Syria thread

[C0ckney]

Sorry but you're just being a typical wide eyed peacenik who can't accept that there isn't a happy ending to be had. A huge chunk of the population support the government a huge chunk support the rebels and then another huge chunk are just in the middle. You seem to want both the government and rebels to go away as if it's two armies you can sweep off the table and leave all the happy folk.

this is nothing like what i wrote. debate is better when the participants actually respond to each other's points.

The rebels are for the large part just the oppressed people of Syria fighting to be free. Yes there's now a large Islamist force too and various other factions, but normal Syrian civilians are fighting and dying in huge numbers to overthrow Assad, and you don't seem to give that much of a **** about their sacrifice to be quite honest.

this is a silly, emotional argument.

it's a civil war, of course ordinary people are fighting and dying. you, however, only seem to want to see one side.

Sure, because with 100,000 dead Syrians already, the government and rebels are going to be able to meet across a table and just work together for the good of the nation. Right, and I have a bridge in Alaska you might want to buy.

conflicts usually end with people talking to each other and settling their differences. i don't see what is hard to understand about this. the best solution for syria, that is, the only one which isn't horrifying, would be a negotiated settlement, the west and the international community could work towards that.

[Elok]

Generally, when I hear "self-determination," I think of either individuals or a reasonably representative group. The only selves determining things at the moment, AFAICT, are guys with guns, by right of their having guns. To talk of a people having a collective right to self-determination is always a bit suspect IMO--blame Rousseau--but in the context of a downright Hobbesian civil war one wonders just who the "people" are anymore (especially if, as Ken has argued, the war happened in part because the idea of a single Syrian people was always artificial).

Don't get me wrong: I'm sure that, somewhere down the line, everyone will grow sufficiently exhausted and impoverished by the violence that something like peace and stability will prevail. But that situation will be "self-determined" only in the same sense that you could say it of the equilibrium of an ecosystem; when predators have completely ravaged the population to the point that it can no longer sustain them, it will fall apart and the predators will die off. I guess that makes a certain nihilistic sense. Why encouraging that scenario would be considered more moral than cutting the violence short by imposing peace artificially, even through a dictator, I can't say.

Nor can I envision how the situation would be substantially worse if the violence were delayed. Right now we've got a bewildering array of militias on the loose, fighting for power and committing genocide, or something close to it. If the same war broke out twenty years from now, what would happen instead? They could go for more colorful atrocities, e.g. gang rape, child soldiers, ritual cannibalism, etc.--but that's about it. Probably some of that's happening already. I'd be willing to chance it to buy twenty years of peace--but better still to just stay the hell out, or intervene in a nonviolent way to try and contain the damage or work towards cease-fires between the groups. Assuming that's even possible. Spanking Assad with some cruise missiles to punish him for murdering innocents in a non-approved manner certainly doesn't sound constructive.

[Dinner]

Videos show joint Al Nusrah (AQ offshoot), Free Syrian Army attacks in ancient village

The al-Nusra Front, an al-Qaida affiliate, has been one of the more effective rebel groups fighting Assad.

Stop lying and trying to pretend every rebel is a part of the Al-Nusra Front. Most of the rebels hate the fundamentalists and routinely fight against them, one of the things which has held the rebels back has been such infighting. The Kurds especially have gotten into a protected fight with al-Nusra so stop pretending the lies right wing blogs have spoon fed you are anything but the usual lies and half truths out of them.

That AQ is a significant player in the rebellion being the most effective fighters on the rebel side and to argue otherwise only shows your and Oerdin's stupidity.

You always fail in the details. The one reason, THE ONLY reason, fundamentalist groups like al-Nusra have been effective right now is because they're one of the only rebel groups which can reliably get weapons and ammo. They get them from their Jihadi networks. Start providing weapons and supplies to the majority of rebel groups which are moderate and then they will also be more effective. It's nice to see that DD can always be relied upon to be both clueless and have his head up his ass.

[The Mad Monk]

He only ever wanted to be an ophthalmologist.

[Elok]

You always fail in the details. The one reason, THE ONLY reason, fundamentalist groups like al-Nusra have been effective right now is because they're one of the only rebel groups which can reliably get weapons and ammo. They get them from their Jihadi networks. Start providing weapons and supplies to the majority of rebel groups which are moderate and then they will also be more effective.

That honestly sounds like a terrific way to get deeply entangled in the conflict while widening it in the process. Any groups receiving arms and supplies from Western powers, esp. us, would be quite rightly regarded as tools of foreign interests; there's no way the swag would come without strings attached, or at least the implicit expectation of something in return. Proxy wars are just a very bad idea, especially since we can never really be 100% certain that any group's interests really align with ours, or will continue to do so.

[regexcellent]

He only ever wanted to be an ophthalmologist.

The chemical weapons are just to drum up business for his eye clinic.

[The Mad Monk]

I don't have to do anything of the sort other than sit back and enjoy the comedy. The general ineptitude is worth taking note of, all of which is self inflicted.

In general this adminstration is extremely mock worthy as are any who attempt its defense.

Here come the next skit.

Op-Ed Contributor
A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013 238 Comments

MOSCOW — RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies.

Relations between us have passed through different stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such devastation from ever happening again.

The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the stability of international relations for decades.

No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.

The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.

Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country. There are few champions of democracy in Syria. But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the world.

Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to Mali. This threatens us all.

From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression.

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with us or against us.”

But force has proved ineffective and pointless. Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to repeat recent mistakes.

No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.

The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being eroded.

We must stop using the language of force and return to the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.

A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military action.

I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive, as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

My working and personal relationship with President Obama is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.

Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.
A version of this op-ed appears in print on September 12, 2013, on page A31 of the New York edition with the headline: A Plea for Caution From Russia .

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html?_r=0

[Sava]

You guys seem like the people on liveleak that masturbate to war carnage videos.

[The Mad Monk]

This isn't war carnage. This is simply a Nobel Peace Prize getting shoved up where the sun don't shine.

[Sava]

But you are taking some sort of sick pleasure out of thousands of people being slaughtered.

[The Mad Monk]

No, though you appear to be taking sick pleasure in accusing me as such.

You're really harshing my mellow.

[Sava]

That rhymes with marshmellow.

[DaShi]

No, though you appear to be taking sick pleasure in accusing me as such.

You're really harshing my mellow.

Then maybe you should stop trolling.

[Sava]

But what else is he supposed to do? Post facts and discuss them?

PFFFT