution makes there one less encouragement/excuse for the "let's choose sides in a civil war and get to blasting" by western leaders. That reduces the chance of western strikes and thus also reduces the chance of such strikes triggering a regional war (which is the topic of this thread).

Where do you stand regarding additional use of chemical weapons by Assad (who has most likely been using them thus far), or any other entity? Perhaps you think there should be no reprisals, and I can see some wisdom in that (staying out of other dogs' fights, etc). However, if there's international consensus for punishment, then it's most likely the US will be at the vanguard of action. It's got the strongest military, and the most resolve, in that regard.

I will make a good-faith effort to answer your questions.

At this time I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence showing major use of chemical weapons with sufficient proof that Assad ordered their use. I do not believe that flinging cruise missiles into the mess will stop the many atrocities in this civil war. Nor do I believe that we know enough about the consequences of such strikes. Our launching military strikes against one side of this civil war may result in future consequences worse than the current situation.

Some may ask "How serious does it need to become?" Well, when it becomes serious enough for the military powers of NATO such as Great Britain, France, Germany, Turkey, Italy, and other nations of NATO to actually contribute military forces to strike against Syria. When the nations of the Arab League decide to contribute their military forces. That is when it has become serious enough for the US to commit it's military forces. Until then, we need to stay out of it.

[Scott]

Off-topic post deleted.

[SinglePot]

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Edmund Burke

Irish orator, philosopher, & politician (1729 - 1797)

And in the meantime, the Obama bashers criticise for lack of action.

PS. Don't hold your breath waiting for the nations of the Arab League.

[midas]