[MP-Ryan]

Oh, and this:

The response to a limited strike may not be so limited. Iran and Syria have already stated they'd be aiming their weapons on Israel, for instance, nor do I expect the cruise-missile armed ships to survive against the modern weaponry installed by the Russians. The escalation will in best cases be a hot proxy war which at the current state is very likely to result in initial defeat on the side of the USA (and allies), at worst conventional WW3.

You've been reading too much fiction.  Most of the support provided by the Russians has barely the range to hit Tomahawk-equipped naval assets, and there are reports that at least one Aegis-equipped missile destroyer has already been selected for deployment.  The notion that the Syrian government could even moderately damage any US or NATO-deployed naval assets is absolutely laughable.

And as mentioned earlier, this is not, nor will it be a proxy war.  If anything, lack of intervention now increases the chances of a hot war in the Middle East in general, but it's still unlikely that it would be a proxy war.

[StarSlayer]

We should drop food and medical aid on Syria with leaflets letting those responsible know if we can do so with impunity the next time they decide to use CBRNEs we drop the hammer just as easily   We can call it Sauce and Awe.

[Luis Dias]

Of course, this is all be even more laughable if the US congress actually vetoes the President's suggestion. Obama's management of this crisis has been ridiculous.

MP, just a small correction... the "rebels" do not "hate everyone but Iran and Al Quaeda". This is not even remotely representative nor true in its most simple form. The rebels are amazingly heterogeneous, and you will actually find secular cells that have been targeted by Al Quaeda cells for the past months (a big leader of one such secular cell was killed in the north recently by AQ). You will find mercenaries and all sorts of agendas in these cells. Do understand that these cells are mostly being fed by the US and Saudi Arabia, and from the latter you get the Al Quaeda connection. Al Quaeda is not a "friend" of Iran. These cells are doing another proxy war for Saudi Arabia against Iran / Syria.

It's a ****ing hellhole.

Oh and there's this of course:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10291879/Syria-Russia-will-stand-by-Assad-over-any-US-strikes-warns-Putin.html

Syria: Russia will stand by Assad over any US strikes, warns Putin
Russia would help Syria respond to any military intervention by the US over chemical weapons attacks, Vladimir Putin has warned.

Anyways the G20 is probably the most interesting reunion made so far. I just hope all these morons are sensible enough and that these guns of september do not recapitulate the guns of another august.

[MP-Ryan]

MP, just a small correction... the "rebels" do not "hate everyone but Iran and Al Quaeda". This is not even remotely representative nor true in its most simple form. The rebels are amazingly heterogeneous, and you will actually find secular cells that have been targeted by Al Quaeda cells for the past months (a big leader of one such secular cell was killed in the north recently by AQ). You will find mercenaries and all sorts of agendas in these cells. Do understand that these cells are mostly being fed by the US and Saudi Arabia, and from the latter you get the Al Quaeda connection. Al Quaeda is not a "friend" of Iran. These cells are doing another proxy war for Saudi Arabia against Iran / Syria.

I did say the dominant factions likely to win out, you'll note

Syria: Russia will stand by Assad over any US strikes, warns Putin
Russia would help Syria respond to any military intervention by the US over chemical weapons attacks, Vladimir Putin has warned.

Anyways the G20 is probably the most interesting reunion made so far. I just hope all these morons are sensible enough and that these guns of september do not recapitulate the guns of another august.

Can I point back to the thread title and OP yet again?

Russia (and to a much lesser extent) China are the biggest problems in this whole mess.  Had we gotten a UN SC resolution two years ago and Russia hadn't been continually arming Assad, we wouldn't be dealing with the present predicament.  Like I said before, the blame for the chemical weapons attacks should be squarely worn by the Russians, because its their bull**** that allowed it to go this way.

[Sandwich]

I like StarSlayer's solution the best.

Also, I suspect that if Syria attacks Israel with chemical weapons, the debate whether Israel has nukes or not will go up in a rather large fireball over Damascus.

[Luis Dias]

MP, yes I know you think that, I don't do blame the way you do. If you are going to say that Russia is to blame because they have been backing the one ruler they have on their hands in the ME... come on. It's like saying the Russkies were bad coz they didn't throw a red carpet to the US-backed rebels two years ago. I think both Russia and the US are to blame for the scale of the escalation and perhaps the escalation itself.

The situation was probably really similar to what happened in Iran some four years ago. But at that time the opposition didn't have any international backing and they were easily crushed. Had they been backed by Saudis and americans, etc., we would now be discussing what to do about the blood in Tehran, not in Damascus.

It's not a reality that I *like*, obviously. What I am saying implies the terrible notion that sometimes it is better for a people to be oppressed under a tyrant than go all "humanitarian" on them and shatter an entire nation just so some citizens in Canada, Portugal, Japan or whatever might feel good about what's happening on their tv sets.

[MP-Ryan]

I like StarSlayer's solution the best.

Also, I suspect that if Syria attacks Israel with chemical weapons, the debate whether Israel has nukes or not will go up in a rather large fireball over Damascus.

1.  I thought the public reveal of Dimona put that issue to bed for anyone with an ounce of sense sometime ago.
2.  Let's all sincerely hope not.

[MP-Ryan]

MP, yes I know you think that, I don't do blame the way you do. If you are going to say that Russia is to blame because they have been backing the one ruler they have on their hands in the ME... come on. It's like saying the Russkies were bad coz they didn't throw a red carpet to the US-backed rebels two years ago. I think both Russia and the US are to blame for the scale of the escalation and perhaps the escalation itself.

Russia blocked the Security Council in 2011, well before the Syrian rebels were armed by Western interests.  Everything that follows is a result of that; ergo, the Russians bear (no pun intended) primary responsibility for the way the situation has unfolded.

[SypheDMar]

It's not a reality that I *like*, obviously. What I am saying implies the terrible notion that sometimes it is better for a people to be oppressed under a tyrant than go all "humanitarian" on them and shatter an entire nation just so some citizens in Canada, Portugal, Japan or whatever might feel good about what's happening on their tv sets.

I'm pretty sure not even Obama wants to shatter Syria. Every time he talks, he keeps mentioning "limited strike". Given his history and the stakes he's in, he probably hates his situation right now. The more I think about it, the less favorable the situation is for the President and the Democrats.

[Flaser]

I've unlocked Gary Brecher's (of the Exile fame) article on NSFW News for you guys for the next 48 hours:
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/little-kerry/8026d3f966025ada10aed7e1ac839b55d44db7d2/

tl;dr version: Attacking Syria would be bad for the US, however the administration has already committed itself with its heavy handed rhetoric. Is there a moral thing to do? No... in the end, intervention would only lead to Alawites getting massacred the old fashioned way, house to house, rape by rape. The West's insane attachment to calling some forms of killing "just" others "evil" never stops to astound Brecher.

[docfu]

All Obama has to do is say the U.S. will abide by any U.N. resolutions. Then it becomes the U.N.'s problem. Sure there is a moral high ground here to take, but the U.S. isn't above anyone else on this matter and as it sits, involvement will only make things worse...for the U.S. Put the blame on the U.N. for it's inability to actually prevent a humanitarian disaster.

If there is one hard lesson to be learned by the U.S., it's that in a diplomatic world the only way to win is to outlive your enemies. When they all die off first, then you can write the history books and wash your hands of it, or in this case, just leave it out altogether. This may be the greatest counter to the fantasy-factory that is Hollywood.

[redsniper]

We should drop food and medical aid on Syria with leaflets letting those responsible know if we can do so with impunity the next time they decide to use CBRNEs we drop the hammer just as easily   We can call it Sauce and Awe.

And then can we start dropping the inert training smart bombs like we (someone? France?) did in Libya?

[Flaser]

All Obama has to do is say the U.S. will abide by any U.N. resolutions. Then it becomes the U.N.'s problem. Sure there is a moral high ground here to take, but the U.S. isn't above anyone else on this matter and as it sits, involvement will only make things worse...for the U.S. Put the blame on the U.N. for it's inability to actually prevent a humanitarian disaster.

If there is one hard lesson to be learned by the U.S., it's that in a diplomatic world the only way to win is to outlive your enemies. When they all die off first, then you can write the history books and wash your hands of it, or in this case, just leave it out altogether. This may be the greatest counter to the fantasy-factory that is Hollywood.

Moral high ground? Really? Are you ****ing serious?

On one side, we have a traditionally oppressed Shiite minority who through colonial shenanigans ended up running a country after the Europeans left, and did so with fire & steel... and now that their power is slipping they're *literally* fighting for survival. On the other hand, we have Sunni rebels who're fed up with being bombed and oppressed for so long and having the Alawites kill their brethren using modern military tools (artilery, air power, etc).

Right now both sides are busy killing the *whole* population of their opponent, no doubt about it. I fail to see how the use of chemical weapons by *some* Alawite forces somehow makes it OK for the Sunni to massacre the Alawite population with Western help.

There is no moral high ground, everyone involved is covered in pretty black stuff. Your notion that there *is* such a simplistic, black & white reading of the situation only shows how clueless you are.

[karajorma]

I think Docfu's point is that there is a moral high ground to take here ("We're going in for humanitarian reasons to make sure everyone in Syria is safe") but that America is pretty damn sure to fail to take it.

[docfu]

There is no moral high ground, everyone involved is covered in pretty black stuff. Your notion that there *is* such a simplistic, black & white reading of the situation only shows how clueless you are.

I might suggest that you retract that statement.

I said that the U.S. isn't above anyone else and that if Obama wants out of his rhetoric, all he has to do is abide by the United Nations Security Council's resolutions instead of pushing America to "go it alone." People are trying to make it look like that since he set a red line for chemical weapons, our bluff has been called and now we have to get involved.

If he wants to take a "moral high ground," which, in this case is really just an excuse to ignore the systems set up after the League of Nations, all he has to do is act independently of the U.N. and strike anyway.

The point is, you will never see a president say "We know what we are about to do is wrong and the U.N. isn't happy with us, but we are going to do it anyway." They will always give some great speech about the positive benefits and the reasons why it has to be done.

That is why even though the dictionary only has one definition of "moral high ground," in reality there are two, and the second one should most definitely read "making up any excuse to do what you want to do anyway..."

Clueless, indeed.

[Sandwich]

People are trying to make it look like that since he set a red line for chemical weapons, our bluff has been called and now we have to get involved.

If the US gets involved and enforces consequences for crossing the red line, then it wasn't a bluff.

[MP-Ryan]

People are trying to make it look like that since he set a red line for chemical weapons, our bluff has been called and now we have to get involved.

If the US gets involved and enforces consequences for crossing the red line, then it wasn't a bluff.

And if it doesn't, then both sides in Syria just learned they can continue to use chemical weapons however they damn well please, because Russia effectively has negated the UNSC, and will also prevent an ICC referral, meaning the only bodies left to respond are NATO and/or the Arab League.  Since the Arab League is dysfunctional more days than it isn't, that leaves NATO.  NATO isn't going to go without US involvement, and if the Americans effectively get a bluff called, then Syria's conflicting parties really aren't going to think those consequences will manifest next time either.

What happens next involves the Israelis defending themselves and the next thing we know the Middle East is literally on fire.

As I keep saying - nobody wants that!

[Bobboau]

we could use a mandate from the Arab league, that would give us possibly enough legitimacy that lack of UNSC denies us..

[Sandwich]

Perhaps this could generate enough impetus to permanently disband the utterly dysfunctional UNSC veto crap.

[Bobboau]

I agree the veto thing needs to go. though you do realize that it has been used mostly by the US to block all sorts of resolutions against Israel right?