Comments on: West mustn’t rush into Syrian conflict Mon, 18 Apr 2016 14:55:08 +0000 hourly 1 By: ptiffany Wed, 28 Aug 2013 19:58:27 +0000 Everyone knows that the limited responses being discussed will accomplish nothing from a military or political perspective. It is entirely symbolic. So, are we faced yet again with a President who has been labeled a wimp and must prove he’s willing to use military force to save face?

Haven’t we learned that such action is guaranteed to backfire, causing all sorts of bad collateral effects including increasing anti-Americanism. So much for winning “hearts and minds”. They only ones who gain are the American arms manufacturers and their rich investors.

By: ShiroiKarasu Wed, 28 Aug 2013 19:36:33 +0000 Maybe Britain should have intervened when Sherman performed is “March to the Sea” during our civil war?

Syria is not our country, its citizens are not our citizens, and its wars are not our wars. We do not have a military to fight other countries’ wars, but our own. I hope that if we DO act in this, that Americans become completely disgusted with our warmongering government once and for all. Nobody wants this fight except people who are drunk on our military capabilities and lack any kind of restraint or understand of the consequences of war.

By: CDN_Rebel Wed, 28 Aug 2013 18:42:48 +0000 Firstly, the UN has dithered already for seven months since the first chemical attack. I’m of the position of I don’t care would launched it, an intervention is necessary. So this isn’t a case of the West being rash or moving too soon – it should be making up for lost time in which another 50k people have been killed.

Secondly, WTF is wrong with you people? This regime is deliberately attacking civilians with WMDs!! If you switch ‘sarin gas’ with ‘tacital nuclear weapon’ would this even be an argument? Would the anti-war and anti-West crowd be poo-pooing the warmongers? Well, they’d probably start saying the West sold them the weapons in the first place (nope, it’s the Russians…)

Thirdly, Lebanon is a proxy of Syria. The last time they has free elections their elected PM was assassinated by Syrian paramilitary forces. They ARE a part of this conflict whether it is recognized or not.

Fourth, Turkey has done a tremendous job of helping with the bulk of the Syrian refugees. The Assad regime had taken to firing on Turks at one point because of their largesse to refugees. To overlook that is to know nothing of the conflict.

Fifth, as for freezing assets… Syria is so intertwined with Iran that this would prove little more than a feint (as Iran has already had all it’s legitimate intl dealings curtailed, though China seems to find away around it continually…)

By: Duffman Wed, 28 Aug 2013 16:48:22 +0000 What about freezing all Syrian assets in US/Western banks?
If we freeze those assets. How are we supposed to sell them weapons? Nobody seems to think of the poor arms merchants. It’s not a real war unless somebody is making some money. I think it’s pretty clear $ > people.

By: Adam_Smith Wed, 28 Aug 2013 15:01:45 +0000 “What’s more, he refused to give U.N. investigators immediate access to the site”

Actually, that is an inaccurate claim and may be a bit of war propaganda. By a credible report, the Assad government granted access within 24 hours of being asked. There was an unexplained delay in the UN asking permission. s-it-didnt-ask-for-access-in-syria-until -saturday/

By: Fred_1945 Wed, 28 Aug 2013 13:48:06 +0000 The main problem with the warmongering idealism the West demonstrates once more in case of Syria crisis is that the new crusader kings ignore the history lessons both of the Medieval crusades and of the recent ones, namely Serbia, Iraq and Afganistan. Though the lesson seems to be obvious – any attempt to impose your idealistic standards upon “barbarians” with sword and fire results in many more victims both among the “barbarians” and “crusaders” than before the intervention.

By: Samrch Wed, 28 Aug 2013 00:40:43 +0000 Since both sides are full of bad guys who hate the West. The response must of a nature that helps neither burt punishes the gas attack. But keep in mind out side nations where not gassed and we use ter gas internally also.

I suggest giving the rebels some gas weapons or gassing after bombing places where the gassers live or work. the the rebels some gas weapons keeps our hands clean. Punishes but changes nothing.

By: OUTPOST2012.NET Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:43:58 +0000 The Libyan intervention was legal. Russia has abstained.
The problem we Russians had: the developments in Libya went much further than “no-fly” zone. In a situation like this, an expansion of military operations under the U.N. mandate is hard to define.
It makes me wonder why authors keep saying Russia without adding China?
The fact is. We have 3 NATO members (remind me of their disagreements at U.N.) vs. Russia and China. The voices of the whole world are going through particular countries. Russia usually represents the position of India, which traditionally doesn’t like to be vocal. China represents other countries (many African states.)
We probably may have a better U.N. But nobody suggested a better idea, as of yet.

By: BidnisMan Tue, 27 Aug 2013 17:34:09 +0000 “The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.” – George W Bush.

“And they were thrown out of the incubators…so Kuwait could be systematically dismantle.” – George Bush, Snr.

Seems everyone has a short memory.

By: bald1 Tue, 27 Aug 2013 16:23:47 +0000 This has all the makings of a disaster. Even if it is proven Assad and/or a top government approved the chemical attack, I have to question why the US/West must respond militarily. And this isn’t because I am squeamish about the use of military force or the initiation of a war. My issue is that military force should be a last resort. In this instance, it is apparently of the first resort. What about a total Western economic embargo of the Syrian government and the areas of Syria it still controls? What about freezing all Syrian assets in US/Western banks? These are certainly viable options and would likely have a greater impact on the Syrian government, and other nations which might consider the use of chemical weapons, that would a limited military strike. And the US/Western military response will have to be limited. But, perhaps, this is more about our longer term policy of supporting a regime change in Syria, and the alleged chemcial attack is the perfect excuse for advancing that policy.