Senate Intervention in Syria: Yay or Nay?

Interesting that the rebels don't want any part of Russia's proposal to put the chemical weapons under international control.

Why would you object to the chemical weapons being taken off Assad if presumably he's using them against you?

 

I'm getting more of a vibe from that article that the rebels don't support it because it doesn't go far enough rather than just an objection to the weapons being confiscated. They want Assad punished as well. That's my take anyway.

 

Well-written, but the paragraph about American exceptionalism is misplaced. Whatever his intentions, such a comment will only aggravate the right-wing of the United States. If Mr. Putin watched any of the 2012 Republican primary debates, he would understand this. Liberals might agree that the concept of American exceptionalism is bad, but conservatives do not; I would even argue that it's a foundational principle of modern American conservative thought.

That being said, his comments on respecting international law are surprisingly mature, although I agree with LOH's comment: he should've acknowledged the report, then said he still feels that any action should come through the UN. It would've strengthened his argument.

Peace,

V-03

 

​

I don't mean to pile on 44, but I feel bound to post this:

Agreed. Putin's flat denial of Syrian responsibility for the attacks will in the minds of most readers undermine his claim that Russia isn't protecting the government, also I agree with V that the attack on American exceptionalism, no matter how spot on and accurate, just seems like an unnecessary provocation, adding nothing to the argument.

 

Why is that a pile on me?

Putin is saying exactly what I've been saying about Russia. Point out anywhere in Putin's open letter where Russia seems overly concerned about a US strike, or that Russia was forced to the bargaining table because of the threat of force? 1)Putin excuses Assad's regime of any wrongdoing, 2) he hints that the rebels used poison gas on themselves, and 3) he put the focus on negotiating with Russia and Assad's government, while completely de-legitimizing the rebels. Putin then issues another defiant challenge to US exceptionalism, or rather lack thereof, over this issue.

Putin's flat denial over Syrian responsibility is born out of an ironclad desire to protect the Assad regime. It's the opposite of what you are suggesting. Mark my words, it's the first step for the justification for an arms race in the region because Russia is going to continue to equip the Assad regime. Did you not read the part where Putin masterfully labels the rebels with specific terrorist organization descriptors? As in, if the US is attacking terrorists in other parts of the world, why is the US supporting those same terrorists in Syria, where the government is trying to stand up to their influence? Putin just described, in one sentence why the US shouldn't be involved in Syria at all, snatching the momentum away from the Obama (and mostly Kerry).

Jabba, I'm honestly confused over what your point is with this.

 

Well.....because. It could be that they object because they just don't want the enemy to win any kind of international plaudits for doing the right thing........or it could be they object because they know it will be revealed they used them or are in possession of their own.

 

Who would have thought three weeks ago that we'd see Assad scrambling to join the Convention on Chemical Weapons? We have Obama to thank for this. Yes, Assad is trying to head off worse consequences, and so is Russia we hope, but the whole point of this exercise is supposed to be about bringing Syria in line with international norms on chemical weapons attacks (don't do it), no matter who eventually ends up in charge over there.

 

Again though, I'm not sure he's "scrambling to join the convention," considering he hasn't allowed any inspectors to catalogue what weapons he has. We'll mark the 10 year anniversary of this when a decade has passed and Assad has continued to move weapons around and blocked access to the inspectors because the locations are "sensitive." Considering that as of right now, no weapons have been destroyed...no weapons have been accounted for...and no weapons have actually been turned over to international control....this all might be a tactic to stall for time and allow Assad to cement control.

Even if that's overly cynical of me and Syria is legitimately signing onto the prohibition of chemical weapons, I'd still say your focus is all wrong. Again, review the reality that 70,000 people have been killed in Syria by conventional methods vs 1,500 due to chemical weapon attacks. So the Assad regime can re-assert control over Syria, continue to shell the rebels until there is no tomorrow, receive upgraded conventional weapons from Russia, but the lesson is some 80's anti-drug slogan- "don't do chemical weapons?"

I'd say the reason for diplomatic pressure got all out of wack somewhere in there....

 

The "who eventually ends up in charge" over there is the big ticket item which the US and the rest of the region need to carefully consider. The Russians are basically trying to remind the US of its previous foreign policy blunders which involved the US backing the likes of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein for transitionary strategic objectives without looking at the long view. Assad will go, but who or what will emerge in his place? And what part will the US play in the rise of this emergent unknown force?

Mr44 - you know the Syrian rebels are also receiving international support right, including support from the US? You don't reasonably expect Assad to agree to surrendering his chemical weapons without some conditions that the US won't meddle decisively once the stockpiles are under international control?

 

And while everyone's talking about missiles and gas, Sweden quietly continues its streak of awesome.

In Surprisingly Bold Move, Sweden Offers a Home to All Syrian Refugees
Sweden has just offered a glimpse of light in a somberly dark tunnel for the 2 million Syrian refugees displaced by violence and war. The Swedish government announced on September 3 that it would be granting permanent residency to any Syrian refugee seeking asylum that's already fled to Sweden.

This makes the Scandinavian nation the first and only country in the EU to have this kind of open-door policy for Syrians dealing with one of the worst sectarian bloodshed in modern history.

According to Annie Hoernblad, the spokesperson for the Migration Agency in Sweden, "The agency made this decision now because it believes the violence in Syria will not end in the near future."



And on the same day, my country's government said we'll take no more Syrian refugees, we're all full.

 

Now we will see all the racist, Muslim haters predicting that this move will lead to the end of Sweden as we know it. I'm sure Australia will take one or two so long as they don't arrive by boat.

 

Well, of course we'll see that. Kudos to Sweden for being awesome-obviously most national governments aren't anywhere close to as welcoming and compassionate as that.

They're right about the war dragging on for years and years, barring something drastic happening, like the Arab League invading the country or something. Neither side has a decisive advantage and one doesn't seem to be appearing anytime soon.

 

Welcome to the Senate. We ask that users have a higher level of posting here, and "let them kill each other because nonsense" doesn't make the grade.-mod edit

 

@Mr44 - you know the Syrian rebels are also receiving international support right, including support from the US? You don't reasonably expect Assad to agree to surrendering his chemical weapons without some conditions that the US won't meddle decisively once the stockpiles are under international control?

Yeah, LOH my friend, that is exactly what my point is. Honestly, does anyone believe that the Syrian government will agree to anything as long as the US and other countries are meddling in their affairs? It's not like there is going to be some international agreement, and then the US will still be able to send weapons to the opposing side of its civil war. It's going to bring an entirely new definition to quid pro quo... Syria gets Russian technical support and weapons. Syria gets to go back to being the military-dictatorship it was, and gets to polish up its trusty iron thumb. Assad probably gets to remain in power.The rebels are marginalized. But oh yeah, at some point its chemical weapons might be monitored, not accounting for its open border, so everything is zero summed.

It's rather backwards.

 

Still no. It's got nothing to do with "liking what you are saying". Read the rules at the top of the page before posting further-mod edit.

 

I get what you are saying but I don't think it will as one sided as you are making out. I was talking more about decisive meddling, i.e., the US continues with a de facto intervention anyway with the sole objective of toppling the regime al la Libya. I don't think anybody, including Assad, expects the US and its lapdogs allies to cease its meddling altogether. Like I said earlier, the US needs to look at these rebels very carefully to see who they are and what they are likely to be and do if they topple Assad. Sometimes it is very much better the devil you know.

 

As someone who champions the observance of international law I am very happy about this agreement. Not sure yet what the actual outcome will be but at least the framework and norms of international law have been widely publicised throughout the world press and media. The fact that it was the Russian President who was forced to remind US citizens of some of these principles rather than the US administration itself is regrettable, but not surprising, given this was something Bush would also have omitted to publicise, and this is the play book that Obama seems to be following (is Obama wearing cowboy hats yet?).

In my humble opinion, whilst this agreement is a marvellous turn of events, it is really just a starting point rather than a resolution as it suffers from the fundamental weakness inherent in every aspect of international law, which is compliance. After all, the negotiations have simply led to consensus that the UN Security Council should issue a Resolution. The UN SC has issued hundreds of Resolutions against Israel which Israel simply ignores because there is no danger of enforcement because of US veto power. As we know, the same situation applies here but with Russia and its ally Syria. What will happen if Syria simply does not comply with this Resolution? As I understand it, a SC Resolution will be issued which will be largely silent or at least vague on the form of sanctions which might apply if the Assad regime fail to comply.

Again, we just get back to the regular problem of geopolitics. Will Russia continue to veto military intervention even in the face of Syrian non-compliance with a Resolution which Russia "owns"? If not, then we will just go back to the beginning in all of this, except a threat of military action by the US will be even less likely than it is now, largely because the US has now effectively committed itself to the jurisdiction of the UN and so no military action will happen without a UN resolution which Russia will not support. If the US was going to intervene without UN support then it should have done so immediately. I think it has lost that opportunity now, after all it has gone through.

I guess time will tell.I think Assad will comply but I'd love to know the details of all the back room deals being done.

 

Goodbye.

 

U.N.: 'Convincing Evidence' Sarin Gas Used in Syria

Sarin gas was used, and surface-to-surface missiles were used to deliver it. Not new news, but confirmation of most of what the Obama administration has been asserting all along.

 

heres the thing though. how does that involve the usa at all?

yes it is sad what happened in syria but we have zero reason to be there at all since no u.s affiliated things have been attacked.

i know the media likes to fear monger about iran but seriously how many times have we heard the same story for the last 10 years that there getting closer every year?

im not saying iran is innoccent but cmon we have absolute zero evidence that iran is even building what the media is suggesting so do we just invade based on yet another assumption like iraq?

if you really want to stop someone start with the people who did bengazi last year. everyone is so hush hush about that its disgusting absolutley disgusting

 

So what's interesting is that it appears that Turkish F-16's just shot down a Russian-supplied Mi-17 helicopter that had crossed into Turkish airspace. Turkey had been tracking the helicopter, which appeared to attempt to duck down below radar minimum (either intentionally or accidentally). The Turkish F-16 then intercepted the helio a mile into Turkish airspace, which really isn't a lot at all. While specifics are not confirmed, it looks like the F16 used a Aim-9 Sidewinder short range missile, to which the fragmentation blast disabled the helicopter, which then crashed back across the Syrian border.

It's a good example of how on edge the neighboring countries are over the situation.

 

To be fair, this isn't the first incursion Syria (accidentally or otherwise) has made against Turkey during the war; they shelled a Turkish village, iirc, early on in the war and Turkey retaliated in some way for that; that they shot down a helicopter over a mile disgression isn't too surprising.

 

Yeah, you're referring to the shelling? I remember that. Did Turkey retaliate in any meaningful way though? I remember a lot of warnings and such, and Syrian claims of it being accidental. Maybe Turkey did?

I think this just shows that Turkey is not fooling around anymore. A mile incursion for a helicopter is nothing, especially since it seemed to be in a less populated border area. While I'd say Turkey is certainly justified, it's more like the letter of the law vs the spirit.

 

If six days of shelling count as retaliation, sure

Turkey, once it sorts out its bigger domestic problems, is going to come to rule the region I think; they've got a successfully diversified economy, basically secular government, strong military, and NATO status, and also aren't dependent on selling oil. They're also the only ME country since the Iran-Iraq war to launch an invasion of a neighbor-their 2008 incursion into Iraq, which generated just about zero controversy.