[Cyberyeti]

 Trinidad, on 2013-September-01, 10:46, said:

You have written this many times now, and I still don't have any idea where you get this idea.

It seems to be mainstream American ot think that the Russians will deny the truth. So far, Putin has said that there is no evidence. According to Putin, the Americans claim that they have evidence, but they aren't showing any of it. And evidence that you are not willing to show is no evidence.

I must say that I agree with Putin. The international community should not want to condemn a country based on hearsay from a country that has hardly any credibility at all in these matters.

I would even go further. I realize a comparison with bridge is not entirely fair, but in effect we have here one government (the USA) accusing another government (the Assad regime) of cheating. If you do that in bridge, you'ld better be willing to show some solid evidence the moment you make such an accusation. The Americans say: "We have evidence, but we don't allow you to verify it.". That simply means: provide the evidence or shut up.

In addition, we have a TD walking around here (the UN). The USA is not listening to the TD, they do not want to wait for the TD's ruling, and they say that they will chose their options ignoring the TD whenever they see fit.

Is this the kind of player you want in your game?!?

Let's wait until the TD returns with evidence. Then we will see what Putin does. (We already know what the Americans will say regardless of what the UN conclusions will be.)

Rik

The bridge analogy is ridiculous.

The Russians have such a vested interest in the Assad regime continuing they will deny anything. Photos and phone taps will have been faked by the US/Israel etc.

In bridge, you don't have problems like your agents in Syria getting killed because their cover is blown if you release the evidence.

There is plenty of circumstantial evidence and eyewitness reports that would be enough to convince most people of the sarin arriving in rockets, with the rocket flashes being seen immediately before from the government positions. Also while the Syrian government have been doing well in the war, the area affected was the one place they were making no headway against the rebels.

[kenberg]

I will own up to how I come to conclusions ins such matters

1. Concluding that Syria used chemical weapons is a great disaster for the U.S. We look weak if we do nothing, any action has great risk. it is inconceivable to me that Obama would want to fake this. There would be no advantage whatsoever.


2. I have read a number of articles advising against intervention. These people, the ones that I have read, argue on practical grounds that intervention might well make matters worse, perhaps a lot worse, and has very little chance of making things better. Steven Cook's article in today's Post is an example: http://www.washingto...0972_story.html
Now Cook, and others favoring staying out, might be right or they might be wrong, but he argues against intervention. He does not mention the lack of evidence as a reason. I would suppose that an informed person who wishes to make a case against intervention would, if he thought it at all credible, mention that maybe the evidence is inconclusive. He states "Among the catalog of horrors that Bashar al-Assad and his supporters have perpetrated against their people, the use of chemical weapons in Ghouta on Aug. 21 is particularly egregious. " This is a man arguing against intervention. I suppose he does not bring up the possibility that the evidence is wrong because he does not believe that the evidence is wrong. From what I have seen, this example is the rule rather than the exception. Those who argue against intervention do so on grounds of practicality, not because they deny the chemical attack took place or because they regard it as even remotely credible that the rebels did it to themselves. There are of course exceptions. Vladimir Putin, for example.

3. And of course there is "the rebels did it" argument. Well, I have been around long enough to have heard the argument growing up that Roosevelt knew about the planned attack on Pearl Harbor and let it happen to bring us into the war. And of course the CIA flew planes into the Twin Towers. Sorry, no sale.


So here is where I am:
I did not fly to Syria, I have no training in analyzing chemical attacks. I certainly accept that presidents lie. Informed people, most definitely including those opposed to a strike, accept the evidence as conclusive that the Syrian government was behind the attack.. Vladimir Putin dissenting. We all just have to do out best in drawing conclusions.

[Trinidad]

 kenberg, on 2013-September-01, 15:28, said:

Informed people, most definitely including those opposed to a strike, accept the evidence as conclusive that the Syrian government was behind the attack.. Vladimir Putin dissenting.

That is simply not true. The "informed people" that you are talking about are primarily "informed people in the USA" who believe what the US government is telling them. You can hardly blame Putin for not believing the US government on these matters, given their track record.

So, Putin says there is no evidence at all as long as those who claim to hold the evidence refuse to show it and let others verify it. The Americans say the evidence is conclusive and the rest of the world says: "It is clear something happened, but we are not really sure what and who is responsible for it. Let's investigate."

Rik

[kenberg]

Pretty obviously this dispute about whether the Syrian government was or wasn't responsible for the attacks will not be seeing either of us change our minds. For me, the questions of interest are what if anything can be done. Inevitably, this expands to the larger question of what our role should be in the region. I see no reason to believe that differences will be worked out in ten years, or twenty, or fifty. The killing, with or wothout chemicals, will continue. The Arab Spring was a fantasy based on wishful thinking and a PR slogan. We are not wanted there, we have little influence there, and we have to accept that.

The world is interrelated, so the issues are complex. I see it all as quite grim.

Anyway, I won't be changing my mind about the responsibility of the Syrian government for the chemical attacks, but I won't keep going on about it either.

[blackshoe]

The question, for me, is not whether to believe or disbelieve Mr. Obama. The question is "what should our foreign policy be?" We have practiced interventionism for at least the last century, if not longer. At least in the last fifty years, almost none of it has worked out well for us. Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Vietnam, Central America, Korea. None of it has improved our position in the world or our economic prosperity. IMO it's time to stop this crap and let other countries solve their own problems while we work on solving ours. Note how well this business in Syria has drawn attention away from the IRS, NSA, and various other internal problems. That's not the purpose of a foreign policy, however much Mr. Obama likes what all the yammering about Syria has done for him.

Is the use of chemical weapons bad? Yes. Should we be the world's policeman? No. Enough is enough. As John Quincy Adams said "We are the friends of liberty everywhere, the guardians only of our own."

[Winstonm]

I would not have thought this correct, but data seem to contradict my thinking. I should reconsider my position. Et tu?

Quote

This analysis suggests that third-party interventions can be decisive in the evolution of civil wars and that third-party interventions have a different effect on the duration than different civil war outcomes. The results show that third-party intervention decreases the time until the supported group achieves military victory. Furthermore, third-party interventions, on both the government and opposition sides, increase the time until a negotiated settlement.

[kenberg]

 Winstonm, on 2013-September-02, 09:26, said:

I would not have thought this correct, but data seem to contradict my thinking. I should reconsider my position. Et tu?

Am I right that I have to subscribe to read this? Fair enough, of course, but we have all become accustomed to freebies.

As to the claim:
I dunno if we should call the American revolution a civil warm but certainly French involvement was critical. And I think that German support for Franco played a role in the Spanish Civil War. I think that the CIA has helped with a coup or two. Generally I would expect third party intervention to have an effect. Whether the effect is good or bad is another matter of course.

[ArtK78]

In my opinion, the US has a moral responsibility to address atrocities committed in foreign lands. The reputation of the US (and the world) will forever be stained by inaction in the face of atrocities leading up to and during WWII, not to mention others in more recent history. It is wrong to ignore new atrocities just to avoid "foreign entanglements."

I know that this is not a popular opinion among many posters here.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2013-September-02, 10:37, said:

Am I right that I have to subscribe to read this? Fair enough, of course, but we have all become accustomed to freebies.

As to the claim:
I dunno if we should call the American revolution a civil warm but certainly French involvement was critical. And I think that German support for Franco played a role in the Spanish Civil War. I think that the CIA has helped with a coup or two. Generally I would expect third party intervention to have an effect. Whether the effect is good or bad is another matter of course.

Yes, you are right about subscribing.

And yes, choosing to intervene means consequences - according to the link, an increased time for negotiated settlement but less time for one side winning. Question is, which do we want, if either?

[kenberg]

Situations vary. I would love to be proved wrong about what I am about to say, but here goes:

Catholics and Protestants in Ireland: I picked no favorite. I hoped they could solve it, I had no good ideas about how, so leave it to them, and I figured there was enough sanity here and there so that probably they could come to something that they all could live with. About what happened, I think.

Israel and the Palestinians: The poster child for pessimism. Still, somewhere there is hope. Surely there are people on both sides, or all sides, who can see the advantages in working something out. I was finishing my Ph.D at the time of the six day war, I have now been retired for nine years, so hope starts to fade. But still, just maybe.

Syria: Here is where I would love to be proved wrong. Is anyone there interested in a peaceful accommodation with anyone? Is there someone there we really wish to help? I readily confess to a total lack of knowledge on this score, but nothing that I have heard is encouraging.

Bottom line: We need to have some idea of what the purpose is for any strike. Obama wants to send a message. Richard, I think, wishes it to be a more forceful message. I am greatly pessimistic about messages. Messengers are often unappreciated. But whatever we do, or do not do, there will be hell to pay.

[blackshoe]

There are rumblings that the fundamentalist muslims now in opposition to Assad can be expected to purge Syria of its Christians if they (the muslims) come into power. Is this acceptable "collateral damage" to getting Assad out?

Ken's right. Whatever we do or don't do, there will be Hell to pay.

[billw55]

 ArtK78, on 2013-September-02, 10:41, said:

In my opinion, the US has a moral responsibility to address atrocities committed in foreign lands. The reputation of the US (and the world) will forever be stained by inaction in the face of atrocities leading up to and during WWII, not to mention others in more recent history. It is wrong to ignore new atrocities just to avoid "foreign entanglements."

I know that this is not a popular opinion among many posters here.

I can appreciate your moral highground. But to follow this policy the USA would need an army of tens of millions, operating in (if not outright occupying) dozens of foreign nations across the middle east, Africa, and Asia. Shall we invade North Korea? Congo? Or in the past - Rwanda, Cambodia, South Africa, Afghanistan pre-911 .. the list never ends. Realistically, we just can't do everything.

[ArtK78]

 billw55, on 2013-September-03, 07:13, said:

I can appreciate your moral highground. But to follow this policy the USA would need an army of tens of millions, operating in (if not outright occupying) dozens of foreign nations across the middle east, Africa, and Asia. Shall we invade North Korea? Congo? Or in the past - Rwanda, Cambodia, South Africa, Afghanistan pre-911 .. the list never ends. Realistically, we just can't do everything.

And, regrettably, we have not.

[kenberg]

It is probably a topic for another thread, but I think the last couple of posts are extremely important. What is our responsibility? I think morality is definitely a relevant part of the discussion. So is practicality. Both are important.

My emotional reaction is, I suspect, shared by many Americans: Stay the hell out of the Middle East. Nothing good can come of it.

But of course sober reflection says that it is not that simple. Or at least I don't think that it is that simple. Which is different from saying that I actually know what to do. There are people with experience, good intentions, and knowledge. They don't always, or maybe even often, agree with each other. We must listen, and choose as best we can.

[PassedOut]

My own view is that the world does need a police force to deal with situations like Syria (and many, many others), but that the US should not take on that role, period. As imperfect as it is, the UN is best placed to perform that role, with the strong support of the US and other nations. As Bill pointed out, we simply don't have the population to police everywhere, and other countries have the large populations necessary to supply forces. The US has other ways to contribute.

I do understand that some bad situations will go uncorrected -- if Russia vetoed military action in Syria, for example. But many bad situations go uncorrected today, albeit with little or no press coverage in the US.

In the UN, the US should strongly push for intervention whenever we think it is called for, and should present strong evidence for our positions for all of the world to see. The countries that block needed interventions will be seen for what they are, and that is a losing position for them in the long term. We need to forget about short term fixes by the US -- they usually backfire anyway.

On the home front, we need to focus on being the best country we can be, and we've got a long way to go.

[blackshoe]

I'm not so sure sovereign nations should defer to the UN for this, as it means giving up a portion of their sovereignty. Of course, one could say that these are "rogue nations" and bang on the table and insist that the UN has a right and duty to "Do Something" regardless what the nation concerned thinks.

What do we do when the UN decides it's the US which needs a spanking?

[Flem72]

"Obama and Kerry claim several times in the last 48 hours, that their evidence is very strong."

If anyone in the WH advisory corps has a shred of a sense of humor, s/he will suggest that Colin Powell reveal the evidence.

[mike777]

too be fair this time much evidence has been shown...but if you have better great......tell us please

If you just want to refight the last war with 20/20 hindsight...ok...

-------


again all of these points can be made against a strike against Iran and nukes.

[rbforster]

 Flem72, on 2013-September-03, 18:49, said:

"Obama and Kerry claim several times in the last 48 hours, that their evidence is very strong."

Well a couple months ago the UN concluded that the Syrian rebels had used chemical weapons. I don't know if we gave them the stuff like we did with Saddam back in the day, but we sure didnt stop supporting them over it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...e-east-22424188

So maybe we go back to the crusader's model and let God sort 'em out?

[hrothgar]

 blackshoe, on 2013-September-03, 17:05, said:

What do we do when the UN decides it's the US which needs a spanking?

Veto it in the Security Council...
Duh.