[Scarabin]

When this confrontation started I was a deeply committed supporter of the US ( almost even when mistaken because I thought American mistakes were honest mistakes).

As it progressed I developed a respect for Russian judgment and distrust of American veracity. I think, more than anything else, I dislike people, whether politicians or posters, to claim absolute knowledge and ignore all objective evidence. Of course it is even less honest to claim to have concrete evidence and refuse to disclose it?

My individual opinion is spittle on the wind but how many people outside the US share my view?

[kenberg]

A lot gets said about Americans. I will first give my thoughts about the development that France will be going to the Security Council with a plan. Briefly, if it stands up to scrutiny, I am for it.

Now about Americans. Presumably there is no such thing as a typical American, typical Frenchman, or typical Syrian. But my background is not unusual. I was born in Minneapolis in 1939, brought up in St. Paul. By the time I started college in 1956 I had been to Chicago once, when I was 8. I had been in the western part of Wisconsin, canoeing on the St. Croix river that borders Minnesota and Wisconsin. I had been in western Minnesota hunting with my father, and probably we even made it into eastern South Dakota. In my childhood we had a 1940 Chev which my father replaced in 1953 with a new Chev. The old Chev had about 60,000 miles on it. Everyone I went to elementary school and high school with was white, they were Catholic, Protestant or Jewish (yes, I had given up religion but that still leaves me culturally Protestant). No one spoke with an accent. That includes my father, who came here from Croatia in 1910.

My point is that any interest that I may have in Syria comes from adult decisions, it is not by any means natural. There is a strong isolationist streak in American life. The Korean War began when I was 11, and I followed developments, in my 11 year old way, on a daily basis. It drove my mother nuts. "It's about oil. All wars are about oil. This is just to keep Rockefeller rich." "Mom, I don't think there is any oil in Korea". "They are fighting there, so there is oil there."

If we do not have to get involved militarily in Syria, trust me, I am delighted and so are just about all Americans. I personally know of no exceptions. As far as I am concerned, I would be happy to not even have an opinion about Syria. I expect nothing good to come of it, whatever we do. Even allowing for hype, I believe that it is true that we were enthusiastically welcomed by the French in 1944. I think that there was joy in Manilla when MacArthur did in fact return. There will be no such enthusiasm for us in Damascus. The rebels may want our bombs, they do not want us. There is zero chance that we will have good relations with any Syrian government that one can reasonably imagine being in power now or in the foreseeable future.

There is nothing in it for us. Perhaps we must act in order to discourage further use of chemical weapons. Perhaps we need not act, either because something like the French/Russian proposal will work, or perhaps because we come to believe the place is a hellhole and nothing much will do any good anyway.

Getting heavily involved in Syria may well destroy the Obama presidency. Ask LBJ or GWB how a war works for one's legacy. Obama ducked this until Assad through it in his face and, incredibly, it seems to have caught him by surprise. I assure you that no one here thinks it a good thing to get involved in this war. Actually, most of us are not very taken with the whole Middle East. Oil, my mother would explain. She had a point.


All this being said, I am deeply suspicious of this idea that Assad will turn over control of his weapons. He has spent years building this stockpile, he has visions of world power, I just don't believe these are going to vanish. But if so, hurrah.

[Scarabin]

kenberg, on 2013-September-10, 06:02, said:

A lot gets said about Americans. I will first give my thoughts about the development that France will be going to the Security Council with a plan. Briefly, if it stands up to scrutiny, I am for it.

Now about Americans. Presumably there is no such thing as a typical American, typical Frenchman, or typical Syrian. But my background is not unusual. I was born in Minneapolis in 1939, brought up in St. Paul. By the time I started college in 1956 I had been to Chicago once, when I was 8. I had been in the western part of Wisconsin, canoeing on the St. Croix river that borders Minnesota and Wisconsin. I had been in western Minnesota hunting with my father, and probably we even made it into eastern South Dakota. In my childhood we had a 1940 Chev which my father replaced in 1953 with a new Chev. The old Chev had about 60,000 miles on it. Everyone I went to elementary school and high school with was white, they were Catholic, Protestant or Jewish (yes, I had given up religion but that still leaves me culturally Protestant). No one spoke with an accent. That includes my father, who came here from Croatia in 1910.

My point is that any interest that I may have in Syria comes from adult decisions, it is not by any means natural. There is a strong isolationist streak in American life. The Korean War began when I was 11, and I followed developments, in my 11 year old way, on a daily basis. It drove my mother nuts. "It's about oil. All wars are about oil. This is just to keep Rockefeller rich." "Mom, I don't think there is any oil in Korea". "They are fighting there, so there is oil there."

If we do not have to get involved militarily in Syria, trust me, I am delighted and so are just about all Americans. I personally know of no exceptions. As far as I am concerned, I would be happy to not even have an opinion about Syria. I expect nothing good to come of it, whatever we do. Even allowing for hype, I believe that it is true that we were enthusiastically welcomed by the French in 1944. I think that there was joy in Manilla when MacArthur did in fact return. There will be no such enthusiasm for us in Damascus. The rebels may want our bombs, they do not want us. There is zero chance that we will have good relations with any Syrian government that one can reasonably imagine being in power now or in the foreseeable future.

There is nothing in it for us. Perhaps we must act in order to discourage further use of chemical weapons. Perhaps we need not act, either because something like the French/Russian proposal will work, or perhaps because we come to believe the place is a hellhole and nothing much will do any good anyway.

Getting heavily involved in Syria may well destroy the Obama presidency. Ask LBJ or GWB how a war works for one's legacy. Obama ducked this until Assad through it in his face and, incredibly, it seems to have caught him by surprise. I assure you that no one here thinks it a good thing to get involved in this war. Actually, most of us are not very taken with the whole Middle East. Oil, my mother would explain. She had a point.


All this being said, I am deeply suspicious of this idea that Assad will turn over control of his weapons. He has spent years building this stockpile, he has visions of world power, I just don't believe these are going to vanish. But if so, hurrah.

Thanks for your thoughtful and reasoned reply to my "cri de coeur". I have to agree with the points you make but I have some issues with your last paragraph.

Perhaps Assad might turn over temporary control of his chemical weapons if these are partially controlled by his allies and cannot be passed to his enemies. Anyhow he probably expects some quid pro quo?

I imagine his motive for building a chemical stockpile is similar to the US use of drones - a weapon which is effective and relies less heavily on the loyalty of footsoldiers.

Do you seriously believe Assad has visions of world power? In an interview today President Obama said Syria has no capacity to harm the US but Iran has.

As I age I draw increasingly to an existential view of the human condition: although we may not be able to influence our government we have to bear a share of responsibility for its actions?

[kenberg]

Right, world power was an overbid. Let's say that they wish to be a big cheese. Many groups in that area can trace their roots to some empire or other, and they seem to want to restore their lost glory. In fact it's human nature, so I understand it, but it causes trouble.

[kenberg]

Scarabin, on 2013-September-10, 06:59, said:

I imagine his motive for building a chemical stockpile is similar to the US use of drones - a weapon which is effective and relies less heavily on the loyalty of footsoldiers.

The analogy had occurred to me as well. I don't think our military is worried about loyalty, but an effective weapon that can be launched from a distance has, I am sure, its attractions. And, unfortunately, its temptations.

[billw55]

kenberg, on 2013-September-10, 06:02, said:

If we do not have to get involved militarily in Syria, trust me, I am delighted and so are just about all Americans. I personally know of no exceptions.

Well, there is ArtK78.

Face to face, no, I don't know anyone, but I have not discussed it with many.

[Aberlour10]

kenberg, on 2013-September-10, 06:02, said:

A lot gets said about Americans. I will first give my thoughts about the development that France will be going to the Security Council with a plan. Briefly, if it stands up to scrutiny, I am for it.

The comments here on this french move are quite conclusive. Hollande has been overtaken by yesterdays development. He is out of this game now, his plan in SC is a try to mask this fact out. Obama & Putin are the only player.The conditions for the real plan will be decided by them, and Obama seems to be here in the stronger position. Only their agreements may end in the SC resolution, the only resolution that will be carried unanimously.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on 2013-September-10, 08:50, said:

Well, there is ArtK78.

Face to face, no, I don't know anyone, but I have not discussed it with many.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

I only stated that halting the use and/or spread of chemical weapons is a valid reason for intervention.

[onoway]

It's looking more and more like a no win situation but there is some question about what happens next if someone doesn't do anything. If a government has no compunction about using chemical weapons on its own people then they surely will have even less compunction about using them outside the borders of its country.

If they have dreams of glory which reach to extending boundaries for religious or any other reasons, then doesn't this sound just a tad like Hitler with a religious twist rather than the ethnic bias (though that's there too, no doubt), which could be a focal point for fanatics? Of which there appear to be many, unfortunately.

It is different from Hitler in that with today's weapons, nations don't need a whole lot of soldiers to "scorch" (to take a term from science fiction) countries many many miles away. It's this scenario which seems to be developing as various nations are governed by psychotic individuals who obviously have no care or concern for their own citizens, much less anyone else.

It's unfortunate that the US has interfered so long and so actively in nations around the world because now that's coming home to roost. Even if the US does back off now, (which would give HUGE impetus to Assad and to fundamentalist fanatics) they are unlikely to be given any credit for it. How many Americans gave any kudos to Khrushchev for backing off over the Cuban missile confrontation?

[PassedOut]

onoway, on 2013-September-10, 09:35, said:

How many Americans gave any kudos to Khrushchev for backing off over the Cuban missile confrontation?

I certainly did. I remember seriously planning to go camping in the wilderness for awhile until the situation clarified. Put the plan aside when he withdrew.

[hrothgar]

hrothgar, on 2013-September-09, 10:02, said:

I would strongly prefer it if the US were able to gain agreement from the UN.

I must admit to being (very) surprised that the Security Council might be able to act on this...

Its amazing to watch an off the cuff comment by Kerry seized upon by the Russians and turned into something "real"...

[billw55]

ArtK78 said:

In my opinion, the US has a moral responsibility to address atrocities committed in foreign lands.

ArtK78 said:

The US cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to pass without action.

ArtK78 said:

And if relying on the international community (in the form of the UN or otherwise) results in doing nothing, and doing nothing is the wrong policy, it is the obligation of the US (as [for all practical purposes] the only country in the world that can do anything about it) to do something.

ArtK78 said:

I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your comments. It sure sounded like your were a strong advocate of military action by the US, with or without participation from any other nation.

[onoway]

It's VERY good news that everyone seems to have backed off a little. Let's hope everyone feels enough face has been saved that they can all go back to their own business and the UN supervision goes forward.

[PassedOut]

Yes, it will be interesting to watch Obama's speech tonight (okay, maybe not for Ken ) and to observe how this plays out over the coming days.

In my opinion, it's always problematical for foreign countries to interfere in the internal affairs of others. It is never the case that a thousand guys with weapons subjugate entire populations. If Assad did not have a lot of internal support, he'd have been out long ago.

There was a period in the US when many foolish people thought that communists "took over" Russia and China, rather than that the Russians and Chinese threw out governments that had become intolerable. It is certainly proper to defend against aggression, but we need to be very careful to avoid subverting governments established from within.

That said, I would like to see the UN establish minimum standards for governments to meet and to be in a position to enforce those standards. That will take awhile, I know, but maybe we will see some baby steps in that direction.

The world is not the wild west. We don't need any more cowboy presidents.

[dwar0123]

PassedOut, on 2013-September-10, 13:44, said:

It is never the case that a thousand guys with weapons subjugate entire populations. If Assad did not have a lot of internal support, he'd have been out long ago.

That is a rather bold statement that runs counter to my understanding of history.

I rather thought it was almost always the guy with a thousand determined bastards who generally manages to subjugate entire populations.

It is amazing how supportive a population tends to be around people with weapons who have demonstrated a willingness to use them.

History is mostly stories of how people do exactly this.

Genghis Khan, Hernán Cortés, Francisco Pizarro, the feudal system in general.

In fact, Assad would have long ago suppressed this civil war if not for outside support. Admittedly support from one of our most hated enemies.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on 2013-September-10, 12:17, said:

Perhaps I misinterpreted your comments. It sure sounded like your were a strong advocate of military action by the US, with or without participation from any other nation.

I am certainly an advocate for action, whether military or otherwise. The worst thing that the world can do is nothing.

And if the US has to go it alone, so be it.

[onoway]

dwar0123, on 2013-September-10, 15:08, said:

That is a rather bold statement that runs counter to my understanding of history.

I rather thought it was almost always the guy with a thousand determined bastards who generally manages to subjugate entire populations.

It is amazing how supportive a population tends to be around people with weapons who have demonstrated a willingness to use them.

History is mostly stories of how people do exactly this.

Genghis Khan, Hernán Cortés, Francisco Pizarro, the feudal system in general.

In fact, Assad would have long ago suppressed this civil war if not for outside support. Admittedly support from one of our most hated enemies.

No doubt true in the short term but although Ghenghis Khan supposedly conquered what was accessible of the world in his day you'll note that Mongolian is not spoken much outside Mongolia these days.In Mexico, many people still speak Indian tribal languages and Mexico's links to Spain today are vague to say the least.

Nor (afaik) is the feudal system as such still in existence. Possibly a type of that might still exist mostly in places being heavilly exploited by first world governments and companies. Many such countries in that scenario are having a growing degree of unrest to deal with, if not open rebellion.

Of course if you slaughter everyone then you don't have to worry about it but then you tend to have problems with things like food production, medical facilities and general infrastucture. It's a wonder that some of those aspects aren't beginning to make themselves felt more strongly in Syria, although it may be a case of Assad (and his army)still having their wants/needs met so he doesn't care.

Weapons only go so far and eventually people say enough is enough even in the face of them. I suspect that not understanding that is one facet of what leads countries to get into "unwinnable" wars...and also leads to things like underground resistance fighters, martyrs, suicide bombers and such. Whether we think of those people with admiration or not depends almost entirely on which side of the conflict we're on.

[hrothgar]

onoway, on 2013-September-11, 09:29, said:

Of course if you slaughter everyone then you don't have to worry about it but then you tend to have problems with things like food production, medical facilities and general infrastucture.

"Slaughtering everybody" (or nearly everybody) seemed to work pretty well for the US...

[mycroft]

As I said elsewhere, I can not see a situation where the US using its military makes things better for the [edit]Syrians, or for the US.

It has also been proven to me in the last three months that the US will lie to its citizens to allow them to break the law. "we do not gather LUVINT - we aren't allowed to do surveillance on Americans." "We have intelligence that proves..." Yep, there's a wolf out there, buddy, we're going back to sleep.

[mike777]

mycroft, on 2013-September-11, 10:03, said:

As I said elsewhere, I can not see a situation where the US using its military makes things better for the Saudis, or for the US.

It has also been proven to me in the last three months that the US will lie to its citizens to allow them to break the law. "we do not gather LUVINT - we aren't allowed to do surveillance on Americans." "We have intelligence that proves..." Yep, there's a wolf out there, buddy, we're going back to sleep.

Do you think if Canada did it would it help? What about Iran and nukes would Canada use its military in that case?

If not what would you have Canada do that is has not done over the last couple of years regarding Syria or Iran and nukes?

For example would you have Canada spend much much more on its military so it could strike and support these actions?

Would you urge Europe to spend much more to support such actions?