Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

It's looking more likely the Syrians will cooperate with the Russians, which could diffuse any threat to the region regarding US participation. Bashir is a murderous thug, but I don't think he's suicidal. The future of bad rebels and honorable rebels is looking pretty dim. Neither the Russians or Syrians are shy when it comes to brutal repression. And they are not US friendly, either of them. It seems as if a solution is on the horizon, I would be thrilled if those rogue nations contained each other and the US could just wash their hands of it.

That would be the best outcome for the US. Especially this time around when other country's are afraid to get involved.

I read this when posted, and didn't think much of it, one way or another. It finally sunk in. Assad exfiltrated this data in hopes it would call in air strikes - on rebel territory.

There was a bloke on Channel 4 news last night that said the time for dealing with the moderate rebels has long gone. They are no longer the majority.

There's an apocalyptic sense to this, Syria is named as the place of Armageddon in the Koran. Syria is specifically mentioned as Al Sham in the Koran. Lots of Islamist fighters believe these are the last days and that jihad in Al Sham is an obligation. The town where the chemical weapons attack took place is specifically mentioned.

There's also a lot of apocalyptic chat coming out of certain types of Christian as well.

In my lifetime, I have met many people convinced the world was coming to an end according to their interpretation of Nostradamus, the Bible, the Koran and astrology. They believe their beliefs passionately, just a layman here but I'm fairly certain that we are viewing another humanity obscenity. I don't see religion as a prediction tool for the end of the world, I think faith should be a comfort not a countdown. I will be happy if no more US troops or coalition of willing country's military professionals are sacrificed trying to sort out religious/sectarian issues in rouge nations who only see the rest of the world as cash cows.

I don't either, but the fact is a lot of jihadists heading to Syria do believe it. That gives things an extra dimension, another layer of fanaticism.

You do fulfill my "fantasies", Spendius...but I still see you as digging.

You are entertaining.

Mostly what we are seeing here, particularly last night, is that THERE ARE NO GOOD OPTIONS AVAILABLE...and in fact, ALL of the options suck in very big ways.

The Russian initiative to get Assad to give up his chemical arsenal to international control is probably the best of the lot...and even it is filled with danger. The process, if the plan come to fruition, will be carried out in a dangerous area now in the midst of a civil war. The logistics will be a nightmare.

This is a disaster...and all we can hope for is that it serves as a lesson for other dictators and regimes, because ending this particular disaster is going to involve MANY mini-disasters.

I am consoling myself with the thought that humans annihilating all of humanity may be doing a great favor for the planet Earth...and perhaps a great favor for any truly intelligent creatures that may exist elsewhere in this universe.

Syria Massacres: UN Probe Finds 8 Were Perpetuated By Syria Regime, 1 By Rebels


Chemical Disarmament Hard Even in Peacetime

I think that's why the UK vote went the way it did. There may have been a few politicians trying to score points at that vote, but then again I think that most of the MP's caught the mood of the country.
Put it this way, I haven't seen much public outrage owing to their NO vote.

Why is it that these countries always start jumping up and down and asking why the west ( read USA and UK usually) hasn't sprung to their defence?
If they decide to **** on their own doorsteps, why is it always an expectation that we will go round with a mop? AND then blame us for the carnage?
Lose lose situation. Keep well out, in my opinion.

It's a slippery slope - do we go in and help? Or do we ignore it?
Chemical warfare is a dangerous thing. The President of Syria, in my opinion, is yet another Hitler. But, in saying that...what is the right hand we play in this. Should more people die under is hand -- or should we wait for the UN to decide?
Pip

One of the problems with the UN is that in that refined and austere forum it is not allowed to Ignore the question about our own stocks of chemical weapons; as it is on here.

It's as if the Roman government had banned spears and swords in the outlying tribes.

And wouldn't our governments try to crush an armed rebellion?

Notice that nobody's saying anything about biological weapons in Syria....

Your point being?

I wonder how long the U S of A is going to suffer from Bush Jr. misguided policies. Two unfunded wars one of which is still going on has so drained the country emotionally and financially that when we need to take some action against a murderous government we cant. Syria has gotten away with the worst kind of murder. A U N report just came out that states that 8 massacres were done by the government and 1 by the rebals.

The biggest problem is the simple fact that the US will go at it alone. That's not a good precedent to set when the world community must act. We can't be the conscience and world police forever.