quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Yes. Somehow. The problem is the "how". And the "who".

As all the major Western countries have already declared their support for the rebels, they have effectively ruled unilateral action out, if the goal of that action is to "punish" the guilty parties for using chemical weapons. Unilateral Western intervention will correctly be interpreted as action to support the rebels and will have incalculable consequences.

That leaves the UN as the only credible body where action can be initiated. And the small matter of Russian and Chinese vetoes to be overcome. If Americans feel frustrated by UN vetoes, they can ponder that this is the way the rest of the world feels whenever the US exercises its veto to protect its proxy Israel from the wrath of the world for its innumerable war crimes.

Action is needed to send a clear message to the world that chemical weapons are totally unacceptable in today's world. It must come from the UN.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
~FR~
Is there a reason that the region cannot handle their own problems? I know many people may die but how long can the top countries in the world continue to babysit other countries? It has been shown throughout history that external intervention very rarely, if ever, solves the issues that led to it.

This is precisely what I'd prefer to see happen. Unfortunately, President Obama has already drawn a line in the sand. If he backs down, the US loses face in the international community. If Assad did use the chemical weapons and we back down, we will have lost face to Putin and Assad. Of course, if we do nothing and many more people are killed, and we'll be blamed for not going in.

quote:


I would love to see Obama on TV state this emphatically (and I'm sure there are certain posters here that will jump on me for part of it): "The US has a new foreign policy. As long as you leave Israel alone, we're going to stay out of things and let each of your Nations and peoples decide how you want your Nations to run. Have a good day."

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Action is needed to send a clear message to the world that chemical weapons are totally unacceptable in today's world. It must come from the UN.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Syria, Lebanon, and Iran (might be more, but these are the three that come to mind) have threatened to attack Israel if the US attacks Assad's forces.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Action is needed to send a clear message to the world that chemical weapons are totally unacceptable in today's world. It must come from the UN.

There is no one here the is saying the opposite.

The problem, though, is "who used the chemical weapons?" Was it Assad, or the rebels (or a group within the rebel forces acting on its own without the rest of the rebel groups' knowledge)?

Syria, Lebanon, and Iran (might be more, but these are the three that come to mind) have threatened to attack Israel if the US attacks Assad's forces.

If we attack Assad's forces, or send in aid/arms to the rebels, we would be, in effect, aiding/arming our enemies.

The UN has an investigative team in Damascus attempting to figure out who it was that used the chem. weapons. Until that is known, I can only hope the US stays the fuck out of the situation. And, even after it is known, I hope the US stays the fuck out until the UNSC passes a resolution.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Action is needed to send a clear message to the world that chemical weapons are totally unacceptable in today's world. It must come from the UN.

There is no one here the is saying the opposite.
The problem, though, is "who used the chemical weapons?" Was it Assad, or the rebels (or a group within the rebel forces acting on its own without the rest of the rebel groups' knowledge)?
Syria, Lebanon, and Iran (might be more, but these are the three that come to mind) have threatened to attack Israel if the US attacks Assad's forces.
If we attack Assad's forces, or send in aid/arms to the rebels, we would be, in effect, aiding/arming our enemies.
The UN has an investigative team in Damascus attempting to figure out who it was that used the chem. weapons. Until that is known, I can only hope the US stays the fuck out of the situation. And, even after it is known, I hope the US stays the fuck out until the UNSC passes a resolution.

According to media reports I've seen, the UN investigators will be unable to determine who used the CWs, only whether they have been used or not. To the best of my knowledge, accusations that the regime was responsible rely on two factors - Israeli intelligence intercepts of "chatter" among Syrian officers about CWs and an argument that only the regime possesses delivery systems capable of launching CWs

quote:

Personally I would regard anything emanating from Israeli sources as suspect in the absence of independent verification.

quote:

Unless the delivery system can be identified, is it possible to eliminate one of the rebel groups as the guilty party? I don't know how that possibility can be eliminated. It is well worth remembering previous claims about WMDs made against countries in the region by Western Govts. We all know how they turned out. It is far from inconceivable that a rebel group was supplied with CWs by a 'friendly' Govt in an attempt to frame Assad. Those who feel the Israeli Govt incapable of such an act are urged to read this 1996 Israeli/US blueprint for destabilising Israel's 'unfriendly' neighbours
So your urging caution until all the facts are in seems eminently sensible to me. And your opposition to unilateral US or US/UK intervention, and insistence that any action must emanate from the UN is spot on IMHO

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
~FR~
Is there a reason that the region cannot handle their own problems? I know many people may die but how long can the top countries in the world continue to babysit other countries? It has been shown throughout history that external intervention very rarely, if ever, solves the issues that led to it.

This is precisely what I'd prefer to see happen. Unfortunately, President Obama has already drawn a line in the sand. If he backs down, the US loses face in the international community. If Assad did use the chemical weapons and we back down, we will have lost face to Putin and Assad. Of course, if we do nothing and many more people are killed, and we'll be blamed for not going in.

We have lost face over much worse in the past and we survived. I think using risk assessment that the pro's outweigh the con's of not using military aid.

quote:

quote:

I would love to see Obama on TV state this emphatically (and I'm sure there are certain posters here that will jump on me for part of it): "The US has a new foreign policy. As long as you leave Israel alone, we're going to stay out of things and let each of your Nations and peoples decide how you want your Nations to run. Have a good day."

I wouldn't want any President to say something like that. I would prefer they say "at this time we are not getting involved, but if we determine it is in our best interest we may."
Then there is nothing definitive and options are left open. I see very few reasons for us to get involved in any other country's issues, but there we should not box ourselves in on anything.

quote:

The Saudis have apparently judged President Obama to be rudderless in his Middle East policies,

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


What will happen to America if we choose to step aside? Will our military might weaken? Will our economy suffer? Will we by smighted by the gods? Will we be attacked by Costa Rica?

No, but you might get smitten by Al Quaeda, who are purportedly allies of the Syrian rebels and who could have sarin bombs in their hands (if the Assad regime is telling the truth); or by the Iranians, who are allies of the Assad regime (if the Syrian rebels are telling the truth). The bottom line is that these chemical weapons exist in a situation that is seriously out of control. *That* is what needs to be dealt with. Somehow.

quote:

Action is needed to send a clear message to the world that chemical weapons are totally unacceptable in today's world. It must come from the UN.

quote:

No, but you might get smitten by Al Quaeda, who are purportedly allies of the Syrian rebels and who could have sarin bombs in their hands (if the Assad regime is telling the truth); or by the Iranians, who are allies of the Assad regime (if the Syrian rebels are telling the truth). The bottom line is that these chemical weapons exist in a situation that is seriously out of control. *That* is what needs to be dealt with. Somehow.

quote:

What will happen is this...... Sooner or later you would then have to get involved in the defence of Israel. That would cost more, in both finance and lives, than getting involved now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

What will happen is this...... Sooner or later you would then have to get involved in the defence of Israel. That would cost more, in both finance and lives, than getting involved now.

A very big assumption on your part. Would be interested in the reasoning you used in such speculation. I cannot imagine a scenario where we would get involved to defending Israel with ground troops.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

No, but you might get smitten by Al Quaeda, who are purportedly allies of the Syrian rebels and who could have sarin bombs in their hands (if the Assad regime is telling the truth); or by the Iranians, who are allies of the Assad regime (if the Syrian rebels are telling the truth). The bottom line is that these chemical weapons exist in a situation that is seriously out of control. *That* is what needs to be dealt with. Somehow.

This is precisely the same spurious propaganda we heard leading up to the second war against Iraq: Saddam would give nuclear devices to Al Quaeda.

quote:

THIS

Anything else would be unacceptable to both sides

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

THIS

Anything else would be unacceptable to both sides

THIS as above is an impossibility...you do understand this?

So...the only option is for France the UK and the US to take the mission on alone.

I'm afraid we will be stupid enough to do it when, as likely as not, both sides have used Chemical weapons.

The only sensible solution and the correct one is to do nothing. If the UN will not act...or the Arab League will not act then WE should not act.

Now if the Arab league were to take the lead with military assets then I am all for the US supporting them.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

THIS

Anything else would be unacceptable to both sides

THIS as above is an impossibility...you do understand this?

So...the only option is for France the UK and the US to take the mission on alone.

I'm afraid we will be stupid enough to do it when, as likely as not, both sides have used Chemical weapons.

The only sensible solution and the correct one is to do nothing. If the UN will not act...or the Arab League will not act then WE should not act.

Now if the Arab league were to take the lead with military assets then I am all for the US supporting them.

Butch