Sen. John McCain Monday became the highest-ranking U.S. official to enter Syria since the bloody civil war there began more than two years ago, The Daily Beast has learned.

McCain, one of the fiercest critics of the Obama administration’s Syria policy, made the unannounced visit across the Turkey-Syria border with Gen. Salem Idris, the leader of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army. He stayed in the country for several hours before returning to Turkey. Both in Syria and Turkey, McCain and Idris met with assembled leaders of Free Syrian Army units that traveled from around the country to see the U.S. senator. Inside those meetings, rebel leaders called on the United States to step up its support to the Syrian armed opposition and provide them with heavy weapons, a no-fly zone, and airstrikes on the Syrian regime and the forces of Hezbollah, which is increasingly active in Syria.
John McCain

Idris praised the McCain visit and criticized the Obama administration’s Syria policy in an exclusive interview Monday with The Daily Beast.

“The visit of Senator McCain to Syria is very important and very useful especially at this time,” he said. “We need American help to have change on the ground; we are now in a very critical situation.”

Fighting across Syria has increased in recent weeks, with new regime offensives in several key areas, such as Damascus and the strategic border town of Qusayr. Thousands of soldiers serving Hezbollah—the Lebanon-based and Iran- and Syria-backed stateless army—have joined the fight in support of the regime, as the civil war there has threatened to ignite a region-wide conflagration and amid new reports of chemical weapons attacks by forces loyal to embattled president Bashar al-Assad this week that might cross President Obama’s “red line” for the conflict.

McCain’s visit came as the Obama administration is once again considering an increase of support to the Syrian opposition, while at the same time pushing the opposition council to negotiate with the regime at an international conference in Geneva in early June.

How do John McCain and his colleagues feel about the war in Syria?

“What we want from the U.S. government is to take the decision to support the Syrian revolution with weapons and ammunition, anti-tank missiles and anti-aircraft weapons,” Idris said. “Of course we want a no-fly zone and we ask for strategic strikes against Hezbollah both inside Lebanon and inside Syria.”

There’s no assurance the Obama administration will be able to convince the Syrian opposition to attend the Geneva conference, and Idris said the conference would only be useful if there are certain preconditions, which the regime is unlikely to agree to.

“We are with Geneva if it means that [Syrian President] Bashar [al Assad] will resign and leave the country and the military officials of the regime will be brought to justice,” he said.

“We need American help to have change on the ground; we are now in a very critical situation.”

Prior to his visit inside Syria, McCain and Idris had separate meetings with two groups of FSA commanders and their Civil Revolutionary Council counterparts in the Turkish city of Gaziantep. Rebel military and civilian leaders from all over Syria came to see McCain, including from Homs, Qusayr, Idlib, Damascus, and Aleppo. Idris led all the meetings.

The entire trip was coordinated with the help of the Syrian Emergency Task Force, an American nonprofit organization that works in support of the Syrian opposition. Two leaders of the group attended all of the McCain-Idris meetings and discussed them with The Daily Beast.

The rebel troops are running low on ammunition and don’t have effective weapons to counter the regime’s use of airpower, the FSA and civilian leaders told McCain. They also said there’s a growing presence of Russian military advisers in Damascus as well as growing numbers of Iranian and Iraqi fighters.

Hezbollah has taken over the fight for the regime in Homs, they said. Estimates of Hezbollah’s presence there ranged from four to seven thousand fighters in and around city, outnumbering the approximately two thousand FSA fighters in the area.

The rebels also told McCain that chemical weapons have been used by the regime on multiple occasions.

 Jihadin wrote:
No....just NO.....NO....NO NO NO....

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Whichever side wins, whichever side we fund or tinker with, we will be blamed and hated by them.

Just leave them to it. No one more of our soldiers for them, let them fight it out, let them fight it out themselves.

 sebster wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Whichever side wins, whichever side we fund or tinker with, we will be blamed and hated by them.

And if you do nothing then you'll be blamed just as much. It isn't particularly fair, but life isn't fair.

Just leave them to it. No one more of our soldiers for them, let them fight it out, let them fight it out themselves.

I don't see why you'd be putting troops on the ground. They don't exactly lack for willing soldiers.

This is about supplying weapons, and maybe having US pilots enforce a no fly zone, and maybe, maybe having US air assets hit critical sites.

And I'm still fairly certain the US is already supplying the rebels, because those Syrian helicopters didn't just fall out of the sky - it's just that the likely supply route was through third party amouries, much like those used to supply the Afghanis against the Soviets.

 sebster wrote:


And I'm still fairly certain the US is already supplying the rebels, because those Syrian helicopters didn't just fall out of the sky - it's just that the likely supply route was through third party amouries, much like those used to supply the Afghanis against the Soviets.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:


And I'm still fairly certain the US is already supplying the rebels, because those Syrian helicopters didn't just fall out of the sky - it's just that the likely supply route was through third party amouries, much like those used to supply the Afghanis against the Soviets.

Yup... remember Bengahzi and what the feth why Amb Stevens was there in the first place?

Why is that?

 sebster wrote:
And if you do nothing then you'll be blamed just as much. It isn't particularly fair, but life isn't fair.

 sebster wrote:
And I'm still fairly certain the US is already supplying the rebels, because those Syrian helicopters didn't just fall out of the sky - it's just that the likely supply route was through third party amouries, much like those used to supply the Afghanis against the Soviets.

it's just that the likely supply route was through third party amouries, much like those used to supply the Taliban against the Soviets.

 Valion wrote:

 sebster wrote:
And if you do nothing then you'll be blamed just as much. It isn't particularly fair, but life isn't fair.

Yes, but if we're going to be blamed no matter what we do, then 'nothing' is the correct course of action, as it's cheapest.

Relapse wrote:
I just keep thinking it's not going to make any difference. I got soured on helping in these countries since we got 9/11'd after helping in Afghanastan and Croatia.

 Ahtman wrote:


I get the feeling you'll be on your deathbed in 100 years (thanks science!) and your last words will be "Benghazi..."

 Jihadin wrote:
Syrian rebels have SA missiles...I think their SA7's Man packs. Actual Heat seekers. Sebster you remember the type of Helo's?

As for US assistance.....cell phones and a cell phone network I kid you not. Something that was mention once in the news about 7 months back I leave it at that. Oh and medical supplies.

 whembly wrote:
Yup... remember Bengahzi and what the feth why Amb Stevens was there in the first place?

Why is that?

 Valion wrote:
Yes, but if we're going to be blamed no matter what we do, then 'nothing' is the correct course of action, as it's cheapest.

 Ouze wrote:

*if someone wants to call me a flip-flopper on this, it's a reasonable rap. I am torn.

 sebster wrote:
Costs aren't measured only in the cheques you write.

 sebster wrote:

Because the USA has a long history of active diplomacy in the region... Do you think its strange that the USA would have diplomats in the region?

 Ouze wrote:
*if someone wants to call me a flip-flopper on this, it's a reasonable rap. I am torn.

 sebster wrote:

Relapse wrote:
I just keep thinking it's not going to make any difference. I got soured on helping in these countries since we got 9/11'd after helping in Afghanastan and Croatia.

Heh, my wife's second generation Croatian, I'll tell her you said that

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Whichever side wins, whichever side we fund or tinker with, we will be blamed and hated by them.

 Breotan wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Whichever side wins, whichever side we fund or tinker with, we will be blamed and hated by them.

Got news for ya. This is going to happen no matter what we do or don't do. Just accept it.

 whembly wrote:
I think most of us are torn for many reasons...

One of my biggest beef is that once we do go in, we tend to go in half-assed because we're afraid of what the world reactions would be, or disportionate amout of force, or whateve...

The "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario.

My take...

We stay out...

If we're asked to intervene? We'd consider it.

If we do go in, we go balls-out-muther-F'n that would be an awesome display of force, that the NEXT time a situation would arise, the bad guys would think twice. I want them to say, "oh gak, remember what happened when the last time that intervene?? feth that.".

 Valion wrote:
Fortunately, I wasn't referring only to financial costs.

I'll also point out to our non-American friends who seem to be so stridently in favor of intervention that there's nothing at all stopping you guys from having your own adventure.

Relapse wrote:
That'll no doubt go over like the proverbial turd in a punch bowl!

 sebster wrote:
You might not be familiar with the military capabilities of my country, and our military strategy, so to sum it up for you - we don't have the force projection to go about invading any country on our own, but we are conscious of the need to play an active part in world affairs, and so our strategy is basically 'if the Americans go we'll go as well'. You might have noticed us turn up to Vietnam when you asked us to go, and to Iraq (twice), and Afghanistan.

And on the first part of your answer, well it's good that you didn't consider only financial costs. But I suspect your view of costs is still very narrow (and likely only includes bodies as well as money paid out), and that's why you've not expanded on your argument at all.

Anyhow, the thing is, what you lose today isn't the only cost of an action. Consider for instance the shut down in aid to Afghanistan following the retreat of the Soviets, saved you a nice few million in foreign aid at the time. But then when it became a failed state run by crazies and a nice place to train terrorists, well then it ended up costing you a hell of a lot more later on.

 Valion wrote:
That's what coalition building is for.

Though I would say that if you choose to rely on a foreign power to accomplish all of your expeditionary goals, you've no one but yourself to blame when said foreign power chooses not to do as you like in a given case.

That's flawed analysis that suspiciously resembles the final five minutes of Charlie Wilson's War. If the argument is that Syria might become the next Afghanistan, yes, that's possible. It's equally possible if we do choose to intervene, however. 10 years spent in the exemplar has netted us nothing tangible.

 sebster wrote:
Dude, seriously though, we've got 20 million people. Complaining that we lack force projection is a bit silly.

It likely won't become the next Afghanistan, but if it does collapse will becomes its own unique kind of disaster, with it's own unique set of problems for the rest of the world.

And yeah, maybe that'll happen with or without intervention, but likely intervening or not will shift the odds one way or the other, and possibly by a large amount. The issue is which way they'll move, and that depends on a lot of specifics on the ground. And that's why I react against the 'nope, not never, not again, because of these vague reasons based on what went wrong in some other conflict'. Iraq was a mistake because the reasoning behind it was all high level, geo-political theory stuff, with no attention paid to the realities in the country itself.

People here are making the same mistake, only to come to the opposite conclusion - the reasoning is basically is that they oppose intervention in Syria because they have a generalised world view based on other efforts made at other times.


Note I'm not really arguing for intervention, I was just commenting first on people failing to realise that the US is already giving aid, and then on what I think is fairly faulty reasoning on whether further aid would achieve anything.

Russia says it will go ahead with deliveries of S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Syria, and that the arms will help deter foreign intervention.

Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said the missiles were a "stabilising factor" that could dissuade "some hotheads" from entering the conflict.

Russia also criticised a decision by the EU not to renew an arms embargo on the Syrian opposition.

Mr Ryabkov said the move would harm the prospects for a peace conference.

He said the contract for the S-300 missile systems had been signed several years ago.

"We consider these supplies a stabilising factor and believe such steps will deter some hotheads from considering scenarios that would turn the conflict international with the involvement of outside forces," he was quoted as telling journalists.

Russia's envoy to Nato, Aleksandr Grushko, said Moscow was acting "fully within the framework of international law", in delivering the arms.

"We are not doing anything that could change the situation in Syria," he said. "The arms that we supply are defensive weapons."

'We know what to do'

The BBC's Jim Muir in Beirut says the Russian statement could be seen as an escalation. He says there had been reports that Moscow was holding back on delivering the arms, in exchange for an Israeli commitment not to carry out further air raids over Syria.

Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Yaalon said the Russian missile systems had not yet left Russia.

"I hope they will not leave, and if, God forbid, they reach Syria, we will know what to do," he said.

Russia has repeatedly blocked efforts to put more pressure on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Along with the US, it has been leading efforts to organise an international peace conference on Syria next month.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
So...where's the "Red Line" at today?

 dæl wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Whichever side wins, whichever side we fund or tinker with, we will be blamed and hated by them.

Got news for ya. This is going to happen no matter what we do or don't do. Just accept it.

Well the US sits at the top of a unipolar system where it has far more power than any other state, when the decision was taken to invade Iraq without the backing of the UN Security Council it basically gave up the ability to claim that any authority above itself existed.

If the authority of the UN was properly recognised then any decision whether to take action or not would rest with the UN and all permanent members of the security council, rather than the US being seen as the superpower which dictates what action will be taken and where.

 whembly wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Whichever side wins, whichever side we fund or tinker with, we will be blamed and hated by them.

Got news for ya. This is going to happen no matter what we do or don't do. Just accept it.

Well the US sits at the top of a unipolar system where it has far more power than any other state, when the decision was taken to invade Iraq without the backing of the UN Security Council it basically gave up the ability to claim that any authority above itself existed.

Mwahahahaha...

You keep thinking that the UN is some sort of global government that carries the same weight as your government.

And we didn't go in "by our selves".

Ever heard of the coalition of the willing? You know which has 49 participant?

If the authority of the UN was properly recognised then any decision whether to take action or not would rest with the UN and all permanent members of the security council, rather than the US being seen as the superpower which dictates what action will be taken and where.

That was the perception... but go ahead and claim that the use are "the bad guys".

See...this is why many of us are so ambivalent about "being the World's Police".

feth that...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In Syria, you have Hezbollah, Israel, Turkey, Iran, every gulf state with a few dimes to spare, Saudi Arabia et al getting sucked in. What a mess. And they want to give weapons to that lot?

 dæl wrote:
If the authority of the UN was properly recognised then any decision whether to take action or not would rest with the UN and all permanent members of the security council, rather than the US being seen as the superpower which dictates what action will be taken and where.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In Syria, you have Hezbollah, Israel, Turkey, Iran, every gulf state with a few dimes to spare, Saudi Arabia et al getting sucked in. What a mess. And they want to give weapons to that lot?

But there is such choice in who we back in Syria. we could back;
- Assad. We could stand shoulder to shoulder with Iran and Russia in propping up a dictator with a history of oppression, a long list of human rights abuses, and allegation of using chemical weapons
- The Free Syrian Army. They were slitting the throats of captive prisioners, shelling civilian areas and are also accused of eating the hearts of their enemies and of using chemical weapons
- The Al-Queda affiliated militias. Afterall why not stand side by side with the group that has killed thousands in terror attacks and could use the carnage to take weapons to use in other terror attacks.
- No one. We could go in ourselves and have everyone shoot at us

Choices, choices

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Pretty much sums it up! The only rational explanation for supplying weapons to the opposition is money made from sales, because in terms of a coherent, geo-political objective, there are none.

The only people who are sticking to a coherent political objective, are the Russians and Chinese, because they are long term supporters of the Assad regime. Britain and America are making it up as they go along.

 whembly wrote:

 dæl wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Whichever side wins, whichever side we fund or tinker with, we will be blamed and hated by them.

Got news for ya. This is going to happen no matter what we do or don't do. Just accept it.

Well the US sits at the top of a unipolar system where it has far more power than any other state, when the decision was taken to invade Iraq without the backing of the UN Security Council it basically gave up the ability to claim that any authority above itself existed.

Mwahahahaha...

You keep thinking that the UN is some sort of global government that carries the same weight as your government.

And we didn't go in "by our selves".

Ever heard of the coalition of the willing? You know which has 49 participant?

If the authority of the UN was properly recognised then any decision whether to take action or not would rest with the UN and all permanent members of the security council, rather than the US being seen as the superpower which dictates what action will be taken and where.

That was the perception... but go ahead and claim that the use are "the bad guys".

See...this is why many of us are so ambivalent about "being the World's Police".

feth that...

 Valion wrote:
I'm hardly complaining. Australia's force projection capabilities are never one of my top priorities. Simply saying that if you really thought intervention was worth it - and I use "you" here to refer to Australia in general, not you specifically - you'd figure out a way to do it rather than relying on the US to do the heavy lifting.

Every conflict has its own character, and shouldn't necessarily be judged by the outcome of others, even if there are similarities. We can, however, look at certain patterns and guess as to the likelihood of their repetition. Is there, for example, anywhere in the Middle East where we can point to our intervention in a sectarian struggle and go, "That worked out well"? Libya's really the only decent example of this sort of thing going even half-well, and that's in large part due to Libya having happened so fast that the extremists didn't have time to get their ground game up and running properly.

We also know we're going to get absolutely hammered by the very same people who are sitting there and looking at us expectantly right now the second anything at all goes wrong with an intervention, and something will inevitably go wrong. I like French student protests as much as the next guy, but again, why not let us have a little breather and let the rest of the world take this one? It's fairly small, it's fairly manageable.

There's just no real upside to getting involved more than we are now. Keep funneling cheap, non-American weapons in, by all means, but let's not start with anything more than that.

 whembly wrote:
And we didn't go in "by our selves".

Ever heard of the coalition of the willing? You know which has 49 participant?

 sebster wrote:

Holy gak... there's someone on the internet who still pretends the 'coalition of the willing' was anything more than the US, UK, Australia, and a bunch of tiny nations who put their name on the form while sending a trivial number of non-combat troops in order to earn goodwill with the USA (and you could probably put Australia in that last category).

I mean, seriously whembly, are you posting from 2002?

 whembly wrote:
Well... who else could've done what we've done?

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Still say we should stay out of it, let the Muslims make war or peace with each other, we don't need to perpetuate this idea that the west is the problem or the solution. They really need to handle this themselves.

 dogma wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Still say we should stay out of it, let the Muslims make war or peace with each other, we don't need to perpetuate this idea that the west is the problem or the solution. They really need to handle this themselves.

The Muslims need to handle it themselves?

Are you saying that all Syrians are Muslim, and all Muslims should be concerned with events in Syria?

 sebster wrote:
No, seriously, we can't just figure out a way to project force half way across the world. No matter how important we might think intervention was, we can't just jury rig a carrier fleet and be on our way. That kind of capability takes billions of dollars invested over a decade or two.

It's a bit of a cop out to claim that your national policy is set by their complaints. It didn't change when they complained about you sending troops in to Iraq, you did what you wanted no matter how many French students shouted angry slogans. And when the French students complained that you weren't in Zimbabwe, well you kept on doing what you wanted.

With the recent Russian move that's probably going to be the limit of your intervention, now. I mean, I think more active intervention could resolve the issue much faster, and to the benefit of the more moderate resistance factions, and that'd be nice, but hardly so nice it's worth setting off issues of regional influence with Russia.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
And it's a fair point, the US had touted the UN as the 'world authority' for years and used ignoring it as the basis for identifying bad guys... then they ignored it themselves.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

None of the above. What I'm saying is that most of the conflicts in that region stem from divisions within Islam, such as Sunni vs Shiite as is the case in Syria. Let them duke it out thunderdome style. "Two sects go enter, one comes out"

 Valion wrote:
That's true, you cannot kludge a carrier group together. But now we're getting back to the coalition-building I mentioned earlier. France and the UK can both get across the Med.

The national policy isn't set by the complaints, it's simply another in a long list of downsides to getting involved.

I think we could temporarily benefit the more moderate resistance factions, but short of hand-picking Syria's next government, we really don't know with any certainty who would wind up running the country after the regime's defeat. The Muslim Brotherhood and its ilk have shown they've got the chops to win popular elections in the region pretty easily.

 dogma wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

None of the above. What I'm saying is that most of the conflicts in that region stem from divisions within Islam, such as Sunni vs Shiite as is the case in Syria. Let them duke it out thunderdome style. "Two sects go enter, one comes out"

I agree the US shouldn't involve itself, but it is way more complicated than "Lol, Islam!"

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It's an interesting point dael, it unfortunately completely ignores Russia and China showing up all over the globe with a trollface grin and arming the gak out of people we don't like, people with fairly abysmal human rights abuse histories, of course that's very often overlooked in the 'Hey, America is always stamping it's authority all over the world' when the truth of it was more like 'the rest of the world has often called on America to get it's hands dirty and break up shenanigans because of it's huge military and because of other powers reluctance to send their own into the fire'.

It was only Bush jnr and his wacky 'also, lets invade iraq whilst we're on a roll' fiasco that really put America in the dog house with most of the rest of the world. And it's a fair point, the US had touted the UN as the 'world authority' for years and used ignoring it as the basis for identifying bad guys... then they ignored it themselves.

But administrations change and Russian and Chinese influences propping up monsters directly flying in the face of the west doesn't.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
As if we need another reason to stay out of the middle east!

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/health/france-coronavirus-death/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

That's right a new deadly virus!

Will people blame America for this too?

dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
And it's a fair point, the US had touted the UN as the 'world authority' for years and used ignoring it as the basis for identifying bad guys... then they ignored it themselves.

When did the US tout the UN as the 'world authority'?

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It's an interesting point dael, it unfortunately completely ignores Russia and China showing up all over the globe with a trollface grin and arming the gak out of people we don't like, people with fairly abysmal human rights abuse histories, of course that's very often overlooked in the 'Hey, America is always stamping it's authority all over the world' when the truth of it was more like 'the rest of the world has often called on America to get it's hands dirty and break up shenanigans because of it's huge military and because of other powers reluctance to send their own into the fire'.

It was only Bush jnr and his wacky 'also, lets invade iraq whilst we're on a roll' fiasco that really put America in the dog house with most of the rest of the world. And it's a fair point, the US had touted the UN as the 'world authority' for years and used ignoring it as the basis for identifying bad guys... then they ignored it themselves.

But administrations change and Russian and Chinese influences propping up monsters directly flying in the face of the west doesn't.

America has been in the dog house for a long time. Any student of Cold war history will tell you that American foreign policy in Latin America (and of course Vietnam) under the guise of anti-Communism, left a very big black mark against the US government. That's not to say that the other side were better (hell no) but this modern idea that America has always been a benign power until the Iraq/Afghanistan situation, leaves a lot to be desired.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I can certainly think back to the Libya airstrikes, growing aggressive stance against the Ayatollah in Iran, the invasion of Kuwait etc and the US in those cases portraying the UN as a 'justice league' council of the peaceful world, authorizing it to 'go forth and bring justice' in the media, to it's and our populace. Bad guys were portrayed as breaking 'world law', COBRA style... I think the Iraq conflict was the first time the US administration gave a clear middle finger because the UN wasn't doing exactly as it wanted as fast as it wanted so it just ignored it and invaded a country, something it claimed in the first Iraq war, marked an internationally condemned act of aggression and left the aggressor open to reprisal.

 dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I can certainly think back to the Libya airstrikes, growing aggressive stance against the Ayatollah in Iran, the invasion of Kuwait etc and the US in those cases portraying the UN as a 'justice league' council of the peaceful world, authorizing it to 'go forth and bring justice' in the media, to it's and our populace. Bad guys were portrayed as breaking 'world law', COBRA style... I think the Iraq conflict was the first time the US administration gave a clear middle finger because the UN wasn't doing exactly as it wanted as fast as it wanted so it just ignored it and invaded a country, something it claimed in the first Iraq war, marked an internationally condemned act of aggression and left the aggressor open to reprisal.

So, what you're saying is that the US never touted the UN as the "world authority"?

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I'm saying it absolutely touted the UN as the world authority, a democratic council where the issued edict was as good as international law...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

...and that it's enemies in the middle east or elsewhere were breaking the laws of the UN and so the US was being the enforcer of the 'free world's rules and rights.

 dogma wrote:
[

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

...and that it's enemies in the middle east or elsewhere were breaking the laws of the UN and so the US was being the enforcer of the 'free world's rules and rights.

You keep bracketing phrases with quotations and I'm not sure why, as I cannot find any iteration of the phrases you have used which trace back to a particular person (other than yourself).

 dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

I'm saying it absolutely touted the UN as the world authority, a democratic council where the issued edict was as good as international law...

Well, yeah, all resolutions of the UN are international law, and the UN is clearly democratic. But that doesn't mean the US touted the UN as the "world authority".

 Hordini wrote:
It's a lot more complicated than just Sunni vs Shiite as well. Not that issues between Sunni and Shia Islam aren't a significant factor, but there are a lot of different groups and sects playing a role in Syria right now.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
It's a lot more complicated than just Sunni vs Shiite as well. Not that issues between Sunni and Shia Islam aren't a significant factor, but there are a lot of different groups and sects playing a role in Syria right now.

I believe that Assad is part of the minority Alawite sect of Islam

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I think it's different in American English.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Also, international laws are supposed to trump national laws, so the authority of the UN is being held above it's various member nations, so it's the world's highest authority, or that's how it's sold.

 dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Also, international laws are supposed to trump national laws, so the authority of the UN is being held above it's various member nations, so it's the world's highest authority, or that's how it's sold.

No, the US has never held that international law supersedes domestic law. In fact it has repeatedly, and rightly, claimed the opposite.

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel's defense minister is signaling that his military is prepared to strike shipments of advanced Russian weapons to Syria.
Israel has been pressing Moscow not to go through with a promised delivery of advanced S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Damascus. Israel fears the missiles could slip into the hands of hostile groups like Hezbollah.
Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon said on Tuesday that Israel believes the missiles haven't been shipped yet but the military "will know what to do" if they are delivered.
Yaalon spoke at an annual home front drill preparing for missile attacks. This year's exercise comes at a time of heightened concerns that Israel could be dragged into the Syrian civil war.
Israel is believed to have carried out recent airstrikes on weapon depots inside Syria destined for Hezbollah.

JERUSALEM (AP) — Israel's defense chief said Tuesday a Russian plan to supply sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles to Syria was a "threat" and signaled that Israel is prepared to use force to stop the delivery.
The warning by Defense Minister Moshe Yaalon ratcheted up tensions with Moscow over the planned sale of S-300 air-defense missiles to Syria. Earlier in the day, a top Russian official said his government remained committed to the deal.
Israel has been lobbying Moscow to halt the sale, fearing the missiles would upset the balance of power in the region and could slip into the hands of hostile groups, including the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, a close ally of the Syrian regime.
Israel has carried out several airstrikes in Syria in recent months that are believed to have destroyed weapons shipments bound for Hezbollah. Israel has not confirmed carrying out the attacks.
The delivery of the Russian missiles to Syria could limit the Israeli air force's ability to act. It is not clear whether Israeli warplanes entered Syrian airspace in these attacks.
Earlier this month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu traveled to Russia to discuss the Syrian situation with President Vladimir Putin. The sides have said little about the talks, but the S-300s were believed to have been on the agenda.
"Clearly this move is a threat to us," Yaalon told reporters Tuesday when asked about the planned Russian sale.
"At this stage I can't say there is an escalation. The shipments have not been sent on their way yet. And I hope that they will not be sent," he said. But "if God forbid they do reach Syria, we will know what to do."
Since the Syrian conflict erupted in March 2011, Israel repeatedly has voiced concerns that Syria's sophisticated arsenal, including chemical weapons, could either be transferred to Hezbollah, a bitter enemy of Israel, or fall into the hands of rebels battling Syrian President Bashar Assad. The rebels include al-Qaida-affiliated groups that Israel believes could turn their attention toward Israel if they topple Assad.
Syria already possesses Russian-made air defenses, and Israel is believed to have used long-distance bombs fired from Israeli or Lebanese airspace. The S-300s would expand Syria's capabilities, allowing it to counter airstrikes launched from foreign airspace as well.
In Moscow, Russia's deputy foreign minister, Sergei Ryabkov, wouldn't say whether Russia has shipped any of the S-300s, which have a range of up to 200 kilometers (125 miles) and the capability to track and strike multiple targets simultaneously. But he insisted that Moscow isn't going to abandon the deal despite strong Western and Israeli criticism.
"We understand the concerns and signals sent to us from different capitals. We realize that many of our partners are concerned about the issue," Ryabkov said. "We have no reason to revise our stance."
He said the missiles could be a deterrent against foreign intervention in Syria and would not be used against Syrian rebels, who do not have an air force.
"We believe that such steps to a large extent help restrain some 'hotheads' considering a scenario to give an international dimension to this conflict," he said.
Russia has been the key ally of the Syrian regime, protecting it from United Nations sanctions and providing it with weapons despite the civil war there that has claimed over 70,000 lives.
In any case, an open confrontation between Israel and Russia would seem to be months away. Russian military analysts say it would take at least one year for Syrian crews to learn how to operate the S-300s, and the training will involve a live drill with real ammunition at a Russian shooting range. There has been no evidence that any such training has begun.
If Russia were to deliver the missiles to Syria, Israeli and Western intelligence would likely detect the shipment, and Israel would have ample time to strike before the system is deployed.
Ryabkov's statement came a day after European Union's decision to lift an arms embargo against Syrian rebels. He criticized the EU decision, saying it would help fuel the conflict.
Israel's defense chief spoke at an annual civil defense drill to prepare for missile attacks on Israel. This year's exercise comes at a time of heightened concerns that Israel could be dragged into the Syrian civil war.
A number of mortar shells from the fighting in Syria have landed in the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights. While Israel believes most of the fire has been errant, it has accused Syria of firing intentionally at Israeli targets on several occasions, and last week the sides briefly exchanged fire.
Israel's civil defense chief, Home Front Minister Gilad Erdan, said this week's drill was not specifically connected to the tensions with Syria.
"But of course we must take into consideration that something like that might happen in the near future because of what we see in Syria, and because we know that chemical weapons exist in Syria and might fall to the hands of radical Muslim terror groups," he said.

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov denounced as "odious" a U.S.-backed draft resolution condemning the Syrian government before a debate at the U.N. Human Rights Council on Wednesday and said it would undermine peace efforts.
Lavrov said U.S. support for the draft resolution, which would condemn "widespread and systematic gross violations of human rights" by Syrian authorities and affiliated militias, ran counter to U.S.-Russian efforts to convene a peace conference.
"The U.S. delegation (at the council in Geneva) is very actively promoting this extremely unwholesome initiative," Lavrov told a news conference after talks with Latin American counterparts in Moscow.
He said the draft was "unilateral and odious" and likened it to a U.N. General Assembly resolution adopted earlier this month that he said was aimed at creating obstacles to U.S.-Russian efforts to foster a peaceful solution.
Lavrov said it was unacceptable to support the conference, which he and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry are trying to organize, while at the same time "taking steps that are in essence aimed at undermining this proposal".
Lavrov reiterated Russian insistence that Iran be invited to the conference, an idea opposed by France, and said opponents of President Bashar al-Assad should be persuaded to enter negotiations "without preconditions" such as his exit.
Russia has been Assad's most powerful protector during the conflict that has killed more than 80,000 people, opposing U.N. sanctions and, along with China, blocking three Western-backed U.N. Security Council resolutions it said were one-sided.
Iran is the main regional ally of Assad.
Speaking in Paris, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said any decision to include Iran in the Geneva talks would be "extremely dangerous" as it would harm prospects of reaching a deal with Tehran on its disputed nuclear program.
"We fear that if they are part of the Syrian conference they will try to drag things on to such an extent that they will blackmail us saying that the Syrian crisis can only be resolved on condition that they have the nuclear bomb," Fabius told France Inter radio. Iran denies seeking nuclear bomb capability.
Fabius said that with Iran having sent instructors and officers to Syria and encouraged Hezbollah to fight anti-Assad rebels, it would be a mistake to "ask people to attend a conference whose objective is to prevent a positive solution".
Russia joined the United States and other powers last June in calling for the creation of a transitional governing body in Syria and says it is not trying to prop Assad up but that his departure cannot be imposed as a precondition for talks.
Lavrov also said the European Union's decision on Thursday to let an arms embargo on Syria lapse, allowing members to supply rebels on their own initiative, "at a minimum creates serious hurdles" to plans for the peace conference.
Russia says the weapons it supplies Assad's government are meant for defense against external attacks. Moscow has declared it will not yield to pressure to scrap a contract to deliver S-300 ground-to-air missile systems to Syria.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Britain has written to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon about additional suspected chemical weapons attacks by Syrian government forces in March and April, British U.N. Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said on Wednesday.
"We continue to inform the Secretary-General and Mr. Sellstrom of any information as, and when, we get it," he said, referring to the Swedish head of a U.N. chemical weapons investigation team, Ake Sellstrom.
He declined to provide details, but a U.N. official said on condition of anonymity that the three specific incidents referred to in Lyall Grant's letter have been previously publicized.
One was an alleged attack in Adra in late March.
In that incident, Syrian opposition campaigners said forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad fired what they said were chemical weapons from multiple rocket launchers at rebel fighters surrounding an army base in the town of Adra on the outskirts of Damascus, killing two fighters and wounding 23.
The opposition alleged that Assad's forces used chemical weapons again in late April in Daraya, a suburb of Damascus, and in Saraqeb around the same time.
The government has denied using chemical weapons and has in turn accused rebels of deploying them in the two-year civil war that the United Nations says has killed over 80,000 people.
A senior French official said on Monday that France was testing samples of suspected chemical weapon elements used against Syrian rebels and smuggled out by reporters from Le Monde newspaper and will divulge the results in the next few days.
U.N. INVESTIGATORS UNABLE TO ENTER SYRIA
Britain and France wrote to Ban earlier this year to urge him to investigate three alleged chemical weapons attacks in the vicinity of Homs, Damascus and Aleppo.
A senior U.N. official said last week that the world body was receiving increasing reports of the use of chemical weapons in Syria as the violence escalates.
Sellstrom's team of chemical weapons experts has been ready for more than a month to enter Syria to investigate the allegations but has been held up by diplomatic wrangling and safety concerns.
Ban has urged Syria to give the experts unfettered access to investigate all alleged chemical arms incidents. But Assad's government only wants the U.N. team to probe the Aleppo incident from March, not the alleged December Homs attack. U.N. diplomats say U.N.-Syria negotiations on access have reached a deadlock.
Earlier this month, Carla Del Ponte, a member of a U.N. inquiry commission looking at allegations of war crimes in Syria, said the panel had gathered testimony from casualties and medical staff indicating that rebel forces had used the banned nerve agent sarin.
But the commission, which is separate from Sellstrom's chemical weapons investigation team, quickly issued a statement distancing itself from Del Ponte's remarks, saying it has reached no conclusions on whether any side in the Syrian war has used chemical weapons.
Syria, which is not a member of the anti-chemical weapons convention, is believed to have one of the world's last remaining stockpiles of undeclared chemical arms.

 dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Also, international laws are supposed to trump national laws, so the authority of the UN is being held above it's various member nations, so it's the world's highest authority, or that's how it's sold.

No, the US has never held that international law supersedes domestic law. In fact it has repeatedly, and rightly, claimed the opposite.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Also, international laws are supposed to trump national laws, so the authority of the UN is being held above it's various member nations, so it's the world's highest authority, or that's how it's sold.

No, the US has never held that international law supersedes domestic law. In fact it has repeatedly, and rightly, claimed the opposite.

So the US has never condemned a nation's breaches of human rights under international law, regardless of the nation's own laws and punishments?

 Frazzled wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Also, international laws are supposed to trump national laws, so the authority of the UN is being held above it's various member nations, so it's the world's highest authority, or that's how it's sold.

No, the US has never held that international law supersedes domestic law. In fact it has repeatedly, and rightly, claimed the opposite.

So the US has never condemned a nation's breaches of human rights under international law, regardless of the nation's own laws and punishments?

Sure it has. However they are correctly noting that a treaty does not trump US law...except:
1) the treaty has to be properly ratified by the Senate and signed by El Presidente.
2) the treaty has to pass Constitutional muster like any other federal law.

If both are correct then the federal implementing legislation has supremacy over state law. That doesn't mean state law can't be more strict.
Does that help?

 sebster wrote:
Both the UK and France have pretty severe limitations on their ability to keep troops in supply. Remember how everyone kept waiting for the US to commit to the Balkans?

It's the one that keeps getting mentioned in this thread.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Two weeks? You're feeling generous

There I disagree. The Brits and the French have the logistics capability to go into Syria for a couple years. It'd be nowhere near as easy for them as badgering the US to do it, but them's the breaks.

 Valion wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Both the UK and France have pretty severe limitations on their ability to keep troops in supply. Remember how everyone kept waiting for the US to commit to the Balkans?

There I disagree. The Brits and the French have the logistics capability to go into Syria for a couple years. It'd be nowhere near as easy for them to do as it'd be for us to do, but them's the breaks.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Single quotation marks in British English can be used to highlight and emphasis a phrase or word you wish to draw special attention to or to summarize a quote or subject, whereas the double quotation should be used to quote verbatim. I think it's different in American English.
[...]
Or at least that's what I've always understood and used it as, if you know better then by all means educate me on it, I'll stand corrected and then immediately go back to using it incorrectly, just as I always use an 'a' in definately instead of definitely, until spellcheck corrects me, as I have mislearned that spelling and cannot seem to shake it off, at 37, I feel I'm unlikely to either.

 djones520 wrote:

 Valion wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Both the UK and France have pretty severe limitations on their ability to keep troops in supply. Remember how everyone kept waiting for the US to commit to the Balkans?

There I disagree. The Brits and the French have the logistics capability to go into Syria for a couple years. It'd be nowhere near as easy for them to do as it'd be for us to do, but them's the breaks.

Right... thats why the USAF just busted our asses last year transporting the French military to Mali. That's why the USAF was providing all aerial refueling for British and French aircraft in the enforcement of the Libyan no-fly zone.

We are their logistical support.

 Valion wrote:
There I disagree. The Brits and the French have the logistics capability to go into Syria for a couple years. It'd be nowhere near as easy for them to do as it'd be for us to do, but them's the breaks.

True, but I think more as a means of pointing out that all the people clamoring for action now will be the ones burning Obama in effigy two weeks after intervention starts.

I suspect their opinions would be very different if there was a Republican President arguing strongly for intervention.

 Jihadin wrote:
We just need to keep going with what we already establish. COM support and medical supplies....plus food and clothing to the refugee camps

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

The US has invoked the international human rights laws in criticizing and in some cases, taking direct action against, certain nations in the world, claiming their law is breaking international law and thereby giving greater credence to the international law, so they hold international law higher than individual law when it suits, just not when it doesn't fit their agenda.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So the US has never condemned a nation's breaches of human rights under international law, regardless of the nation's own laws and punishments?

I mean, look at all the usual suspects popping up in this thread to comment that there's no way the US should go in to Syria... I suspect their opinions would be very different if there was a Republican President arguing strongly for intervention.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
I can't speak for everybody, but I really could care less who is advocating it.

McCain is a republican and I think he should know better being a war veteran himself. There is no reason to spend our treasure and blood on what is basically a black on black conflict. We have no friends there and we are not going to win any. As far as I am concerned, we can legitimately view both sides as hostile to American values.....let them kill each other, save us from having to do it later, the next time one of these flair ups happens in a place we actually could give two gaks about.

But whether the President is a D or an R does play an important part in the opinions of a significant portion of dakka.

Given the diverse and often conflicting nature of the various rebel groups, that's a really sweeping statement.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Maybe on other issues. I think Syria is different, if not the opposite. I see a lot of Republicans rattling sabers because, I think they want to see Obama get his butt handed to him, they really don't think any farther than that. That is how polarized and ugly politics have gotten here. People want to see the POTUS go to war and lose lives and treasure just to make him look bad. Complete ignorance.

Most people know that this would be a really hairy situation and would rather not see their party waste the political capitol on this one. But of course you have McCain.

Thanks for making my point for me! The nature of the groups is basically erratic. It's not even a coin flip to see which one would come out on top, more of a roulette spin, with very few or any groups being a good option for us.

I don't even give Iraq or Afghanistan much of a chance, what we built there will not last long enough to be worth the effort, Syria certainly wont.

Who's loyalties are we going to win in Syria? Seriously! Oh there might be something that lasts a month or so, but nothing lasting and nothing worth the effort.

I'm not sure any politicians are acting like that, not because they lack the cynicism, more because it implies a level of planning and wheels within wheels that don't really work that well in the real world (given how unpredictable and chaotic things tend to be).

I think what we're seeing the same old Hawks continuing to be hawks, the doves continuing to be doves, and the bulk in the middle waiting until it's clear which way either public opinion or establishment momentum is going to drag this thing.

My comment about wasn't on the folk in Washington, it was more on the public, the folk who come wandering in to threads like this.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
There is no reason to spend our treasure and blood on what is basically a black on black conflict.

 dogma wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:
There is no reason to spend our treasure and blood on what is basically a black on black conflict.

Explain to us all how it is a "black on black" conflict.

 Jihadin wrote:
Dogma...thought you were familiar with the military?

 Andrew1975 wrote:

White hats=good guys, black hats=bad guys. You know like the old cowboy films.

Black on Black. Bad guys killing other bad guys. I call that a win/win.

Did you think I was making some kind of racial slur?

 Jihadin wrote:
Dogma...thought you were familiar with the military?

 High Emperor Aggron wrote:
We need to help the rebels, we were rebels once.

 Frazzled wrote:

Rebels are Al Qaeda. They need to die.
Government is Assad. They need to die.
Where's Predator when you need him?

 sebster wrote:
Oh people's opinions on Syria are certainly political. I mean, look at all the usual suspects popping up in this thread to comment that there's no way the US should go in to Syria... I suspect their opinions would be very different if there was a Republican President arguing strongly for intervention.

 High Emperor Aggron wrote:
We need to help the rebels, we were rebels once.

Yes, because the phrase "black on black" commonly references conflict within the black community, both possessively and dismissively.

I am, but Andrew has, in this thread, demonstrated a general ignorance regarding the nature of the parties to the Syrian conflict; dismissing the matter as a Muslim problem. In the past he has also proven unable to identify the borders of the Middle East, so I think I can be forgiven for assuming the worst regarding the "black on black" comment.

 Frazzled wrote:
Rebels are Al Qaeda. They need to die.
Government is Assad. They need to die.
Where's Predator when you need him?

BEIRUT (Reuters) - U.S. Senator John McCain was photographed during a trip to Syria with a man implicated in the kidnapping by Syrian rebels of 11 Lebanese Shi'ite pilgrims a year ago, a Lebanese newspaper said on Thursday.
McCain, a Republican, has been an outspoken advocate for U.S. military aid to the rebels fighting President Bashar al-Assad and made a short, highly publicised trip to meet rebel commanders in Syria three days ago.
He has insisted that the United States could locate the "right people" to help among rebel ranks infiltrated with radicalised Islamists.
However, he may have crossed paths with men linked to a group notorious in the region for kidnapping the pilgrims, the Daily Star said.
The paper said that as well as McCain's photographs with rebel commanders, one image showed the face of Mohammad Nour - identified by two freed hostages as the chief spokesman and photographer for the Northern Storm brigade that kidnapped them.
The image demonstrates the difficulty of identifying who the West might want to deal with and could possibly further inflame the delicate sectarian balance in a conflict that is spilling over Lebanon's borders.
A spokesman for McCain said none of the people he met identified themselves as Nour and it had not been his intention to meet anyone of that name.
"A number of the Syrians who greeted Senator McCain upon his arrival in Syria asked to take pictures with him, and as always, the senator complied. If the individual photographed with Senator McCain is in fact Mohammad Nour, that is regrettable," spokesman Brian Rogers said.
"But it would be ludicrous to suggest that the senator in any way condones the kidnapping of Lebanese Shia pilgrims or has any communication with those responsible. Senator McCain condemns such heinous actions in the strongest possible terms."
The hostages were seized in northern Syria as they returned from a pilgrimage in Iran. Lebanese officials flew to Turkey on Thursday in the latest effort to secure the release of the remaining nine hostages.
McCain has denounced Democratic President Barack Obama for shying away from deeper involvement in the conflict. The uprising-turned-civil war has become increasingly bloody and has claimed more than 80,000 in over two years of conflict.
"The senator believes his visit to Syria was critical to supporting the many brave Syrians who are fighting for their lives and the freedom of their country against a brutal regime and its foreign allies that are massacring Syrian citizens on Syrian territory," the spokesman said.

 djones520 wrote:
If that is something to hold against McCain, then I never want to hear another word of protest for people bringing up Obama and Bill Ayers together.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
If that is something to hold against McCain, then I never want to hear another word of protest for people bringing up Obama and Bill Ayers together.

You will remain disappointed...

He has insisted that the United States could locate the "right people" to help among rebel ranks infiltrated with radicalised Islamists.

McCain has denounced Democratic President Barack Obama for shying away from deeper involvement in the conflict. The uprising-turned-civil war has become increasingly bloody and has claimed more than 80,000 in over two years of conflict.

djones520 wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
If that is something to hold against McCain, then I never want to hear another word of protest for people bringing up Obama and Bill Ayers together.

You will remain disappointed...

Hardly, I've been around the internet long enough to understand the fact that people don't give a damn about equality when it gets in the way of sticking it to the other side.

Jihadin wrote:

He has insisted that the United States could locate the "right people" to help among rebel ranks infiltrated with radicalised Islamists.

Comedy F'ing GOLD right there

McCain has denounced Democratic President Barack Obama for shying away from deeper involvement in the conflict. The uprising-turned-civil war has become increasingly bloody and has claimed more than 80,000 in over two years of conflict.

Stay the course Obama....STAY THE COURSE!!!!

 Jihadin wrote:
You know Putin had a big smile on his face when he signed that deal with Assad. Always good for the USA to have an occasional "check" by another Super Power

 Jihadin wrote:
B2's eh.....better make sure they go after the surface to surface missles to. Assad has nothing to lose and the Russians have all to gain. We start striking his missile sites then every ship in the Med becomes a target. I wouldn't put it pass Assad to nail ships in the Suez Canal or awaiting their turn to go through the Canal. I see three or four days of missile tossing on both sides...then Assad asking Putin for "Peace Keepers" so he can put his country back together.....and behead some generals for starting a shooting match with the west without his orders......UN be like...."eeerrrrr"........US be like...WTH/WTF?...Isreal goes to War...invades Egypt....turns back due to the financial impact of removing wreckage from the Canal because of Assad. Bombs Hezbollalalala. Speeds up jewish housing projects....US plans to land a MEU in Syria....does not because of Sequester....Republicans blame Obama.....Obama blames Republicans....Democrats give a low shout out and continues to distance themselves from Obamacare....reelection concerns in the House and Senate.....Syria then takes a major backseat because of another push on the 2nd Amendment with banning Assault Weapons....which my M1 carbine is consider an assault weapon because of the bayonet stud...World War Z bombs in theaters....Kim Kardasian goes to jail for tax evasion.......Eric Holder says Feth you all and stays in charge of the DoJ.....more reporters and media gets investigated because somehow it got leak that the MEU in the Med was suppose to invade Syria....Jay Carney gets a HUGE PAY RAISE (dude seriously deserves it because Q&A with the press) Fox News still has hotter chicks.....Frazz post more weiner legion attack dogs....never mix Oxy with Ativan..or was that Oxy with Vicadin....eh who cares..I feel gooood

 Andrew1975 wrote:
I was talking about regular people and politicians. Seriously last time I was in my bar, I heard people who hate Obama, just wishing he would go into Syria and screw it up by either getting his but handed to him, losing troops, arming the wrong people, not finding the WMDs or worse that the rebels have the WMDs and we are supporting them. Seriously they wanted the countries credibility to take another hit just to make Obama look bad.

These hawk R politicians are doing the same thing. They will rattle sabers, but as soon as the POTUS goes in and anything bad happens they will blame the hell out of him for it. I can tell just by how they jumped on a nothing of a phrase like "Red Line", seriously that phrase was all about saying nothing, but threatening everything. But the politician could not wait to throw Obama on the cross for it, they wanted immediate action on the WMD strike before there was any proof. It was like they wanted Obama to make the same miss step Bush made, just so they could point and laugh.....Then they got upset when Obama wasn't stupid enough to flinch.

 Frazzled wrote:
Rebels are Al Qaeda. They need to die.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I don't care who is in the White House. Looking at it objectively, marching into Syria is a bad idea on every level. We should stick to sending supplies to the refugee camps in Turkey.

 dogma wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

So the US has never condemned a nation's breaches of human rights under international law, regardless of the nation's own laws and punishments?

The US has condemned many countries, and has occasionally cited international law as evidence that other countries should also condemn the relevant countries; but it has never claimed international law supersedes domestic law.

 sebster wrote:
No-one is talking US troops on the ground here. I don't know how many more times that has to be said.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In Syria, you have Hezbollah, Israel, Turkey, Iran, every gulf state with a few dimes to spare, Saudi Arabia et al getting sucked in. What a mess. And they want to give weapons to that lot?

But there is such choice in who we back in Syria. we could back;
- Assad. We could stand shoulder to shoulder with Iran and Russia in propping up a dictator with a history of oppression, a long list of human rights abuses, and allegation of using chemical weapons
- The Free Syrian Army. They were slitting the throats of captive prisioners, shelling civilian areas and are also accused of eating the hearts of their enemies and of using chemical weapons
- The Al-Queda affiliated militias. Afterall why not stand side by side with the group that has killed thousands in terror attacks and could use the carnage to take weapons to use in other terror attacks.
- No one. We could go in ourselves and have everyone shoot at us

Choices, choices

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
In Syria, you have Hezbollah, Israel, Turkey, Iran, every gulf state with a few dimes to spare, Saudi Arabia et al getting sucked in. What a mess. And they want to give weapons to that lot?

But there is such choice in who we back in Syria. we could back;
- Assad. We could stand shoulder to shoulder with Iran and Russia in propping up a dictator with a history of oppression, a long list of human rights abuses, and allegation of using chemical weapons
- The Free Syrian Army. They were slitting the throats of captive prisioners, shelling civilian areas and are also accused of eating the hearts of their enemies and of using chemical weapons
- The Al-Queda affiliated militias. Afterall why not stand side by side with the group that has killed thousands in terror attacks and could use the carnage to take weapons to use in other terror attacks.
- No one. We could go in ourselves and have everyone shoot at us

Choices, choices

I vote we mail the Israelis some of the left over munitions surplus from the dumps in Afghanistan and call it a day, I have beer and nachos guys!

MOSCOW (AP) — Russia's MiG aircraft maker said Friday it plans to sign a new agreement to ship at least 10 fighter jets to Syria, a move that comes amid international criticism of earlier Russian weapons deals with Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime.
MiG's director general, Sergei Korotkov, said a Syrian delegation was in Moscow to discuss the details of a new contract for the delivery of MiG-29 M/M2 fighters. In remarks carried by Russian news agencies, he said Syria wants to buy "more than 10" such fighters, but wouldn't give the exact number.
The significance of his comments was unclear. A MiG spokesman wouldn't comment on Korotkov's statement, and the MiG chief could be referring to a deal the company previously negotiated with Syria that apparently has been put on hold amid Syria's brutal two-year civil war.
More than 70,000 people have died in the fighting and millions of Syrians have fled the country.
Moscow has shipped billions of dollars' worth of missiles, combat jets, tanks, artillery and other military gear to Syria over more than four decades. Syria now is Russia's last remaining ally in the Middle East and hosts the only naval base Moscow has outside the former Soviet Union.
Russia has shielded Assad from U.N. sanctions and has continued to provide his regime with weapons despite the uprising against him that began in March 2011.
Russian media reports say Syria placed an order a few years ago for 12 MiG-29 M2 fighters with an option of buying another 12. The Stockholm Peace Research Institute also has reported that Russia planned to provide Syria with 24 of the aircraft.
The MiG-29 M2 is an advanced version of the MiG-29 twin-engine fighter jet, which has been a mainstay of the Soviet and Russian air force since mid-1980s. Syria had about 20 fighters of the original make among scores of other Soviet- and Russian-built aircraft.
Russia has said it's only providing Assad with weapons intended to protect Syria from a foreign invasion, such as air defense missile systems, and is not delivering weapons that could be used in the civil war.
But the delivery of MiGs would contradict that claim and expose Russia to global criticism, so the Kremlin might think twice before giving the go-ahead.
Another recent Russian jet deal with Damascus, a contract to deliver Yak-130 combat training jets that could also be used for ground attacks, apparently has been put on hold amid the civil war.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Syrian rebels battling the forces of President Bashar Assad must receive ammunition and heavy weapons to counter the regime's tanks and aircraft or it will be impossible for them to prevail, Sen. John McCain said days after he quietly slipped into Syria to meet with the opposition.
"They just can't fight tanks with AK-47s," McCain said Friday in a telephone interview.
The Republican lawmaker and 2008 presidential candidate made an unannounced visit to Syria on Monday, traveling across the border near Kilis, Turkey, and spending about two hours meeting with rebel leaders. McCain has been one of the most vocal lawmakers demanding aggressive U.S. military action in the 2-year-old Syrian civil war, calling for establishment of a no-fly zone and arming the rebels.
The Obama administration has been reluctant to provide weapons to the disparate opposition, fearing that they will fall into the wrong hands in a volatile region. McCain said he discussed what types of weapons the rebels need and whether they could ensure their control.
"I'm confident that they could get the weapons into the right hands and there's no doubt that they need some kind of capability to reverse the battlefield situation, which right now is in favor of Assad," McCain said.
McCain, a member of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees, was the first U.S. senator to travel to Syria since the civil war began more than two years ago. He said he worked with Deputy Secretary of State William Burns in arranging the trip.
McCain said he spoke with Secretary of State John Kerry "a couple of times. It wasn't that I was hiding it from him; it just didn't seem to come up. I thought Burns was the right guy to go through. They were very important in the trip. We couldn't have done it without their cooperation."
Gen. Salim Idris, chief of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, accompanied McCain and they met with 19 battalion commanders.
Citing the photo of McCain's meeting, a Lebanese newspaper has reported that McCain unwittingly crossed paths with two men connected to a rebel group responsible for the kidnapping of 11 Lebanese Shiite pilgrims in 2012. McCain said one of the men he reportedly met with is dead and no one in his meeting was identified as the other.
"The people I met with and talked to directly were well-vetted. Their names and their duties were outlined to me. They came from all over Syria," he said.
Two years of violence in Syria have killed more than 70,000 people, according to the United Nations. President Barack Obama has demanded that Assad give up power, while Russia has stood by Syria, its closest ally in the Arab world. Russian officials have said they will support anti-aircraft systems to Syria, and Assad suggested on Thursday that he had received the first shipment.
The United States and Russia are trying to get the Syrian government and opposition forces into peace negotiations. Those talks, initially planned for Geneva next month, have been delayed until July at the earliest.
"It's hard to imagine Bashar Assad negotiating his departure when he has the upper hand on the battlefield," McCain said. "I'm all for a conference, but I think that conference should take place when Bashar Assad knows that he is doomed to defeat if he doesn't negotiate."
Last week, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to provide weapons to rebels in Syria, as well as military training to vetted rebel groups and sanctions against anyone who sells oil or transfers arms to the Assad regime.
The European Union decided late Monday to lift the arms embargo on the Syrian opposition while maintaining all other sanctions against Assad's regime after June 1, British Foreign Secretary William Hague said.

An American woman has been killed in Syria fighting for opposition forces, her family have been told by the FBI.

Nicole Mansfield, 33 and from Flint in Michigan, converted to Islam about five years ago, her aunt told Reuters news agency.

The family did not know the details of how she died, the agency reported.

State-run TV in Syria showed pictures of a passport and a Michigan driving licence apparently belonging to Ms Mansfield.

She is the only American known to have died in the conflict in Syria. An estimated 70,000 people are believed to have died since violence broke out more than two years ago.

'Known to take off'
On Thursday a monitoring group said three foreigners had been killed in Syria including an American woman and a British man. Both were reported to be Muslims.

They were in Idlib province near the Turkish border, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

"They were shot dead during an ambush in the Idlib region and the army found them with maps of military positions," Rami Abdel Rahman, director of the monitoring group, told the AFP news agency.

The woman's cousin David Speelman told the Associated Press that FBI agents had visited the family on Thursday to tell them of Ms Mansfield's death.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote

I think she could have been brainwashed”

Carole Mansfield
Grandmother
The Detroit Free Press reported that Ms Mansfield, who was raised a Baptist, had previously been married to an Arab man and had a teenage daughter.

After her marriage ended, Ms Mansfield remained a Muslim and travelled to Dubai to learn about Arab culture, her aunt Monica Mansfield-Speelman told the AFP news agency.

She said she had last heard from her niece in September.

"We didn't know she was over there," Ms Mansfield-Speelman said. "We didn't know she was gone, but Nicole, she was known to take off like that."

The photographs on her ID show her wearing a hijab or Muslim headscarf.

It is reported that Ms Mansfield had dropped out of school after becoming pregnant but later gained her GED or high school equivalency qualification.

She had worked in healthcare for the past decade.

Her father was a General Motors production worker.

Her grandmother told the newspaper that she had "a heart of gold," but was easily influenced by others.

"I think she could have been brainwashed," Carole Mansfield said.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Yes because I thought Syria is where the Crips and Bloods have moved their latest conflict. Actually now that I think about it, its not too far off.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

The phrase you are looking for is "black on black crime" or "black on black violence", which if you can read contextually has noting to do with what is going on, as most people can see.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

No you are not forgiven, mister Anal. This from a guy who argues The Greater Middle East has nothing to do with the Middle east. Go back to trolling somewhere else.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

This all comes down to Sunni vs Shiite, that is the base issue here, its Muslims fighting other Muslims over the interpretation of a book!

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

If the international law is being used to condemn the behavior of a nation's government or ruler and the cruel punishments being applied, under the law of that land... then the US is saying that international law protecting human beings supersedes the domestic law's punishment and therefore that the international law is a higher law than the national law is in breach of...

A number of people have been killed in an exchange of fire between Syrian rebels and fighters from the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, say reports.

Lebanese security sources said the clashes took place on Lebanon's side of the border, near the town of Baalbek.

Hezbollah is fighting alongside the army in Syria, but the clashes have rarely crossed onto Lebanese soil.

Meanwhile the Red Cross has said it is alarmed by the worsening situation in the besieged Syrian town of Qusair.

It has appealed for access to the town, which lies just 10km (6 miles) over the Lebanese border.

Thousands of civilians are believed to be trapped as pro-government forces - including Hezbollah fighters - battle rebels.

The office of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon also appealed to the warring parties to allow residents to flee.

Syrian state TV quoted Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem as saying the Red Cross would be allowed in "as soon as military operations are over".

Reuters reported that Mr Moualem had expressed his surprise to Mr Ban about the international concern, saying there had been none when rebels took over the town last year.

Also on Sunday, a car bomb killed nine members of the Syrian security forces in the capital, Damascus, according to the British-based pro-opposition watchdog the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

The watchdog said the bomb had targeted a police station in the eastern district of Jobar, which has seen renewed clashes between government forces and rebels who are entrenched there.

Qusair 'blockade'
Reuters news agency quoted a Lebanese security source on Sunday as saying that at least 15 people were killed in the overnight fighting in Baalbek, just over the border from Syria. The casualties have not been independently verified.

Lebanese media quoted officials as saying the rebels had been preparing to launch rockets when the clashes broke out.

The Syrian rebels have threatened Hezbollah targets in Lebanon in revenge for its backing of the government in Damascus, and have frequently fired rockets into Lebanon, including several on Saturday.

Hezbollah fighters are also involved in the siege of Quasir, which is considered a key logistical hub and supply route for weapons smuggled into Syria.

An opposition activist told the BBC on Friday that around 30,000 civilians were still in the town, effectively under blockade.

The BBC's Imogen Foulkes in Geneva says the fact that both the UN and ICRC have issued urgent statements on Qusair at the same time is an indication of how desperate they believe the situation there has become.

Continue reading the main story
Strategic town of Qusair

Estimated population of 30,000 people
Up to 10,000 people have fled to neighbouring towns and 1,500 people are wounded, the UN says
Some 23 villages and 12 farms west of Qusair are reportedly inhabited by Lebanese Shia
Near the main route from Damascus to port of Tartous, a gateway to the heartland of President Assad's Alawite sect
Qusair's importance
The UN Security Council attempted to issue a declaration voicing "grave concern" about Qusair, but it was blocked by Russia so failed to obtain the necessary unanimous agreement of council members.

A diplomat said Russia blocked the draft text because the UN had failed to speak out when Qusair was seized by rebels.

Fighting in Qusair intensified last month with militants from Hezbollah joining forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad.

Reinforcements from the rebel Free Syrian Army are reported to have managed to break through from the north-east to support the embattled rebel fighters.

Some Lebanese Sunnis have also crossed into Syria to fight alongside the rebels, who are drawn largely from Syria's majority Sunni community.

Activists from the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights say rebels in Qusair are bracing themselves for another assault.

Fifteen Syrian army tanks have massed north of the town, says Rami Abdel Rahman, the observatory's director.

"Regime forces are reinforcing the sites that they have north of the city, including Dabaa airport and Jawadiya," he said.

The UN estimates that than 80,000 people have been killed and 1.5 million have fled Syria since the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began in 2011.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
By marching I did mean any involvement in Syria whatsoever, I should have been clearer on that. However, plenty of people have advocated for sending the troops in when discussing the topic of Syria, you only have to look back at the numerous threads we've had

Really? Your response to criticism is to reify it?

They can be, and have been, used interchangeably.

But more importantly, "black" doesn't necessarily have to mean "black" as "black" often means "other", as you have demonstrated above.

This isn't an attempt to troll, it is attempt to educate; as it was when discussing the boundaries of the Middle East.

 Seaward wrote:
but instead we decided to let Russia and Hezbollah be the guys who have the power in the Middle East.

 Ouze wrote:
If Russia & Iran are going to own Syria, I hope they saved the receipt.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
...so?

 Seaward wrote:
Not to mention the moral cost of not supporting tens of thousands of fairly moderate guys who just didn't want to live under a dictator anymore, most of whom are dead or are going to be.

 Ouze wrote:
Is this the same moral cost from that's got us going to war with China to free billions of people from oppression? Because that brand of "morality" seems awful selective.

 Ouze wrote:
Fighting in Syria is not in our national security interests, period. We get nothing of value no matter who wins..

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
1. Let the UN reach a decision on what to do.

2. Let a coalition of islamic nations send in their soldiery to resolve it.

3. Continue, if we must meddle at all, to supply medical and logistic support.

4. Take no offensive action at all. Muslims have felt compelled to set off bombs and hack apart live soldiers on Western streets because they oppose outsiders in muslim matters, so let them deal with it and if Russia wants to stick it's hands into the beehive, let it get stung for a while.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Well, if the islamic world sees fit to do nothing, it's not for us to intervene either.

If they are willing to allow their brothers and sisters to suffer and die, we should not send our best and bravest in there either.

If they or anyone else interferes with the Suez canal or shipping, trade or the general smooth running of the rest of the world outside their borders, crush it mercilessly. Otherwise, our forces would be far better placed to do some good lopping the heads off a few African (oh hai Mugabe) dictators and regimes to bring order there. Efforts there and elsewhere can bring real benefit and change, instead of the continued swapping of one evil for another in the middle east, an area that seems immune to tinkering and would be best served by just leaving it all alone and trading with whoever emerges from it victorious.

 Seaward wrote:
**snip**

 djones520 wrote:
The FSA is the best of a bunch of poor choices.

With proper support, and training, they can be turned into an effective force though. People were saying the same thing about the Libyan rebellion before hand.

 djones520 wrote:
The FSA is the best of a bunch of poor choices.

With proper support, and training, they can be turned into an effective force though. People were saying the same thing about the Libyan rebellion before hand.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
There are just problems.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Not that the US allies will probably let it get that far before citing one of the numerous pacts that hte US has with countries in the middle east and dragging them in as well.

 djones520 wrote:
They are also the ones who haven't sword allegiance to one of our enemies as well. How much longer till that happens though because they have no other choice.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
The FSA is the best of a bunch of poor choices.

With proper support, and training, they can be turned into an effective force though. People were saying the same thing about the Libyan rebellion before hand.

So you are in favor of intervention to support a group who deploy chemical weapons on civilian population and who torture and murder prisoners of war?

Why are they a better choice than the existing regime?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
It's still an incredibly poor choice. They have no cohesive leadership, are often at cross purposes with each other and with no guarantee that whatever we give them won't end up in the wrong hands. That's ignoring murdering captives, shelling civilians and possibly deploying chemical weapons. But remind me again how stable Libya is, and how Al-Qaeda managed to get a cell in with not insignificant firepower to storm an embassy and kill US citizens. And how happy Russia will be at losing a port, especially as we'll need their help over Iran's nuclear program, and the fact that they're shipping advanced SAM systems to Syria.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

And this one isn't ours. Lets keep it that way

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You mean the one you mentioned before that just mentions appropriate aid? By all means, let's send humanitarian supplies. That's our best option.

 Jihadin wrote:
Will you still support a US mission in Syria five years down the road? Ten years down the road? I remember the popular support for OIF and OEF at the beginning.....stick with the popular support and not why we got into Iraq portion...

 Jihadin wrote:
Will you still support a US mission in Syria five years down the road? Ten years down the road? I remember the popular support for OIF and OEF at the beginning.....stick with the popular support and not why we got into Iraq portion...

Previously, when looking at the real underlying national interests responsible for the deteriorating situation in Syria, which eventually may and/or will devolve into all out war with hundreds of thousands killed, we made it very clear that it was always and only about the gas, or gas pipelines to be exact, and specifically those involving the tiny but uber-wealthy state of Qatar.

Needless to say, the official spin on events has no mention of this ulterior motive, and the popular, propaganda machine, especially from those powers supporting the Syrian "rebels" which include Israel, the US and the Arabian states tries to generate public and democratic support by portraying Assad as a brutal, chemical weapons-using dictator, in line with the tried and true script used once already in Iraq.

On the other hand, there is Russia (and to a lesser extent China: for China's strategic interests in mid-east pipelines, read here), which has been portrayed as the main supporter of the "evil" Assad regime, and thus eager to preserve the status quo without a military intervention. Such attempts may be for naught especially with the earlier noted arrival of US marines in Israel, and the imminent arrival of the Russian Pacific fleet in Cyprus (which is a stone throw away from Syria) which may catalyze a military outcome sooner than we had expected.

However, one question that has so far remained unanswered, and a very sensitive one now that the US is on the verge of voting to arm the Syrian rebels, is who was arming said group of Al-Qaeda supported militants up until now. Now, finally, courtesy of the FT we have the (less than surprising) answer, which goes back to our original thesis, and proves that, as so often happens in the middle east, it is once again all about the natural resources.
.....

Why would Qatar want to become involved in Syria where they have little invested? A map reveals that the kingdom is a geographic prisoner in a small enclave on the Persian Gulf coast.

It relies upon the export of LNG, because it is restricted by Saudi Arabia from building pipelines to distant markets. In 2009, the proposal of a pipeline to Europe through Saudi Arabia and Turkey to the Nabucco pipeline was considered, but Saudi Arabia that is angered by its smaller and much louder brother has blocked any overland expansion.

Already the largest LNG producer, Qatar will not increase the production of LNG. The market is becoming glutted with eight new facilities in Australia coming online between 2014 and 2020.

A saturated North American gas market and a far more competitive Asian market leaves only Europe. The discovery in 2009 of a new gas field near Israel, Lebanon, Cyprus, and Syria opened new possibilities to bypass the Saudi Barrier and to secure a new source of income. Pipelines are in place already in Turkey to receive the gas. Only Al-Assad is in the way.

Qatar along with the Turks would like to remove Al-Assad and install the Syrian chapter of the Moslem Brotherhood. It is the best organized political movement in the chaotic society and can block Saudi Arabia’s efforts to install a more fanatical Wahhabi based regime. Once the Brotherhood is in power, the Emir’s broad connections with Brotherhood groups throughout the region should make it easy for him to find a friendly ear and an open hand in Damascus.

A control centre has been established in the Turkish city of Adana near the Syrian border to direct the rebels against Al-Assad. Saudi Deputy Foreign Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah al-Saud asked to have the Turks establish a joint Turkish, Saudi, Qatari operations center. “The Turks liked the idea of having the base in Adana so that they could supervise its operations” a source in the Gulf told Reuters.

The fighting is likely to continue for many more months, but Qatar is in for the long term. At the end, there will be contracts for the massive reconstruction and there will be the development of the gas fields. In any case, Al-Assad must go. There is nothing personal; it is strictly business to preserve the future tranquility and well-being of Qatar.
.....
So there you have it: Qatar doing everything it can to promote bloodshed, death and destruction by using not Syrian rebels, but mercenaries: professional citizens who are paid handsomely to fight and kill members of the elected regime (unpopular as it may be), for what? So that the unimaginably rich emirs of Qatar can get even richer. Although it is not as if Russia is blameless: all it wants is to preserve its own strategic leverage over Europe by being the biggest external provider of natgas to the continent through its own pipelines. Should Nabucco come into existence, Gazpromia would be very, very angry and make far less money!

While the [Syrian Arab Republic Government] SARG tolerates the presence of terrorist organizations and is vocal in its support for groups like HAMAS and Hezbollah, the SARG maintains a strong national security apparatus designed in part to monitor and neutralize extremist threats to the regime. The SARG recognizes that terrorist operations against U.S. and/or western targets on Syrian soil run contrary to Syria's interests, especially given its efforts to expand ties to the West and develop its tourism industry. Syria works to deter and counter threats of anti-western terrorist acts in Syria.

 Seaward wrote:
Well, I think it's time for my usual response to that sort of thing, so here we go:

As always, thank you, The Onion.

 Noble713 wrote:

When in doubt, follow the money. But instead of thinking critically about the long-term economic implications and the second and third order effects of the policy decisions of national leaders, you'd rather dismiss the issue entirely with a scoff, a reference to conspiracy theorists, and The Onion.

Is this what you typically consider adding substantive and quality discourse to the debate? Just let me know now, so I can skip over your posts in the future.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Before we start on the racism or conspiracy train, we'll just acknowledge there are other motives besides crimes against humanity for involvement.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I might point out that the war in Chechnya wasn't the US problem either, until bombs started going off at the Boston Marathon.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I know a lot of people here like to reason that isolationism is the best policy for the US, but the time that was possible has long since come and gone.

 Seaward wrote:
So you genuinely see no alternatives beyond a full conventional ground campaign, and no particular benefit to being the guys who de facto get to decide whether or not Russia keeps its only foreign naval port? Interesting.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I don't recall saying "a full conventional ground campaign". And if we strip Russia of her port that makes it difficult to get her support on Iran and North Korea, or anything they could veto through the UN. If we depose Assad and have a say in whether Russia gets to keep the port I'm sure they'll be so happy with us for being so magnanimous that they'll forget all about us costing them millions in arms deals, and getting rid of an ally in the region, as well as the fact that we interfered in their affairs, right?

 Seaward wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I don't recall saying "a full conventional ground campaign". And if we strip Russia of her port that makes it difficult to get her support on Iran and North Korea, or anything they could veto through the UN. If we depose Assad and have a say in whether Russia gets to keep the port I'm sure they'll be so happy with us for being so magnanimous that they'll forget all about us costing them millions in arms deals, and getting rid of an ally in the region, as well as the fact that we interfered in their affairs, right?

I think it's irrelevant whether or not they're happy. It's a bargaining chip. Entities generally aren't happy when leverage is used against them, but if the outcome's what we want, who cares how Russia feels about it?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And what price is that bargaining chip going to cost us (even assuming that we get a sympathetic regime in Syria) in the long term from Russia? We'll get some co-operation from them until they get their port back, then we've burnt our bridge. They're still out of pocket significantly, have a port in a country that will remember their role in arming their oppressors, and we've offended their strong sense of national pride. That is something that they won't forgive and you can bet that they'll be antagonistic further down the line.
That's even working on the assumption that if we do get a sympathetic regime installed that they'll hand the port back to the country that was supplying a dictator with the weapons used to kill them.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I know that Russia doesn't like the US, it hasn't for quite some time. If you think that the Russians won't think that the US interfering to take away Tartus, and then giving it back will sting national pride then you have have underestimated them.

I'm glad that you think that the US can install a sympathetic regime, because we have such a great history of it - Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan's Major of Kabul, etc.

And if we do go in and back a yet unspecified group what's to stop them telling us to do one after? Short answer is, not a lot. Not unless we want to spend significant man power to set up and install a friendly regime and make sure it is stable. And remember, we still don't have that after 10+ years in Afghanistan. And we don't have the finances to support it.

Better still you haven't told us how we go about this intervention. You seem to have ruled out boots on the ground, so what else are you suggesting?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

It still isn't. I wasn't aware that those carrying out the terrorist attacks in Boston were motivated to kill Americans by what Russia had done to their region.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

It is quite a sea change though from your previous comments defending them, and suggesting that they were innocent.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Who is arguing isolationism? If it's a conflict that will benefit us, and tackle a clear and imminent threat then that's fine. If it's to get involved in a civil war with no side to back, and with everyone shooting at us, with no outcome that works to our advantage, with geopolitical ramifications, with little public support or appetite for war after over 10 years of involvement in Afghanistan, and a public purse sorely lacking in funds then it's probably a bad idea.

A Lebanese man apparently protesting against the role of Hezbollah in the Syria conflict has been killed by gunfire outside the Iranian embassy in Beirut, Lebanese security sources say.

A small group was protesting at the embassy against the Shia movement and its backer, Iran, over their involvement in Syria.

It is not yet known who killed the protester.

Last week Hezbollah fighters helped retake the town of Qusair from rebels.

'Partisans attacked demonstrators'
Clashes broke out on Sunday between supporters and opponents of Hezbollah outside the Iranian embassy, on the outskirts of Beirut, a Lebanese army spokesman was quoted by news agency AFP as saying.

The young man was injured in the fighting and later died of his wounds, the army reportedly said.


Several other people were injured when Hezbollah partisans attacked the demonstrators, the spokesman told AFP.

The man killed was identified by Beirut media as Hisham Salman, head of the student section of the Lebanese Option party, a small opposition group.

The party's leader, like Hezbollah, is from the Shia community, however it strongly opposes Hezbollah's involvement in Syria.

The protesters outside the Iranian embassy in the Bir Hassan neighbourhood made demands for Hezbollah to leave Syria.

"Lebanon has never been so fragile. They are transferring the Syrian conflict into Lebanon. The Lebanese army should deploy on the border to stop Hezbollah from entering Syria," protest organiser Charles Jabbour told AFP news agency.

The incident underlines how deeply divisive the Syrian issue is in Lebanon and strengthens fears of further repercussions, BBC Beirut correspondent Jim Muir reports.

Hezbollah - or the Party of God - is a political and military organisation in Lebanon made up mainly of Shia Muslims.

It emerged with financial backing from Iran in the early 1980s and has always been a close ally of Syria.

Peace talks at risk
On Thursday, the White House called on both Iran and Hezbollah to withdraw fighters from Syria, where they have been helping government troops, particularly in the western town of Qusair, close to the border with Lebanon.

"It is clear that the regime is unable to contest the opposition's control of a place like Qusair on their own, and that is why they are dependent on Hezbollah and Iran to do their work for them," White House spokesman Jay Carney said.

Meanwhile, the Lebanese Red Cross says nearly 90 Syrian rebel fighters have been taken to hospitals in Lebanon after being wounded in the battle for Qusair.

The strategic town, which is a major supply route for both rebel and pro-Assad fighters, was recaptured by government troops on Wednesday after weeks of fierce fighting.

Recent developments on the ground may affect efforts to convene a forthcoming international peace conference, the Syrian opposition says.

"What is happening in Syria today completely closes the doors on any discussions about international conferences and political initiatives," the interim head of the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, George Sabra, told reporters on Saturday.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague also said on Sunday that the government's latest gains may reduce the chances of success at the peace summit due to take place in Geneva.

 Seaward wrote:
Well, we clearly don't announce that's what's occurring to the world. There's a reason back-channel communication exists.

 Seaward wrote:
We do, actually. Have we lost every war we've ever fought because Vietnam didn't go well? Latin America, multiple Middle Eastern countries...we've definitely had success at installing regimes friendly to our interests. And we abandon them when it's in our interests to do so. It's the way of the world, I'm afraid.

 Seaward wrote:
We very much have the finances to support it, and money's where it's at. Afghanistan's a mess, but the supposition that because Afghanistan is a mess, every other country in the world would likewise be one is belied by history.

 Seaward wrote:
An air campaign would be thoroughly effective. Prior to Hezbollah's involvement, it would have won the war.

 Seaward wrote:

Claiming that Israel is the United States' "puppet master" is worthy of nothing further than a scoff, a reference to conspiracy theorists, and of course the Onion. I've also seen the fringe claim that it's OMG all about a gas pocket before, but not from anyone credible, and that's definitely not where our intelligence assessments lie.

If that's your idea of substantive and quality discourse, then I'm afraid I can't say I'd regret you skipping my posts.

 Seaward wrote:
So you genuinely see no alternatives beyond a full conventional ground campaign, and no particular benefit to being the guys who de facto get to decide whether or not Russia keeps its only foreign naval port? Interesting.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
After what happened in Florida, I'm a bit suspicious of any 'confessions' the FBI hands in.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Beautiful over-simplification of the US Civil War. The fact that you would distort that, and cheapen the many deaths that resulted from it, only serves to make it look like you are acting in bad faith and undermines whatever you hope to achieve.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Do you think that it is moral to support;
- Assad, who has committed war crimes and is suspected of using chemical weapons?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

- the FSA who rocket civilian areas, eat hearts, slit the throats of captives, are suspected of using chemical weapons, or try to carve out their own empires?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

- what about the AQ affiliated militias? Once the dust has settled and they have a friendly and compliant regime (just like what happened in Lebanon) they can start setting up camp there.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

In close proximity to many of our allies.
And both of these groups are heavily Islamic so expect to see Sharia law brought about, with the accompanying curtailment of women's rights, gay rights, religious freedom etc. Still sure that is a moral choice?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

But I do like how you misrepresented my argument that we should stay out because we're scared of loss or financial reasons.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
If it's to get involved in a civil war with no side to back, and with everyone shooting at us, with no outcome that works to our advantage, with geopolitical ramifications, with little public support or appetite for war after over 10 years of involvement in Afghanistan, and a public purse sorely lacking in funds then it's probably a bad idea.

 Jihadin wrote:
UN asking for 5 billion to support the refugee's flooding out the country..........yep....lets go for the logistical support of the fighters and refugee's support...I know where we have ungodly amount of Circus Tents with logistics for thousand people and quick "FoB" in the cans that can support 1200....sitting in Afghanistan

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Who said anything about announcing it to the world? I certainly didn't so please don't make strawmen because you think they're easier to counter. Whether we announce it or not the fact remains, we'd have taken something of value from the Russians, and twisted their arm so they get it back. That does not engender furthering our long term interests, and as Russia has shown recently with legislation over adoption, they can do tit-for-tat retaliation very well.

You really aren't comparing like with like here. But I'd be interested in hearing what regimes the US did install recently in the Middle East that were successes.

The US has the finances to support another war? So the sequester, budget issues and massive deficit are not real problems? The government hasn't been cutting spending or anything like that because of a financial black hole?

An air campaign. Against a country being supplied with advanced AA from Russia. Dropping munitions on FSA, AQ affiliated militas, and the Syrian army all in close proximity. And often in areas with many civilians. And who would we be targeting again? Where would we be getting reliable intelligence from in a highly dynamic conflict?

Good, that means we aren't getting sucked into a needless conflict.

 Seaward wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
...so?

So, isolationism, while nice in theory, doesn't work. We need influence in the region. We, in short, need the region to be more concerned about us getting involved than Russia. We need to be seen as willing to follow through on warnings we issue. There's a waterway we need to keep navigable, there's brushfires in the region we need to put out with a quiet word behind the scenes, there's allies that we need to be able to support and keep from going apegak, etc.

We don't suddenly start disengaging just because we didn't get involved in Syria. We simply lose leverage having said, "If the red line gets crossed, gak's going down," and then seeing to it that, once the red line was crossed, gak did not go down. There were a lot of low-risk, low-cost options on the table.

Not to mention the moral cost of not supporting tens of thousands of fairly moderate guys who just didn't want to live under a dictator anymore, most of whom are dead or are going to be.

 Ouze wrote:
I would not have had a problem with drones support only, maybe even some level of air support, if it's done under a UN or NATO mandate.

Even then I'd only go so far because we said we would if chemical weapons were used, and it appears they have been (though by who seems a totally open question). If the United States says something, we need to mean it.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Well, if the islamic world sees fit to do nothing, it's not for us to intervene either.

If they are willing to allow their brothers and sisters to suffer and die, we should not send our best and bravest in there either.

If they or anyone else interferes with the Suez canal or shipping, trade or the general smooth running of the rest of the world outside their borders, crush it mercilessly. Otherwise, our forces would be far better placed to do some good lopping the heads off a few African (oh hai Mugabe) dictators and regimes to bring order there. Efforts there and elsewhere can bring real benefit and change, instead of the continued swapping of one evil for another in the middle east, an area that seems immune to tinkering and would be best served by just leaving it all alone and trading with whoever emerges from it victorious.

 djones520 wrote:
Yeah, look at what an air campaign did for the Libyan rebellion. It turned it a whole 180 degrees, and we lost exactly 1 aircraft, and 4 lives and the country to tribal extremists and Al Qaeda throughout the whole affair.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
*sigh*

None of them are good options. But this has the potential to get much worse and become a bigger problem for the US in the long run if they sit back and do nothing than in the short run where they lose men and material.

It's like the many many wars in Africa. No one wants to commit (though, thank you, Legion Estranges) and the problem rolls on and on and starts to get worse and worse and spreads, becoming 'First World' countries problems in unexpected ways (piracy, anyone?).

Not that the US allies will probably let it get that far before citing one of the numerous pacts that hte US has with countries in the middle east and dragging them in as well.

There are no Middle East problems, there are no European problems, there are no Asian problems, there are no American problems.

There are just problems.

Welcome to the 21st Century.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
No, what's beautiful is that you could distort a statement that suggested that Americans died for their moral beliefs and make it a negative. While there were a great many reasons, almost all of them are related in one way or another to the question of slavery.

Or do you think it cheapens their deaths to suggest they died for a noble purpose rather than for the profit of American business?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Khalid al Hamad aka Abu Sakkar does not represent the FSA. He is though a symptom of the issue, that this has been allowed to go on so long. And make no mistake, the longer it does, the more men like him will emerge in positions of 'leadership'. THis is what hte result of doing 'nothing' is.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Let's look at those Lebanon AQ affiliates, shall we? According to Lebanese Intelligence the major players are...

A group led by "Abu Thaer," a Lebanese national named Khodor Huwailed. The group has a presence in the area of ​​Wadi Khaled and Mashta Akrum, and includes "mujahideen" of different nationalities. His main aid-De-camp: Farid Sameh, a Syrian national. The group consists of about 200 men.

The Tripoli group, pretty much the home grown group, led by Lebanese national Hussam Abdullah al-Sabbagh (nicknamed Abu al-Hasan). He commands around 250 to 300 men, through which he controls neighborhoods in the city, like Bab al-Tebbaneh, Beddawi and Bab al-Raml. The repeated rounds of violence with Jabal Mohsen, a neighborhood mostly inhabited by Alawites, are spearheaded by this group. Sabbagh’s main aide is Kamal al-Bustani, a person known for his pro-Qaeda activity.

The Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp group, whose key figures are Ziad Abu-Naaj, Naim Ismail Abbas, Muhammad Ahad al-Dawkhi, and a person nicknamed "Haitham al-Shaabi. This group consists of about 100 to 150 men, mostly Egyptian, Palestinian, Gulf, Syrian, and Moroccan nationals.

The Al-Qaa group, led by its Syrian emir Muhammad Khalid Hijazi, assisted by the Syrian Khalid Mohammed Turk and another person (of an unknown nationality) named Mohammed al-Qunays.

I keep seeing 'Syria' over and over again. I wonder why that is?

Syria's main armed opposition group, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), is losing fighters and capabilities to Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist organisation with links to al-Qaida that is emerging as the best-equipped, financed and motivated force fighting Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Evidence of the growing strength of al-Nusra, gathered from Guardian interviews with FSA commanders across Syria, underlines the dilemma for the US, Britain and other governments as they ponder the question of arming anti-Assad rebels.

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, said that if negotiations went ahead between the Syrian government and the opposition – as the US and Russia proposed on Tuesday – "then hopefully [arming the Syrian rebels] would not be necessary".

The agreement between Washington and Moscow creates a problem for the UK and France, which have proposed lifting or amending the EU arms embargo on Syria to help anti-Assad forces. The Foreign Office welcomed the agreement as a "potential step forward" but insisted: "Assad and his close associates have lost all legitimacy. They have no place in the future of Syria." Opposition leaders were sceptical about prospects for talks if Assad remained in power.

Illustrating their plight, FSA commanders say that entire units have gone over to al-Nusra while others have lost a quarter or more of their strength to them recently.

"Fighters feel proud to join al-Nusra because that means power and influence," said Abu Ahmed, a former teacher from Deir Hafer who now commands an FSA brigade in the countryside near Aleppo. "Al-Nusra fighters rarely withdraw for shortage of ammunition or fighters and they leave their target only after liberating it," he added. "They compete to carry out martyrdom [suicide] operations."

Abu Ahmed and others say the FSA has lost fighters to al-Nusra in Aleppo, Hama, Idlib and Deir al-Zor and the Damascus region. Ala'a al-Basha, commander of the Sayyida Aisha brigade, warned the FSA chief of staff, General Salim Idriss, about the issue last month. Basha said 3,000 FSA men have joined al-Nusra in the last few months, mainly because of a lack of weapons and ammunition. FSA fighters in the Banias area were threatening to leave because they did not have the firepower to stop the massacre in Bayda, he said.

The FSA's Ahrar al-Shimal brigade joined al-Nusra en masse while the Sufiyan al-Thawri brigade in Idlib lost 65 of its fighters to al-Nusra a few months ago for lack of weapons. According to one estimate the FSA has lost a quarter of all its fighters.

Al-Nusra has members serving undercover with FSA units so they can spot potential recruits, according to Abu Hassan of the FSA's al-Tawhid Lions brigade.

Ideology is another powerful factor. "Fighters are heading to al-Nusra because of its Islamic doctrine, sincerity, good funding and advanced weapons," said Abu Islam of the FSA's al-Tawhid brigade in Aleppo. "My colleague who was fighting with the FSA's Ahrar Suriya asked me: 'I'm fighting with Ahrar Suriya brigade, but I want to know if I get killed in a battle, am I going to be considered as a martyr or not?' It did not take him long to quit FSA and join al-Nusra. He asked for a sniper rifle and got one immediately."

FSA commanders say they have suffered from the sporadic nature of arms supplies. FSA fighter Adham al-Bazi told the Guardian from Hama: "Our main problem is that what we get from abroad is like a tap. Sometimes it's turned on, which means weapons are coming and we are advancing, then, all of a sudden, the tap dries up, and we stop fighting or even pull out of our positions."

The US, which has outlawed al-Nusra as a terrorist group, has hesitated to arm the FSA, while the western and Gulf-backed Syrian Opposition Coalition has tried to assuage concerns by promising strict control over weapons. "We are ready to make lists of the weapons and write down the serial numbers," Idriss told NPR at the weekend. "The FSA is very well organised and when we distribute weapons and ammunition we know exactly to which hands they are going."

Syria's government has capitalised successfully on US and European divisions over the weapons embargo by emphasising the "jihadi narrative" – as it has since the start of largely peaceful protests in March 2011. Assad himself claimed in a recent interview: "There is no FSA, only al-Qaida." Syrian state media has played up the recent pledge of loyalty by Jabhat al-Nusra to al-Qaida in Iraq.

Western governments say they are aware of the al-Nusra problem, which is being monitored by intelligence agencies, but they are uncertain about its extent.

"It is clear that fighters are moving from one group to another as one becomes more successful," said a diplomat who follows Syria closely. "But it's very area-specific. You can't talk about a general trend in which [Jabhat al-Nusra] has more momentum than others. It is true that some say JAN is cleaner and better than other groups, but there are as many stories about it being bad." Critics point to punishments meted out by Sharia courts and its use of suicide bombings.

The FSA's shortage of weapons and other resources compared with Jabhat al-Nusra is a recurrent theme. The loss of Khirbet Ghazaleh, a key junction near Dera'a in southern Syria, was blamed on Wednesday on a lack of weapons its defenders had hoped would be delivered from Jordan.

"If you join al-Nusra, there is always a gun for you but many of the FSA brigades can't even provide bullets for their fighters," complained Abu Tamim, an FSA man who joined Jabhat al-Nusra in Idlib province. "My nephew is in Egypt, he wants to come to Syria to fight but he doesn't have enough money. Al-Nusra told him: 'Come and we will even pay your flight tickets.' He is coming to fight with al-Nusra because he does not have any other way."

Jabhat al-Nusra is winning support in Deir al-Zor, according to Abu Hudaifa, another FSA defector. "They are protecting people and helping them financially. Al-Nusra is in control of most of the oil wells in the city." The Jabhat al-Nusra media, with songs about jihad and martyrdom, is extremely influential.

Abu Zeid used to command the FSA's Syria Mujahideen brigade in the Damascus region and led all its 420 fighters to al-Nusra. "Since we joined I and my men are getting everything we need to keep us fighting to liberate Syria and to cover our families' expenses, though fighting with al-Nusra is governed by very strict rules issued by the operations command or foreign fighters," he said. "There is no freedom at all but you do get everything you want.

"No one should blame us for joining al-Nusra. Blame the west if Syria is going to become a haven for al-Qaida and extremists. The west left Assad's gangs to slaughter us. They never bothered to support the FSA. They disappointed ordinary Syrian protesters who just wanted their freedom and to have Syria for all Syrians."

 BaronIveagh wrote:
I might point out that a great many people are Islamic in the Middle East. You're conflating 'Islamic' with 'the Islamist movement'. Further, without a positive counter balance, yes, they will be predominantly Islamist, because no one else could be bothered.

It's like not voting and complaining you didn't like who got elected.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
That was exactly what you gave as reasons that the US should not be involved.

 Seaward wrote:
Sorry, I must not have understood what you were talking about. For Russia's national pride to be wounded over something, my presumption was that Russia'd have to be publicly aware of it.

Ultimately, though, I'm simply not sure where this delicacy about Russia comes from. Our interests stand in direct conflict to theirs in the region. They don't want to be on our side. They have no desire to be a less powerful ally; their goal is to be a more powerful competitor. They're eager for low-intensity puppet conflicts, because that's how they're going to land their punches right now. Walking on eggshells to avoid pissing them off serves no purpose. It's like the old cliche from '80s teen movies; doing the jock's homework doesn't get the nerd invited to the cool parties, it just gets the jock's homework done. They are not suddenly going to have a change of heart and throw their lot in with our goals in the Middle East because we decided we no longer like to use leverage. We get things done by muscle in that region in many others, be it financial, political, or military, and Russia subscribes to that philosophy in spades as well. Power needs to be deterring power. Power met with conciliatory attempts to be nice just gets mildly amused before doing exactly what it intended to do.

 Seaward wrote:
How recent do you want to talk?

 Seaward wrote:
They're not real problems that prevent us from acting if we choose to, no. We haven't suddenly become a solely regional power incapable of expeditionary warfare.

 Seaward wrote:
This is the part that really confuses me, to be honest. We're extremely good at what you just described. We've been doing exactly those kinds of air strikes for the past decade. Taking out the Syrian AD network and hitting their airfields with the intent of grounding their air force is something that's eminently within our capabilities. As I said, even getting Syria out of the air would have been enough, at the point in time where intervening would have made a difference, so the specter of having to hit targets among densely-populated civilian areas with great frequency would be a bit overstated.

If it became necessary, however, again...we've been doing that for a long time, and we're good at it. I'm sure you'll claim otherwise, due to the fact that we occasionally inflict collateral damage, but here's the thing. I could give you a lot of personal anecdotal experience, but instead I'll just point to the ridiculous number of sorties we flew in OEF and OIF, the sheer amount of ordnance we threw into those hellholes, and ask if you genuinely believe the overwhelming majority of air strikes were not "clean." There's no other air power in the world that can come even close to doing what we do.

 Seaward wrote:
I suppose it's good only if the outcome will have no broader impact on the region or the world as a whole. That is extraordinarily unlikely.

 Seaward wrote:
So you genuinely see no alternatives beyond a full conventional ground campaign, and no particular benefit to being the guys who de facto get to decide whether or not Russia keeps its only foreign naval port? Interesting.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Well, if the islamic world sees fit to do nothing, it's not for us to intervene either.

If they are willing to allow their brothers and sisters to suffer and die, we should not send our best and bravest in there either.

If they or anyone else interferes with the Suez canal or shipping, trade or the general smooth running of the rest of the world outside their borders, crush it mercilessly. Otherwise, our forces would be far better placed to do some good lopping the heads off a few African (oh hai Mugabe) dictators and regimes to bring order there. Efforts there and elsewhere can bring real benefit and change, instead of the continued swapping of one evil for another in the middle east, an area that seems immune to tinkering and would be best served by just leaving it all alone and trading with whoever emerges from it victorious.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So pointing out a factual inaccuracy in your statement is now showing disrespect to those that died in the Civil War? Surely it is more disrespectful to use their sacrifices as a platform for an ill advised intervention

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So you manged to take a series of incidents carried out by the FSA, and reduced them to the one that you could almost-sort-of counter. Hardly an indication of wanting an honest discussion.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Don't wonder, just say it.
And you completely omitted the Al-Nursa group, which is unfortunate because I've mentioned them several times before

You're giving the impression that you pick and choose what suits your argument rather than even attempt to be objective

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

What "positive counter balance" do you think would work given that many Muslim countries embrace their faith as the guiding principals of their law

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Correct, and thank you for proving my point. I gave many examples and you chose two to paint my argument in the worst light.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

If you think a massive budget deficit is not a very real problem then I really don't know what else to say here. But if you want to completely bankrupt the country at least do so for a decent cause. Not to shore up AQ militias, or a largely incompetent rabble

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Lets see - Assad retains power, he does what most dictators do and deals with dissent. We start sanctions and write him a strongly worded letter. AQ affiliated militas don't get to set up camp and work on de-stabilising the region, or planning attacks against us, they don't get access to heavier weapons, and they lose a lot of support and fighters from the conflict.
What ramifications are you seeing for the region and the world?

 BaronIveagh wrote:
If you had bothered to show a factual inaccuracy, perhaps, but you didn't, and haven't, thus far. You simply said it wasn't true, and are continuing to insist on it despite not actually offering any proof of your position. .Please prove that the Civil War was not about slavery before you continue in this vein. And further, saying that Americans have given their lives in the past in the name freedom and doing the right thing as a counterpoint to your argument that the US should only go to war if it directly profits the US is hardy disrespectful.

A common assumption to explain the cause of the American Civil War was that the North was no longer willing to tolerate slavery as being part of the fabric of US society and that the political power brokers in Washington were planning to abolish slavery throughout the Union. Therefore for many people slavery is the key issue to explain the causes of the American Civil War. However, it is not as simple as this and slavery, while a major issue, was not the only issue that pushed American into the ‘Great American Tragedy’. By April 1861, slavery had become inextricably entwined with state rights, the power of the federal government over the states, the South’s ‘way of life’ etc. – all of which made a major contribution to the causes of the American Civil War.

By 1860 America could not be seen as being a homogenous society. Clearly defined areas could be identified that had different outlooks and different values. This was later to be seen in the North versus South divide that created the two sides in the war.

The South was an agricultural region where cotton and tobacco were the main backbone to the region’s economic strength. The area relied on exports to markets in Western Europe and the class structure that could be found in the UK, for example, was mimicked in the southern states. The local plantation owner was a ‘king’ within his own area and locals would be deferential towards such men. The whole structure was portrayed in ‘Gone With The Wind’; a strictly Christian society that had men at the top while those underneath were expected and required to accept their social status. Social advancement was possible but invariably it was done within the senior families of a state, who were the economic, political and legal brokers of their state on behalf of the people in that state. Within this structure was the wealth that these families had accrued. It cannot be denied that a huge part of this wealth came from the fact that the plantation owners oriented the work on their plantations around slave labour. As abhorrent as it may be to those in the C21st, slavery was simply seen as part of the southern way of life. Without slavery, the economic clout of these premier families would have been seriously dented and those they employed and paid – local people who would have recognised how important the local plantation owner was to their own well-being – simply accepted this as ‘how it is’. When the dark clouds of war gathered in 1860-61, many in the South saw their very way of life being threatened. Part of that was slavery but it was not the only part.

The North was almost in complete contrast to the South. In the lead up to April 1861, the North was industrialising at a very fast rate. Entrepreneurs were accepted and, in fact, were seen as being vital to the further industrial development of America. You did not have to stay in your social place and social mobility was common. For example, Samuel Colt was born in Connecticut into a relatively poor background. He had an inauspicious start to his life but ended up a very rich man who left his wife $15 million in his will. Whether he could have done this in the South is a moot topic. It was always possible but most of America’s premier entrepreneurs based themselves in the North where the straitjacket of social class was weaker. Cornelius Vanderbilt is another example. Whether a man who came from the Netherlands could have forced his way into the social hierarchy of the South is again a question open to debate. The North was also a cosmopolitan mixture of nationalities and religions – far more so than the South. There can be little doubt that there were important groups in the North that were anti-slavery and wanted its abolition throughout the Union. However, there were also groups that were ambivalent and those who knew that the North’s economic development was based not only on entrepreneurial skills but also on the input of poorly paid workers who were not slaves but lived lives not totally removed from those in the South. While they had their freedom and were paid, their lifestyle was at best very harsh.

While the two sides that made up the American Civil War were apart in many areas, it became worse when the perception in the South was that the North would try to impose its values on the South.

In 1832, South Carolina passed an act that declared that Federal tariff legislation of 1828 and 1832 could not be enforced onto states and that after February 1st 1833 the tariffs would not be recognised in the state. This brought South Carolina into direct conflict with the Federal government in Washington DC. Congress pushed through the Force Bill that enabled the President to use military force to bring any state into line with regards to implementing Federal law. On this occasion the threat of military force worked. People in South Carolina vowed, however, it would be the last time.

It was now that slavery became mixed up with state rights – just how much power a state had compared to federal authority. State rights became intermingled with slavery. The key issue was whether slavery would be allowed in the newly created states that were joining the Union. This dispute further developed with the ‘Louisiana Purchase’ of 1803 whereby Kansas, among others, was purchased by the federal government. Kansas was officially opened to settlement in 1854 and there was a rush to settle in the state between those who supported slavery and those who opposed it. The state became a place of violence between the two groups and Kansas got the nickname ‘Bleeding Kansas’ in recognition of what was going on there. However on January 29th 1861, Kansas was admitted to the Union as a slave-free state. Many in the traditional slave states saw this as the first step towards abolishing slavery throughout the Union and thus the destruction of the southern way of life.

When South Carolina seceded from the Union on December 20th 1860, the first state to do so, it was a sign that the state no longer felt part of the United States of America and that America as an entity was being dominated by a federal government ensconced in the views of the North. Whether this was true or not, is not relevant as it was felt to be true by many South Carolinians. The secession of South Carolina pushed other southern states into doing the same. With such a background of distrust between most southern states and the government in Washington, it only needed one incident to set off a civil war and that occurred at Fort Sumter in April 1861.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Nice utter failure to address or even acknowledge my point and instead launch a personal attack.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, first of all, those are the groups affiliated with AQ and Jabhat al-Nusra in Lebenon. Which is where I was talking about. As far as them gaining ground in Syrai, yes, they are. The reason is simple: they're well supplied, and generally, they're winning the engagements they fight. So, yes, FSA commanders are losing men to Jabhat al-Nusra because they want to win and none of the other rebel groups are getting the sort of major backing that Jabhat al-Nusra is. Again, the cost of doing nothing. It's a self fulfilling prophecy: we won't support the rebels because they might support Islamists, so they're getting their ass handed to them and joining the Islamists.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
And abandoning the ones that don't have popular support like Syria and Lebanon is a good way to make sure they do too.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Yes, well, if we had supplied them and sent military advisers when it would have had an impact, they wouldn't be AQ or a largely incompetent rabble. 'We can't become involved becasue they might embrace an islamist agenda'. Yeah,well, now look, we didn't and they are anyway. So rather than deal wit the problem before it became one, the US now gets to invade them at some later date when they start attacking Americans after they become a thoroughly entrenched military force, or a much larger international movement like is already happening in several neighboring countries.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Never occurs to Dread here to wonder why Hezbollah and Iran are helping Assad. Syria is Iran's major funnel for Russian nuclear tech. AQ is bad, sure. Hezbollah with an Iranian nuclear device? Much worse.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So we have slavery, state v federal rights and economic issues. So no, it was not just about morality and slavery.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
While there were a great many reasons, almost all of them are related in one way or another to the question of slavery.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So you do know about Al-Nursa and were just ignoring them because it didn't suit your argument.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I'm waiting to hear about how moral it is to support people suspected of using chemical weapons, who shell civilians and who slit the throats of their captives. I'd be much more interested in hearing that than your circular argument about the rebels.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

You haven't said what counter balance you intend to establish to counter Sharia emerging in a non-Assad ruled Syria

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Your desire to live in the past and endlessly speculate on what we could have done could be academically interesting, but doesn't change what has happened. You seem to be basing your view of what will happen to Syria is that Assad will be replaced, when right now that really doesn't look like the case.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
...or a much larger international movement like is already happening in several neighboring countries.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So you ignore my question, and instead try to deflect with one of your own? Again, not the hallmark of honest debate.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

Now should Hezbollah get a nuclear device (and we're going to ignore the consequences for Iran of supplying it for now) and detonate it in Israel what would happen with the blast itself, and the fallout, in a densely populated area of the world, surrounded by Muslim countries, in an area with limited sources of fresh water. The short answer is that Hezbollah and their paymasters Iran have now stuck a very large target on themselves, that both the West and many Middle Eastern countries would be grateful to use as target practice.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
snip

 dogma wrote:

Are you saying you feel like the people of Zimbabwe are your brothers and sisters? Because I'm fairly certain the majority of people in Zimbabwe would not claim that an Englishman living in the US is their brother. I'm also fairly certain that African nations have a long history of "swapping of one evil for another."

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
We aren't walking on egg shells not to p*ss them off. We're avoiding getting into another prolonged conflict that will be a financial mill stone around our necks, which the Russians can prolong, because all that does is weaken us and strengthen our enemies.

If you are trying to base geo-political ideas off the relationships between jocks and geeks in 80's movies then I'm really not sure what else I can do to move this debate along. So do we have to get involved, or can we have an 80's montage instead?

Lets see your examples

If you think a massive budget deficit is not a very real problem then I really don't know what else to say here.

But if you want to completely bankrupt the country at least do so for a decent cause.

So your suggestion on how to intervene in a conflict that is mainly close quarters urban warfare, with minimal Syrian air support, is to target their airfields? You'll forgive my obvious skepticism for the odds of that plan working.
The problem as well is that it doesn't matter how clean the strikes are, we'll only ever hear about the ones that aren't clean. And with a war-weary public wary of any intervention how long will it be before there are serious calls to pull out?

 Jihadin wrote:
To those who hasn't dealt with them...you need to find a way...to those of us that has.....I trust them with my back

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
To those who hasn't dealt with them...you need to find a way...to those of us that has.....I trust them with my back

You can trust them with mission and your life
but never your wallet or your wife.

And if you didn't like the Middle East, you REALLY won't like South America. It has all the downsides of the Middle East, minus religious warfare, plus humidity, a veritable witches brew of diseases both known and unknown, some of the densest terrain you will ever imagine, even in the mountains, deadly wildlife including but not limited to: leeches the size of your arm, snakes bigger than your thigh, every form of blood sucking, poisonous, vermin known and unknown to man, crocodiles, piranha, and FARC.

Syrian rebels and activists have condemned the killing of a 14-year-old boy, allegedly by al-Qaeda-linked fighters who accused him of blasphemy.

Residents of the northern city of Aleppo say Mohammad Qataa was shot dead after being accused of misusing the name of the Prophet Muhammad.

A spokesman for the main rebel grouping, the Free Syrian Army (FSA), called it an act of "terrorism".

Louay Meqdad stressed that those responsible were not linked to the FSA.

The killing had "no justification" and those responsible should hand themselves over to the "legitimate authorities" in Aleppo, Mr Meqdad told the Al-Jazeera TV station.

A statement from the Local Co-ordination Committees (LCC), a network of activists inside Syria, called the killing a "heinous crime" and said those responsible must face justice.

The LCC said it also held the National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, the umbrella group for the Istanbul-based opposition, responsible "for failing to manage liberated areas and maintaining the security of its citizens".

'Blasphemy' accusation
Mohammad Qataa was reportedly selling coffee on the street on Sunday when someone asked to buy some on credit.

He is said to have replied: "Even if Muhammad came down from heaven, I would not give you this coffee on credit."

According to one account, three men - one of whom had been the man who asked for the coffee - declared that he had committed blasphemy by insulting the Prophet Muhammad.

Mohammad was taken away in a car and was returned half an hour later too badly beaten to walk.

Witnesses say he was then thrown on the pavement and shot dead.

A crowd of men and the boy's mother were all present but were too scared to intervene, reports say.

The UK-based activist group the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) posted videos of Mohammad's parents and another eyewitness to the killing.

The parents said that one of the men was from Aleppo, but they others spoke standard Arabic, suggesting they may not be Syrian.

The FSA and the SOHR have both blamed the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, a group which was the result of a merger between Al-Qaeda's branch in Iraq and some Syrian Islamist militants.

The mood in Aleppo has changed since the beginning of the year when inhabitants compared Islamist brigades favourably to the FSA, which was was often perceived as corrupt, the BBC's Paul Wood reports.

Now there are signs of discontent in the city against the Islamists, he says.

 whembly wrote:
So... any claims of "Wag the Dog" yet?

 Seaward wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

But if you want to completely bankrupt the country at least do so for a decent cause.

Oh dear. If you genuinely believe that's the economic situation we're in, I'm not sure there would be much point in continuing this discussion.

Russia Today
Iran will deploy 4,000 Revolutionary Guards to Syria to bolster Damascus against a mostly Sunni-led insurgency, media reported. Meanwhile, US F-16s and Patriots will stay in Jordan – speculatively, to help establish a no-fly zone to aid Syrian rebels.

The deployment of the first several-thousand strong military contingent was reported by The Independent on Sunday who quoted Iranian sources tied to the state’s security apparatus. The sources said the move signals Iran’s intention to drastically step up its efforts to preserve the government of President Bashar Assad.

The Islamic Republic’s heightened military commitment could reportedly extend to the opening up of a new “Syrian” front on the Golan Heights against Israel.

......

Hezbollah, the Shia Islamist militant group based out of Lebanon, played an integral part in the recapture of the strategic city of Qusayr last week. Damascus announced its intentions to use the Qusayr victory as a stepping stone to retaking large swaths of the northern city of Aleppo and surrounding provinces.

.......
Some 2,000 of Hezbollah’s 65,000 strong force has reportedly been operating in the city since early June. Shortly after these reports emerged, the New York Times rolled out an article saying Israel accelerated planning for a “shock and awe” campaign to wipe out Hezbollah forces out of Syria.

Despite Saudi Arabia’s condemnation of Hezbollah’s “blatant interference” in the Syrian conflict, a report issued by Intelligence Online in January said that Saudi Arabia was directly responsible for the radical al-Nusra Front’s very existence and operational superiority within the country. [u][emphasis mine]