Syria

[Opsa]

With due respect to everyone here, I would like to pass along a peace petition for Syria which you may choose to sign or not, depending on how much of a bleeding heart pacifist you are at the present.

My personal opinion is that causing more bloodshed does not end bloodshed, and I am against any more war anywhere and for continued efforts at making peace. Peace takes a lot of effort, but it's worth it.

I know that not everyone agrees with me, this is just my five cents. I also know that petitions don't do that much. I just feel so helpless about this and I signed to add my voice in favor of peace talks over air strikes.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Opas

Normally I would agree with you, but -and I may be against the current here- I don't see how talks will solve anything in Syria. You should read this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Ghouta_attacks

The sad reality on the ground is this: Assad will not budge, the fact that he is using chemical weapons (a taboo in our current world) clearly shows that he will stop at nothing to remain in power, so the only "non [overtly] violent" peace possible is for the rebels to surrender and be executed by the regime.

In order to have talks the parties must have a willingness to negotiate and at this moment there simply isn't one, if anything, the latest attacks only embolden the opposition desire to oust Assad (not to mention Assad's firm desire to exterminate them). There are no possible concessions because the point of the fight is to determine if Assad stays or leaves, and democracy is impossible with Assad in power.

What the consequences will be once Assad is out are anyone's guess, a civil war is likely to follow as the secular and religious factions fight for control, but contrary to the case with Iraq, there is a concerted effort from the population to remove the tyrant.

Lastly, if nothing happens, you can be assured that Assad will not only continue gassing his own population but use more violent* means of extermination with the opposition.

*he has used quite a bit of those already, mind you.

[Griffin NoName]

I wondered when Syria would raise its head here.  Ops, usually I would agree that further violence should not be at our intervention, but I think chemical weapons change the picture. It is one thing to shoot rebels in the streets, who know they fight at their own risk, quite another to gas ordinary people while they are asleep in their own beds. I agree with the current UK policy of waiting on the weapons inspector - we need more information. I haven't heard the news today yet but there was supposedly going to be some intelligence released to show it was Assad behind the attack. I do think it important to be sure who is responsible for the attack. (That there was an attack can't really be disputed IMO). I also think whatever action is chosen to "show that chemical weapons will not be tolerated" needs to be very carefully thought through. But if the world ignores the attack, it indicates the world is complicit in further such attacks.

[Swatopluk]

I agree with Griffin here. It has less to do with Syria and who is the bad and who the worse guy (can't see influential good guys at the moment). It's about the credibility of the world community with reagrd to the use of unconventional weapons. It's not helped by the fact that the only parties with the power to intervene in any way have a very bad track records themselves. The Russians and Chinese see no problem in the atrocities and the US was directly involved in the last mass gassings of civilians (it's now beyond dispute that Reagan did not only provide Saddam with the means but encouraged the use against Iran and looked the other way when Iraqi Kurds became the next target).
So, we are in the unenvious situation to have to intervene in SOME way but with no good options and the chief hypocrite having to do the intervening.

[Opsa]

I feel that we are being manipulated by Syria. We said we would not tolerate chemical warfare and they went ahead and used it anyway, as if to draw a line in the sand. They seem to be daring us to come at them. My question is- is there a way not to tolerate chemical weapons that does not cause more harm? Because if we start air strikes there, you can bet that they will self-righteously retaliate. So what good would it do? Where does it end? We need to think outside the box.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I feel that we are being manipulated by Syria. We said we would not tolerate chemical warfare and they went ahead and used it anyway, as if to draw a line in the sand. They seem to be daring us to come at them.

The thing is that Assad doesn't fit the profile of Kim Yong Il/Un, he isn't behaving childishly to prove something just for the sake of it, remember that just a few years ago Assad was torturing Al Qaeda suspects for the CIA, and he tried to ingratiate himself with the west in other ways. His use of chemical weapons seems to be more a desperate attempt to keep control of Damascus and by extension to corroborate that the west will not do something to stop him if he decides to go genocidal.

[Griffin NoName]

I agree with the current UK policy of waiting on the weapons inspector - we need more information.

spoke to soon, UK policy is now do nothing, not even wait for inspection results, Cameron defeated, Cameron broken, Cameron bla bla etc - maybe Assad's goal was to get rid of Cameron

if the world ignores the attack, it indicates the world is complicit in further such attacks.

So I guess that means the UK is complicit if he does it again (assuming it was him).

I do agree we need to think outside the box to avoid an escalation but register a protest. I keep wondering about Assad's British wife.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

(assuming it was him).

When a chemical attack has a low threshold of 322 mortal victims (and potentially up to 6 times more dead victims), it implies a very large amount of weapons used, which in turn implies that whomever did this thing had access to large amounts of chemical munitions. To my knowledge the rebels haven't seized such amounts of chemical weapons if at all, nor counting with the fact that the majority of the victims were rebels or civilians living in the area. If Assad didn't do it then Santa came early with lots and lots of sarin gas (remember that chemical weapons work better in enclosed environments like the Tokyo metro attack a few years back, precisely because the gas dissipates, so to kill that many people, very large amounts had to be used, and guess who is the only known actor with large amounts of said chemical in Syria?).

[Swatopluk]

It's getting medieval
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WttMxBc0kS4

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

That thing with a digital scale, a laptop and a gps/precise map can be very effective.

[Griffin NoName]

But perhaps not a good way to disperse chemical weapons.

[Swatopluk]

Range and payload too low for that.
One capable of that could not be stealthy at the same time.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

With proper aiming you can down a low flying chopper with that.

[Griffin NoName]

Improper aiming would not be polite.

Sorry, thought this was the Last Post thread.