Let's all invade Syria!

[anglolawyer]

But on which side?

According to the UN it's the rebels who may have been using poison gas. Fancy that. So, since they crossed the red line we should pile in on Assad's side, right? The US is having none of it:

The White House said it was “highly skeptical” of suggestions that Syrian rebels used chemical weapons. “We find it highly likely that chemical weapons, if they were in fact used in Syria - and there is certainly evidence that they were - that the Assad regime was responsible,” spokesman Jay Carney said.

'Highly likely' huh? Well, how would they know? They didn't know diddlysquat about Saddam's WMD. Recall how impatient they were with Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors. If they had been allowed to continue their investigations a whole campaigning season would have been scorched in the Iraqi summer. So they pressed the button, knocked over the regime and then announced it might take a year to find WMD! Then, when they thought we forgot all about it they quietly admitted there weren't any.

What I am talking about is credibility. The US has none. Once you start basing foreign adventures on lies there has to be payback. If that's wrong then we are not holding our governments properly accountable. The same thing happened in Kosovo. We were led to believe the Serbs were killing Kosovan Albanians in their thousands in order to justify a bombing campaign whose object was to loosen Serbia's grip on another part of the former Yugoslavia. Lies. This time British ones.

Anyway, how do you know whose gas it was? Since world opinion counts for so much, screwing around with it must be a good idea. So if I were a rebel I wouldn't think twice about gassing my own people and blaming it on Assad. How the heck are two UN inspectors going to figure it out?

And who cares about this stupid drivel anyway? If the west intervenes it will not be because of some poison gas, about which we have no reason to be concerned unless it floats our way. Let's go in for a good reason. Trouble is, I can't think of one. Syria doesn't even have any oil to get excited about.

 

[theprestige]

But on which side?

According to the UN it's the rebels who may have been using poison gas. Fancy that. So, since they crossed the red line we should pile in on Assad's side, right? The US is having none of it:


'Highly likely' huh? Well, how would they know? They didn't know diddlysquat about Saddam's WMD. Recall how impatient they were with Hans Blix and the UN weapons inspectors. If they had been allowed to continue their investigations a whole campaigning season would have been scorched in the Iraqi summer. So they pressed the button, knocked over the regime and then announced it might take a year to find WMD! Then, when they thought we forgot all about it they quietly admitted there weren't any.

I'm not sure there's much value in criticizing US foreign policy based on the assumption that George W. Bush is still president.

 

[The Don]

The U.S. wants Assad gone and if he was gone I wouldn't shed too many tears, his regime like that of his father has been repressive. Given that the U.S. wants Assad gone, they're going to play a game of "pin the blame".

• If Assad's regime used the WMD then it's their fault and they should be removed - let's support the other side
• If the other side is using WMD they got/stole from Assad then it's the fault of the Assad regime for having WMD and allowing them to be stolen and they should be removed - let's support the other side
• If the other side is using WMD they've got from elsewhere then it's the fault of the Assad regime for having insufficient oversight and national security and they should be removed - let's support the other side

The fact that the other side are typically referred to as "rebels" and not "freedom fighters" leads me to believe that the U.S. knows that they contain some pretty unsavoury characters that they don't want to see in charge of Syria (I presume the U.S. would like someone 100% U.S. aligned in charge) and the current U.S. penchant for nuance in foreign policy may mean that they won't just pile in regardless.

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm not sure there's much value in criticizing US foreign policy based on the assumption that George W. Bush is still president.

I am criticising Western foreign policy propaganda, rather than policy itself. Why can't we handle the facts? If we want to side against Assad, let's hear the reasons. He's not an islamic fundamentalist, doesn't control any oil nor pose an uncontainable threat to us and at least represents stability. Lord knows what crazy types make up the rebel alliance. Maybe the same ones who murdered the US ambassador in Libya to show their gratitude for NATO bombing.

Who cares about Syria and why?

 

[phantasmagoria7]

Deleted

 

[Darth Rotor]

Who cares about Syria and why?

Would have been a better thread title, that. ^^

 

[anglolawyer]

Would have been a better thread title, that. ^^

Noted. Thanks. I will use it for my next Syria thread. Btw. is it some kind of rule or in joke here for so many thread titles to have mis-spellings or grammar fails?

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm not sure there's much value in criticizing US foreign policy based on the assumption that George W. Bush is still president.

It wasn't GWB but a neo-con movement of which he was chief mouthpiece. Whoever has the levers of US power has an awesome responsibility. I wonder as I get older and look sideways at such people, rather than upwards, whether they are really up to it.

 

[Virus]

We were led to believe the Serbs were killing Kosovan Albanians in their thousands in order to justify a bombing campaign whose object was to loosen Serbia's grip on another part of the former Yugoslavia. Lies. This time British ones.

That actually did happen and the only people who say otherwise are kooks and conspiracy theorists.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

I'm really not clear what the US/UK aim is regarding Syria.

Russia wants Assad to stay as he's friendly to them. That seems simple enough. The West want him gone, but to be replaced by what? Some grand coalition of factions living in peace, freedom and harmony? I'm not convinced that's one of the available options.

Of the plausible outcomes, which are better than Assad?

 

[anglolawyer]

That actually did happen and the only people who say otherwise are kooks and conspiracy theorists.

LIke this guy probably. Maybe you are right. Can you point me to the evidence of the genocide in Kosovo that was used to justify NATO intervention?

 

[anglolawyer]

I'm really not clear what the US/UK aim is regarding Syria.

Russia wants Assad to stay as he's friendly to them. That seems simple enough. The West want him gone, but to be replaced by what? Some grand coalition of factions living in peace, freedom and harmony? I'm not convinced that's one of the available options.

Of the plausible outcomes, which are better than Assad?

These are the right sort of questions IMO. Not: 'is Assad a good guy or a bad guy?' but 'what is in our interests and why?'

 

[The Don]

LIke this guy probably. Maybe you are right. Can you point me to the evidence of the genocide in Kosovo that was used to justify NATO intervention?

I don't think worldnetdaily is usually regarded as a reliable source.

The article seems to be focusing its criticism on the number of bodies actually found, not the number of people who are missing.

The author is a noted conspiracy theorist and while that doesn't mean that everything he writes should be discounted, it does provide a clue as to the lens through which he views the world.

 

[DC]

LIke this guy probably. Maybe you are right. Can you point me to the evidence of the genocide in Kosovo that was used to justify NATO intervention?

I also remember an interview with the German foreign minister of the time, that also said, after the intervention they learned that the video they mainly based their decision on was faked. I'm not sure if its actually true or not, didn't look into it, but he surely isn't just some conspiracy nutter.

 

[anglolawyer]

I don't think worldnetdaily is usually regarded as a reliable source.

The article seems to be focusing its criticism on the number of bodies actually found, not the number of people who are missing.

The author is a noted conspiracy theorist and while that doesn't mean that everything he writes should be discounted, it does provide a clue as to the lens through which he views the world.

I know. I have a book somewhere called, I think, 'Travesty' and it's about the trial of Milosevic. It has a preface written by a former US secretary of state, or perhaps attorney general. It is a well-sourced critique of his war-crimes trial in the Hague. The book records UK government claims of tens of thousands of Kosovan deaths at the hands of the Serbs and asserts these claims were false and deliberately so, being designed to stir up public opinion in favour of NATO air strikes.

Whether counting the number of bodies actually found or counting the number of persons missing by reason of Serb aggression, the number matters, doesn''t it? The theme of this thread is lies and propaganda with reference mainly to Syria. My impression, garnered admittedly from not especially close study, is that 'the west' (I am referring to the governments of the UK and the US here) engages in blatant lying for the purpose of manipulating public opinion in support of foreign adventures.

The case is pretty clear in relation to Iraq. Hopefully, no need to argue about that one. In the case of Syria, the US maintains recent gas attacks are the work of the Assad regime. How would they know? The UN claims to have evidence it's the rebels. This is just the sort of issue on which we should be calling everyone out. What are the facts and matters leading the White House to disagree with the UN?

On Kosovo, where are the figures to back up claims of tens of thousands of deaths at the hands of the Serbs? I don't believe it. I may be a conspiracy nut, but I don't believe my government is so dumb as to go to war just because some Serbs are killing some Kosovans. Why should they care about that? I assume (and even hope) they don't and that the agenda is something more intelligent and productive of benefit to the UK, like maybe loosening Serbia's left-leaning grip in the Balkans to render the breakaway statelets more amenable to market penetration and to being brought within the western fold. Stuff like that.

Maybe 'benefit to the UK' is a bit naïve and it should be benefit to some coalition of interests which operates under that collective and misleading banner. OK, I am a conspiracy nut. But things have to make sense and it does not make sense that our foreign policy should be concerned at all with this group of people killing that group of people unless we have a dog in the fight.

 

[WildCat]

LIke this guy probably. Maybe you are right. Can you point me to the evidence of the genocide in Kosovo that was used to justify NATO intervention?

Oh my! Josef Farah? World Net Daily?

 

[anglolawyer]

Oh my! Josef Farah? World Net Daily?

The best I could come up with. Still, I believe it is a respectable opinion that the NATO allies exaggerated to justify intervention. The burden is on those claiming tens of thousands of deaths to point to some authoritative source. Perhaps the UN has some figures, or the international criminal court, somebody like that. Pending that, I call BS.

 

[The Don]

I know. I have a book somewhere called, I think, 'Travesty' and it's about the trial of Milosevic. It has a preface written by a former US secretary of state, or perhaps attorney general. It is a well-sourced critique of his war-crimes trial in the Hague. The book records UK government claims of tens of thousands of Kosovan deaths at the hands of the Serbs and asserts these claims were false and deliberately so, being designed to stir up public opinion in favour of NATO air strikes..

If you can chase down that quote, I'd be grateful.

Whether counting the number of bodies actually found or counting the number of persons missing by reason of Serb aggression, the number matters, doesn''t it? The theme of this thread is lies and propaganda with reference mainly to Syria. My impression, garnered admittedly from not especially close study, is that 'the west' (I am referring to the governments of the UK and the US here) engages in blatant lying for the purpose of manipulating public opinion in support of foreign adventures..

IMO I'm not sure whether it's blatant lying, being selective with sources or a combination of both. For example IMO the "dodgy dossier" that propelled us towards the Iraqi invasion was a case of seeking out intelligence to support a particular case and ignoring stuff to the contrary.

In the case of Kosovo IIRC it was both the deaths and the ethnic cleansing that were problems. If not enough bodies were found, maybe enough people were displaced.

The case is pretty clear in relation to Iraq. Hopefully, no need to argue about that one. In the case of Syria, the US maintains recent gas attacks are the work of the Assad regime. How would they know? The UN claims to have evidence it's the rebels. This is just the sort of issue on which we should be calling everyone out. What are the facts and matters leading the White House to disagree with the UN?.

I agree, there seems to be a tipping point in many of these things where one party is determined to find evidence to support one side or the other. I'm very uncomfortable with the rebels.

On Kosovo, where are the figures to back up claims of tens of thousands of deaths at the hands of the Serbs? I don't believe it. I may be a conspiracy nut, but I don't believe my government is so dumb as to go to war just because some Serbs are killing some Kosovans. Why should they care about that? I assume (and even hope) they don't and that the agenda is something more intelligent and productive of benefit to the UK, like maybe loosening Serbia's left-leaning grip in the Balkans to render the breakaway statelets more amenable to market penetration and to being brought within the western fold. Stuff like that.

I agree, we wouldn't go to war unless it was in our own interests to do so. I thought the key reasons were that we don't like wars in Europe and we didn't want all the refugees. I don't believe it was a market penetration thing.

Maybe 'benefit to the UK' is a bit naïve and it should be benefit to some coalition of interests which operates under that collective and misleading banner. OK, I am a conspiracy nut. But things have to make sense and it does not make sense that our foreign policy should be concerned at all with this group of people killing that group of people unless we have a dog in the fight.

I don't know, I think there is a point in time where there's an obligation to get involved just because we are human beings. If a country is systematically slaughtering its populace and it's close enough to fall within reach then I think we would be obliged to get involved.

 

[newyorkguy]

I'm really not clear what the US/UK aim is regarding Syria.

Russia wants Assad to stay as he's friendly to them. That seems simple enough. The West want him gone, but to be replaced by what? Some grand coalition of factions living in peace, freedom and harmony? I'm not convinced that's one of the available options.

Of the plausible outcomes, which are better than Assad?

Is it impossible to believe a lot of the Western leaders object to Assad primarily on the basis he is a brutal dictator?

 

[The Don]

The best I could come up with. Still, I believe it is a respectable opinion that the NATO allies exaggerated to justify intervention. The burden is on those claiming tens of thousands of deaths to point to some authoritative source. Perhaps the UN has some figures, or the international criminal court, somebody like that. Pending that, I call BS.

Did anyone claim "tens of thousands" of deaths prior to NATO involvement ?

I remember claims of ethnic cleansing (and the number of refugees backs that up) and claims of deaths but no specific numbers.