War in Syria

[David]

There's rather concerning talk afoot of a US/UK military intervention in Syria.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-28/britain-to-seek-un-backing-to-protect-syria-civilians/4920068

[ronrat]

As odious as chemical warfare is let us sit this out.

[watt price tully]

In my view, do not intervene in military terms (yet)

The reason being is that there are far too many layers & complexities that we are not made aware of.

It's a given that no one here wants to see the use of chemical weapons in the region.

However, the USA & the UK can drop bombs from afar but not have to live the consequences.

The potentially catastrophic consequences for Syria, Lebanon & Israel should not be under-estimated.

This too can include Turkey. Prime Minister Erdogan has recently seen a decline of influence, prestige & power in the region due to the removal of the other Islamic fundamentalist Morsi of Egypt & due to his blatant abuse of power against internal demonstrations in Gezi Turkey. Erdogan had developed close relations with Iran yet is opposed to Assad of Syria- who Iran backs.

Like a lot of the Middle East let alone Asia Minor, there are so many complicated levels & layers, interests, self interests, religious vs secular, religious vs religious, religious vs nationalist, conflicts & contradictions that the firing of cruise missiles may well make the situation far worse than not deploying missiles.

The conflict between Al Nusra & Hezbollah will necessarily include not just Syria but Lebanon & Israel. This may also involve Iran.

In other words, do nuffink yet.

[swoop42]

The use of chemical weapons shouldn't go unpunished.

Ever.

What next biological.

These are real weapons of mass destruction people.

Besides if you take a look at some of the uncensored news sites you'll realise atrocities of the most gut wrenching kind have been occuring in Syria since this internal conflict began.

[David]

^ To whatever extent we're shielded from it, I think everyone grasps that. The question for me, though, is not "How bad does the situation have to get before we intervene?", it's "Will the negative consequences of us intervening outweigh the negative consequences of us not doing so?". The latter is a much harder question, but it's the one that needs to be asked right now.

[think positive]

the Yanks will go in first, save the day, and then people can pick shit out of them again.

everyone on the planet is worth saving and protecting

http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/soapbox/article/-/18703505/father-reunited-with-son-in-syria/

[pietillidie]

[HAL]

What is on this particular topic he or she don't have a fraction of a percent of the knowledge required to comment on Syria like on this particular topic he or she don't have a fraction of a percent of the knowledge required to comment on Syria.

[ronrat]

I know a bit more about chemical warfare than the man on the street. I spent 8 years helping set up our defence capability for the Army. The preparation required will be enormous and only US and Russia maybe would have the resources to do this for any protracted period. The Israelis might but will only defend themselves. And that won't include the Palestinians. The biggest problem is the lack of water in the middle east. Decontamination is a rigorous and water hungry task unless you are happy to off gas whole chunks of real estate.

Biological agents are different. They attack species and as such there is little or almost no control over it. The person releasing that stuff is signing death warrants for his house, his village, his tribe. Unlikely to happen. Short of throwing dead bodies down wells which target specific people but only as a denial threat.

Anyone using these agents should, if caught, face the Hague. We might have a few saying hanging them is not right but if you saw what this shit does to victims you might think otherwise. Hitler, as an example, was gassed in WW1 and refused to use it against soldiers. Unfortunately he had it mind for civilians, which would have seen him hang if caught alive.

[watt price tully]

My wife's late maternal grandfather died of Mustard gas poisoning from WW1.

Many of our defence force personnel died from agent orange & their kids have deformities.

The Brits used Naplam against Greek communists.

These are just a few of examples of the use of chamical weapons

Punishment Ok - but it needs to be thought out. We need to see how succussful "we" were in Iraq, Somalia & Afghanistan then reflect:

1. Should we bomb?
2. What are the consequennces of bombing?
3. What are the likely unintended consequences of bombing?
4. Who does it help? Whose interests does it serve?
5. Who will benefit, who will lose out?

Don't do anything now in terms of military action.

[watt price tully]

[3.14159]

The invasion monkeys have started a war in the last few years so I suppose this is as good an excuse as any.

[think positive]

black ops

[think positive]

say that again

[stui magpie]

I don't know a lot about the situation in Syria, but from what i have read it's seriously complicated. No where near as simple as bad incumbent regime vs noble freedom fighters.

For mine the whole chemical weapons thing sounds like a furphy. Latest incarnation of "weapons of mass destruction".

For mine, the prudent thing to do would be sit back a bit more and gather more intel and see how it plays out. There's knocks on the current regime, but in their favour they're islamic moderates whereas those in opposition have been joined by some of the nastiest fundamentalists going around (no real surprise) so at the moment the population is caught between the frying pan and the fire.

Lets not get over excited by a headline and see what happens. I'm all for sending troops in to a country to help, but at the moment any peace keeping force is likely to be a target on 3 sides with no friends at all.