US warships near Syrian waters

[Callie Del Noire]

Why get involved? Because, for a variety of reasons, Syria's stability (or lack thereof) is starting to effect other nations. Something on the order of 5 MILLION (or more) Syrians have been displaced. Some still inside the country, others outside.  That is a LOT of lost capital and labor being displaced. Jobs, homes and lives lost.

That has an effect. Look what happened in Lebanon and Isreal when the Palestians were displaced from their territories in the 60s and 70s. A LOT of Lebanon's stability issues came from militias formed in the refugee camps. Even today, Syria sponsors those groups to destabilize their neighbors.

Simply put, the longer the civil war goes on, the wider the economic and social train spreads. Sooner or later it will effect other nations. And like Dominos... More things will fall and pile up on each other.

[Retribution]

Why get involved? Because, for a variety of reasons, Syria's stability (or lack thereof) is starting to effect other nations. Something on the order of 5 MILLION (or more) Syrians have been displaced. Some still inside the country, others outside.  That is a LOT of lost capital and labor being displaced. Jobs, homes and lives lost.

That has an effect. Look what happened in Lebanon and Isreal when the Palestians were displaced from their territories in the 60s and 70s. A LOT of Lebanon's stability issues came from militias formed in the refugee camps. Even today, Syria sponsors those groups to destabilize their neighbors.

Simply put, the longer the civil war goes on, the wider the economic and social train spreads. Sooner or later it will effect other nations. And like Dominos... More things will fall and pile up on each other.

Okay, I will buy that but I am not exactly seeing anything being proposed that would prevent that unless I am really missing something here.

[Formless]

@ Elone & Cyrano & Oniya & Retribution. I do not mind discussing the matter of Shee'ah & Sunni. Should a thread be created , I'll gladly provide my input about it. What I have to say is simply my own insight and never words carved in stone. Simply a few fundamentals that met a few alterations down the history path.

[Callie Del Noire]

Okay, I will buy that but I am not exactly seeing anything being proposed that would prevent that unless I am really missing something here.

True but you keep forgetting that your typical politician these days want 'quick fixes' rather than something like the Marshall Plan. Long time, big money, and continued interaction with 'someplace else' isn't something a politician these days like.

They are ruled by the opinion polls. And like the polls, change with the shifting wind of media influenced current opinion.

[ShadowFox89]

True but you keep forgetting that your typical politician these days want 'quick fixes' rather than something like the Marshall Plan.

Or, to put simply. They can't see past their own reelection.

[alextaylor]

I can't believe people still mention oil and bombs as a reason why the US should or should not invade.


What happened to the hundreds of thousands of people suffering and starving? Is that no longer reason enough?

Definitely not reason enough. They'd have to hit Israel if that were the case 

Also not quite how many suffer, but their level of suffering. There are plenty of people starving in Africa from wars, but intervention won't cure that. But intervention will prevent people from burning to death or losing their family members to buried cluster bombs 50 years later. Then again, the US has been using cluster bombs and fuel bombs quite recently, so I don't know if they'll help much.

[elone]

@ Elone & Cyrano & Oniya & Retribution. I do not mind discussing the matter of Shee'ah & Sunni. Should a thread be created , I'll gladly provide my input about it. What I have to say is simply my own insight and never words carved in stone. Simply a few fundamentals that met a few alterations down the history path.

Formless, I don't know a lot about the Muslim religion, just recently got interested in doing some looking around about the Sunni/Shiite differences because basically I could not understand the animosity between groups that I believed were basically the same religion. I guess it is akin to the battles over time between Protestants and Catholics. Still today in places like Northern Ireland.

Since this is a religious and politics thread, and I assume most people don't really know a lot about the Muslim religion, maybe you could open a thread and enlighten us if you would like.

I did enjoy your earlier discussion, by the way.

[Retribution]

True but you keep forgetting that your typical politician these days want 'quick fixes' rather than something like the Marshall Plan. Long time, big money, and continued interaction with 'someplace else' isn't something a politician these days like.

They are ruled by the opinion polls. And like the polls, change with the shifting wind of media influenced current opinion.

I am actually of the opinion that the American people themselves are a bit guilty of this as well. If military action or some other type plan does not have instant results the voting public becomes disillusioned and does not stay the course. Yet, another reason why I do not see intervention in Syria turning out well.

Formeless -> I am in the same boat as Elone I know nada about Islam. Have tried to educate myself some but most sources are questionable in my opinion it is nice to actually talk to someone like you who is clearly thoughtful. I would certainly be willing to participate in a discussion. For my own background born, raised, and educated through high school Catholic. Though I do not blindly follow my own church's teachings. My personal moral code can best be summed up by the John Wayne quote in my signature. Born and raised in the middle of the US in a very rural background I have only seen an ocean a couple times in my life. So, I would say I am a pretty atypical person on E since I get the impression more on here are more urban types.

[Neysha]

How did you (or Neysha, if she made the assertion) reach this conclusion?  Many economic conservatives and constitutionalists would disagree with this comparison.

Well for another imprecise analogy...

Well I suppose it'd be like saying there are Conservatives, then a fraction of them might be interpreted as "right wingers", then of them a fraction might be considered a militia movement who preach a particularly vibrant brand of Conservative libertarianism and might stereotypically belong to survivalist, sovereign citizen, Christian identity or officially termed 'unorganized militia' groups. Then of them a small fraction might be considered domestic terrorists, like with the Oklahoma City Bombing or attacks on Abortion Clinics etc.

That very edge (the degree open to interpretation) might be considered the same for the relationship between Muslims, Sunni Muslims, Wahabists, and Al Qaeda and likeminded terrorists.

Or if you want political duality, something like being a political liberal and then ranging all the way down to Weathermen/Red Brigade style or extremist eco-terrorism. (at least in the West)

[Dashenka]

And now the Russian government has had a good idea that does not involve any military action, which even Trigger Finger Kerry and Obama seem to agree with.


Just when you thought you'd seen it all....

[ShadowFox89]

And now the Russian government has had a good idea that does not involve any military action, which even Trigger Finger Kerry and Obama seem to agree with.


Just when you thought you'd seen it all....

If Obama had a Trigger Finger, Syria would be bombed already.

[Dashenka]

Well the 'US government' already had proof. Nobody else saw it but Kerry had the proof that it was Assad's doing. It was a matter of time.

[Neysha]

The Assad regime seems to be relishing in the West's lukewarm reaction after so much bluster it seems. They're supposedly 'taunting' the British (and likely the Turks as well) with alleged violations of Cypriot airspace.

[Dashenka]

Let's hope Putin's idea works.

[gaggedLouise]

The idea that one could set up a safe and conclusive program to transfer those chemical weapons in the middle of an ongoing civil war - locate them, make sure it's all of those weapons, demolish Assad's capacity to make new loads of C-weapons, and then transfer them to somewhere overseas and destroy the stuff, in a situation where trust between the countries we're talking of is at a yawning low - strikes me as bizarre. It's only going to become a game of recriminations, "did they hand over all of it?", excuses and playing for time. It's certainly going to take so much time it would buy the Assad regime the time they need.

If this isn't coupled with sending in a strong U.N. armed peacekeeping force that can cool down the war and has the mandate to fight Assad forces too, then it sounds like a turkey idea to me. And most likely Russia and China would never allow something like that under the banners of the U.N.

[Dashenka]

The idea that one could set up a safe and conclusive program to transfer those chemical weapons in the middle of an ongoing civil war - locate them, make sure it's all of those weapons, demolish Assad's capacity to make new loads of C-weapons, and then transfer them to somewhere overseas and destroy the stuff, in a situation where trust between the countries we're talking of is at a yawning low - strikes me as bizarre. It's only going to become a game of recriminations, "did they hand over all of it?", excuses and playing for time. It's certainly going to take so much time it would buy the Assad regime the time they need.

If this isn't coupled with sending in a strong U.N. armed peacekeeping force that can cool down the war and has the mandate to fight Assad forces too, then it sounds like a turkey idea to me. And most likely Russia and China would never allow something like that under the banners of the U.N.

Why would Russia not? It was their idea.

[Callie Del Noire]

Why would Russia not? It was their idea.

Because they would have to risk any aid THEY gave to the Syrians coming to light. Just like the assistance the French and Germans gave Iraq back before 2001 stalled their 'assistance' in the last gulf war.

You don't let another nation clean up YOUR mess. It would be a massive hit to status.

[Dashenka]

Russia didn't aid Syria with anything else than weapons. Everybody knows that since it was a public contract.

[Callie Del Noire]

Russia didn't aid Syria with anything else than weapons. Everybody knows that since it was a public contract.

You do realize they (the Russians and before that the USSR) have had a very close relationship with the Syrians for nearly forty years? That sort of thing will still splatter on them even today?

[Dashenka]

Yes but that shouldn't and probably wouldn't be the reason why Russia would not allow a large UN squad to really inspect and secure the chemical weaponry Assad has.

[Retribution]

Aside from the fact they likely sold him a large portion of them?

[gaggedLouise]

Why would Russia not? It was their idea.

I was referring to setting up a UN peacekeeping force with real military muscle - not an invasion force as such, but a military force with the power and the mandate to block the major fighting in Syria. That's something Russia and China (at the UN Security council) wouldn't accept - honestly I don't think Obama or Cameron are very interested either, but to Russia the idea would be a no-go. And without that kind of force, to make sure the war doesn't go on, the "secure his C weapons under UN control" scheme would be both silly, impractical and hypocritical. Everyone would read it as "okay, he can butcher his own people as long as he might not come to do it with ABC-weapons".

I also doubt the project of handing over all chemical weapons is something Putin seriously wants, it sounds like just a means to buy time.

[Dashenka]

Aside from the fact they likely sold him a large portion of them?

Again, everybody knows this so why would Russia try to hide it?

I was referring to setting up a UN peacekeeping force with real military muscle - not an invasion force as such, but a military force with the power and the mandate to block the major fighting in Syria. That's something Russia and China (at the UN Security council) wouldn't accept - honestly I don't think Obama or Cameron are very interested either, but to Russia the idea would be a no-go. And without that kind of force, to make sure the war doesn't go on, the "secure his C weapons under UN control" scheme would be both silly, impractical and hypocritical. Everyone would read it as "okay, he can butcher his own people as long as he might not come to do it with ABC-weapons".

I also doubt the project of handing over all chemical weapons is something Putin seriously wants, it sounds like just a means to buy time.

I agree. Either invade and disarm the country (both government and rebel forces) or stay the f*ck out. Obama has always said they wouldn't get boot on the ground and that the action would solely be to show Assad and the world that the use of chemical weapons is a no-go. Basically what he said is that it's fine to shoot your own people with tanks and all but not with chemical weapons. It's not my words, it's Obama.

Russia still hasn't seen any solid proof that it was Assad using the chemical weapons and still has suspicions towards the rebels of doing it. So unless Obama or Kerry appears on television with the famous "Ladies and Gentlemen..... we got IT", Russia won't support any UN intervention because who does the UN support? The rebels or Assad? It's picking side with two evils. So Putin suggested to at least have the chemical weapons under supervision of the UN so that in the future, they are not being used again.

[Hades]

I was referring to setting up a UN peacekeeping force with real military muscle - not an invasion force as such, but a military force with the power and the mandate to block the major fighting in Syria. That's something Russia and China (at the UN Security council) wouldn't accept - honestly I don't think Obama or Cameron are very interested either, but to Russia the idea would be a no-go. And without that kind of force, to make sure the war doesn't go on, the "secure his C weapons under UN control" scheme would be both silly, impractical and hypocritical. Everyone would read it as "okay, he can butcher his own people as long as he might not come to do it with ABC-weapons".

I also doubt the project of handing over all chemical weapons is something Putin seriously wants, it sounds like just a means to buy time.

I'm not so sure that Russia in particular would object that strongly to a UN mission.  China I think would hem-haw a few days about it before signing off, but Russia I suspect would be more in favor of it simply because as a veto-carrying member of the Security Council that would ensure they have a very large and prominent role in the inspection process. 

Now whether that's a good thing or not, given Russia's obvious support towards Syria, is of course debatable.  But even if it's a ploy just to buy time for Assad to do move the production centers or hide a stockpile or whatever, I personally still find that a favorable solution than a military strike that could put a match to the powderkeg that makes up the whole region.

[gaggedLouise]

I agree. Either invade and disarm the country (both government and rebel forces) or stay the f*ck out. Obama has always said they wouldn't get boot on the ground and that the action would solely be to show Assad and the world that the use of chemical weapons is a no-go. Basically what he said is that it's fine to shoot your own people with tanks and all but not with chemical weapons. It's not my words, it's Obama.

Russia still hasn't seen any solid proof that it was Assad using the chemical weapons and still has suspicions towards the rebels of doing it. So unless Obama or Kerry appears on television with the famous "Ladies and Gentlemen..... we got IT", Russia won't support any UN intervention because who does the UN support? The rebels or Assad? It's picking side with two evils. So Putin suggested to at least have the chemical weapons under supervision of the UN so that in the future, they are not being used again.

It would be almost impossible to get the chemical weapons out and under control, outside of Syria, in a country that's being torn by open civil war for two years and counting. It would be a big logistic operation with many steps, it's not like you can send a few units in and let the Syrian troops escort them to the secret chemical weapsons stacks and then get these out. How would it be certain that they'd got it all out, that there were no reserves left, no capacity to produce them anew? How do you get them out in such an unstable situation? Without protection from your own armed forces (a UN division and aircraft)? And how do you avoid creating a prime target for terrorists or some other power with those stockpiles, ´when you've just got them out of Syria?

And do you think Assad is keen on exposing any of his military installations to a "recovery squad" that, for all that he knows, may include spies who will share information with some other power once they get out? That's exactly the kind of troubles that racked the UN weapons inspection program in Iraq in the years up to 2003. Saddam played for time, let in the inspectors at some places and denied them at others, the results were never conclusive. Saddam also claimed that the inspectors were sharing information with Washington - that is, they would effectively be spying on behalf of his enemies. The idea was ridiculed in newspapers and editorial pages in the west, but eventually Scott Ritter admitted openly (and in defiance of the US DoD and CIA) that yes, of course they had shared some information about military installations with the U.S. military. They were supposed to be working for the U.N. only, but that didn't quite hold up. If the UN or somebody similar sends in that kind of unit, this question will be invoked by Assad at some point when it's getting too hot.


Apart from that, I agree Obama's stance hasn't been very consistent. In a better world and with more resources, he should have taken firm action long ago and I think Cameron and Hollande would have gotten their countries on board for that too - including "boots on the ground". IF this had not happened at a time of deep economic crisis and after two botched, not really conclusive wars in the middle east - of course the U.S. doesn't want a third one and potentially involving Iran, Israel and Russia.

Because they would have to risk any aid THEY gave to the Syrians coming to light. Just like the assistance the French and Germans gave Iraq back before 2001 stalled their 'assistance' in the last gulf war.

You don't let another nation clean up YOUR mess. It would be a massive hit to status.

Exactly. Letting some other state lead the cleanup of your own mess, and lecture you, is a huge blow to the status of any regime.