The Case AGAINST Syria so far

[IlarMeilyr]

I do not like to post things that allow the usual suspect idiots to make their usual moronic claims. Like, for example, if I put up a thread that makes any kind of argument along the lines of whatever the fuck the Obama Administration and Sec'y of State Kerry are saying about Syria, I am likely to be accused of "carrying water" for Obama.



Weird, but that's just the twisted way some of the usual suspects "think."

Anyway, I came upon this "analysis" of the present state of the claim by the United States that the present Syrian regime is the agent behind the use of chemical weapons against civilians in Syria. It provides a fair recapitulation of the "argument" made by Sec'y of State John Lurch Kerry:

* * * * US Secretary of State John Kerry, in his speech on Monday, and Press Secretary Jay Carney at the White House, make the same argument. They say "common sense" tells the world this was a chemical attack and it was carried out by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

'Rocket capacity'

Mr Kerry said: "The reported number of victims, the reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, the first-hand accounts from humanitarian organisations on the ground, like Doctors Without Borders and the Syria Human Rights Commission, these all strongly indicate that everything these images are already screaming at us is real: that chemical weapons were used in Syria."

He went on: "Moreover, we know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons.

"We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place."

This is circumstantial and puts a heavy weight on "common sense".

It raises important questions about how strong the evidence needs to be to take such drastic action.

Mr Kerry is of course right that most people will think as he does, simply from watching the TV pictures.

Some, however, will demand much stronger proof, particularly in the wake of the faulty intelligence that was used as a reason to go to war against Iraq. * * * *

--
BBC News - How strong is US evidence of Syria chemical attack?

As "common sense" and circumstantial evidence goes, to be honest, the "case" is not bad.

It sure as hell does seem likely that it was that fucking evil pinhead Assad who authorized the use of chemical weapons against his own civilians. The fact that he HAS them is part of the circumstantial evidence, although not, standing alone, conclusive. The fact that they got used against THOSE people is a bit more of a tell. The fact that it was used in THOSE precise locations is a whole lot more of a tell.

But let's not duck the hard question. Is even a strong circumstantial evidence case enough to warrant us waging more war?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

No.

I am not sure.

But let me ask YOU another question. Emphasis on "you," for a reason.

Let's put aside this strong circumstantial evidence "case" and further put aside reliance on mere "common sense."

Let us pretend that we had before us absolutely crystal clear objective hard irrefutable evidence -- proof -- that the present Syrian government HAD authorized, directed, ordered and permitted the use of the chemicals weapons that led to those hideous deaths of all those Syrian civilians.

Would that change your "answer" from "no" to "yes?"

 

[High_Gravity]

Can we just focus on our problems for a change?

 

[Katzndogz]

The common sense Kerry is touting is common sense according to what has been filtered through the government.

If there was irrefutable and independent evidence that Assad used chemical weapons, it still does not entitle us to interfere with Syria's civil war. Had we never interfered, Assad would have put the rebellion down in a week and all those people would not have died. Now, having caused the deaths of thousands, tens of thousands of people, we will kill a few more and call it humanitarianism. We should never have interfered in the first place.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Can we just focus on our problems for a change?

Except for all the innocent civilians who got killed in the chemical attacks, and all the others who are likely to face that same hideous fate, I tend to favor us minding our own business.

On the other hand, maybe it is in our interest not to permit a pinhead mutant like Assad to get away with such shit in that region (at least as long as our national interest involves calculations that involve mid-east oil).

I don't know.

I'd venture the guess that President Obama doesn't know, either.

 

[Trajan]

do we need another Syrian thread ? ...I have merged like 7 in the last 2 days.....

 

[IlarMeilyr]

do we need another Syrian thread ? ...I have merged like 7 in the last 2 days.....

The topic of this thread wasn't so much "Syria" as it is "evidence."

But, if a merger is deemed necessary, go for it.

 

[Trajan]

do we need another Syrian thread ? ...I have merged like 7 in the last 2 days.....

The topic of this thread wasn't so much "Syria" as it is "evidence."

But, if a merger is deemed necessary, go for it.

I understand that or I would have merged it already....

 

[High_Gravity]

Can we just focus on our problems for a change?

Except for all the innocent civilians who got killed in the chemical attacks, and all the others who are likely to face that same hideous fate, I tend to favor us minding our own business.

On the other hand, maybe it is in our interest not to permit a pinhead mutant like Assad to get away with such shit in that region (at least as long as our national interest involves calculations that involve mid-east oil).

I don't know.

I'd venture the guess that President Obama doesn't know, either.

Well if we are going to do anything, it needs to be limied and NOT putting ground troops in!

 

[TakeAStepBack]

No.

I am not sure.

But let me ask YOU another question. Emphasis on "you," for a reason.

Let's put aside this strong circumstantial evidence "case" and further put aside reliance on mere "common sense."

Let us pretend that we had before us absolutely crystal clear objective hard irrefutable evidence -- proof -- that the present Syrian government HAD authorized, directed, ordered and permitted the use of the chemicals weapons that led to those hideous deaths of all those Syrian civilians.

Would that change your "answer" from "no" to "yes?"

No.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, with cruise missiles but no troops. Certainly support Turkish and French military efforts with intelligence platforms and logistics.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

No.

I am not sure.

But let me ask YOU another question. Emphasis on "you," for a reason.

Let's put aside this strong circumstantial evidence "case" and further put aside reliance on mere "common sense."

Let us pretend that we had before us absolutely crystal clear objective hard irrefutable evidence -- proof -- that the present Syrian government HAD authorized, directed, ordered and permitted the use of the chemicals weapons that led to those hideous deaths of all those Syrian civilians.

Would that change your "answer" from "no" to "yes?"

No.

I thought not. I appreciate the honesty of your direct answer.

But it does make your original "answer" a bit deceptive. You aren't truly opposed to the prospect of waging war for the "reason" that the evidence is merely circumstantial.

You are simply (and absolutely) opposed to the prospect of waging war, period.

I am not convinced we ought to bust a move, either. But I guess I am slightly more open to the prospect than you are. The reasons to do so, however, have to be compelling. And even if the "circumstantial evidence" case presented by Sec'y of State Kerry so far is right on the money, I am not sure that is sufficient.

The victims (past and future) of pinhead Assad's malignant behavior might not be inclined to agree with me, however.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Yes, with cruise missiles but no troops. Certainly support Turkish and French military efforts with intelligence platforms and logistics.

I saw on the news this morning a scenario by which some of our ships and subs would 'launch" against various military objectives within Syria.

Perhaps it is just irony, but the attacks would NOT be directed at chemical munition storage sites. That would be deemed too risky (i.e., it might unleash a form of toxic hell on Earth in the areas struck).

I suspect that the significant majority of Americans favor avoiding the use of our armed ground FORCES in Syria, but to the extent they back any military intervention by us at all, they would favor missile or drone strikes only.

Still, I wonder if the circumstantial evidence and common sense case made so far justifies even that?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

You are simply (and absolutely) opposed to the prospect of waging war, period.

This is no imminent threat to the United States. The rest of the ME can eat cake. Not our problem.

 

[Trajan]

so, who's up for blowing up some pharmaceutical factories?




the head of the snake gentleman...has to be. Regime change= ASSAD........

but, how do we square that vis a vis Putin et al?

Beats me, but frankly nothing less than that or a full blown, full on, rock the house billion dollar a month forever uber-no fly zone will do.......half stepping this with some cruise missiles would in affect, be worse than doing nothing as it would be a sign of tentativeness/weakness/lack of seriousness.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

You are simply (and absolutely) opposed to the prospect of waging war, period.

This is no imminent threat to the United States. The rest of the ME can eat cake. Not our problem.

The term "imminent" has kind of lost much of its value in this day and age.

At present, like it or not, and despite the fact that it is a product of our own short-sightedness, we ARE hooked (like junkies) on mid-east oil. If we bollix up this situation (as the diffident behavior of Obama's foreign policy so far seems to lead us), we could EASILY see ourselves facing major domestic problems in the almost immediate future.

We failed long ago to make ourselves energy independent. Obama is STILL dicking around along those lines, in fact. Thus, for the present and for the immediately foreseeable future, we ARE in actual need of oil from the mid-east. IT could be shut off. Supply (shipping) routes could be compromised.

It is quite arguable that the perils we face ARE imminent.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I dont see what our trade in teh ME has to do with syria. They aren't our source. Our only obligation, is to make sure those nations that do trade with us, are dealt with diplomatically to continue those deals. This situation has nothing to do with that. Nothing.

We simply want to maintian our "strong arm" hegenomy in the region. So we can bully, or aid depending on the circumstances. Buy some friends, do some favors, etc...

Frankly, we really do not need foreign oil. If we cut our exports and begoan our own process at home, it would all be a moot point.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

so, who up for blowing up some pharmaceutical factories?

the head of the snake gentleman...has to be.


but, how we square that vis a vis Putin et al?

Beats me, but frankly nothing less than that or a full blown, full on, rock the house billion dollar a month uber-no fly zone will do.......half stepping this with some cruise missiles would in affect, be worse than doing nothing as it would be a sign of tentativeness/weakness/lack of seriousness.

The Obama foreign policy is always full tilt tentative/weak/lacking in seriousness.

On the other hand, striking at the war making ability of pinhead Assad by taking out much of the balance of his military infrastructure COULD be seen (by him) as the tip of a spear. If we force him into a choice of (potentially) facing our war-making might with no tools available to him other than his chemical weapons, knowing that we have hazmat type fighting gear, then perhaps he WILL elect to stay his own hand.

I wouldn't love the job of being a military geopolitical adviser to the Obama Administration, frankly.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I dont see what our trade in teh ME has to do with syria. They aren't our source. Our only obligation, is to make sure those nations that do trade with us, are dealt with diplomatically to continue those deals. This situation has nothing to do with that. Nothing.

We simply want to maintian our "strong arm" hegenomy in the region. So we can bully, or aid depending on the circumstances. Buy some friends, do some favors, etc...

Frankly, we really do not need foreign oil. If we cut our exports and begoan our own process at home, it would all be a moot point.

The connection has nothing to do with getting supplies from Syria. The connection is the whole Arab-spring bullshit. And it boils down to the impact on the entire region. Plus it matters how WEAK we are perceived as being.

I hate the idea of talking dominoes. But let's go there. How much impact might it have AFTER we drew that Obama "red line," if Obama now does nothing? Might that not embolden the fucking Muslim brotherhood in Egypt? What if they wrest control of Egypt and then fuck with Israel? What if they display their might by shutting down the Suez canal? All because of how we choose to now act in Syria.

The consequences of our actions are not linear.