We're all horrified by what's going on in Syria, but what can be done about it? The UN Security Coucil is hamstrung by China and Russia, Syria has a defence pact with Iran, and the USA is understandably war weary, but 'do nothing' surely is not an option.

Ideas on a post card to the Whitehouse ASAP.

Sorry to say but it's simple, we go not for 'regime change' but for stability for their people, I'm not certain what 'stability' is in any of these middle eastern countries but I don't believe we shouldn't be standing back whilst chemical weapons are being used on civilians.

I realise that the ramifications of air strikes/cruise missiles could be severe but we drew a red line, someone crossed that line and we need to punish them. If we don't, what is to stop Iran, North Korea or even china from crossing 'that' line?

My biggest concerns are,

What will Russia and Iran do WHEN it happens,

What can be done without 'boots on the ground'? (If weapons are there, I'm guessing that they don't have giant X's on which can be seen from drones and satellites.

Plus, there has been a lot of talk before any action which is leaving them too much time to move, reposition, destroy key targets.

Hey, what do I know?
All I do know is that if my government were to use chemical weapons against my family, I would hope the 'international community' would help.
Even if it is, the 'rebels' that used them, the government have a duty to protect its people and I would've expected grave condemnation and retaliation from Assad very quickly after the first chemical attack.

Think the lack of replies speaks volumes....

What's your view Mr. Biggs.

Found this on the BBC:


UK drafts Syria UN resolution
28 August 2013 10:31 BST


The UK is to put a resolution to the UN Security Council later on Wednesday "authorising necessary measures to protect civilians" in Syria.
The resolution will be put forward at a meeting of the five permanent members of the council, UK Prime Minister David Cameron said on Twitter.
Earlier a team of UN weapons inspectors resumed work probing an suspected chemical weapons attack on 21 August.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called on the council to act together.
"The body interested with maintaining international peace and security cannot be 'missing in action'," Mr Ban said.
"The council must at last find the unity to act. It must use its authority for peace," he went on.
"We've always said we want the UN Security Council to live up to its responsibilities on Syria," Mr Cameron said in another message.
"Today they have an opportunity to do that," he said. The draft resolution would condemn the "chemical weapons attack by Assad", he added.
In a briefing to journalists, joint UN-Arab League envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi said: "It does seem clear that some kind of substance was used... that killed a lot of people" on 21 August.
But he emphasised that any military action needed Security Council authorisation.

Further Destabilisation
Russia and China have previously vetoed resolutions critical of Syria and may block any text deemed to approve military action.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warned that "attempts at a military solution will lead only to the further destabilisation" in Syria and the region.
Mr Lavrov emphasised the need for a political solution in a phone call to Mr Brahimi, the foreign ministry in Moscow said.
Russia, China and Iran have previously warned against launching an attack on the war-ravaged country, where more than 100,000 people are thought to have died in two years of fighting.
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned on Wednesday that US intervention would be a "disaster" for the region.
"The region is like a gunpowder store and the future cannot be predicted," Mr Khamenei said, according to Iran's Isna news agency.
Stocks have fallen on global markets and oil prices have shot up amid growing concern about an impending attack.

Inspectors Resume Work
The team of inspectors resumed investigations after calling off work on Tuesday because of security concerns.
On Monday, the team's convoy was shot at by unidentified snipers.
It is not clear which districts the inspectors will be visiting on Wednesday.
On Monday they visited the suburb of Muadhamiya, where they went to two hospitals and interviewed doctors and patients as well as witnesses of the suspected chemical attack, and took away biological and environmental samples for laboratory tests.
But concerns were raised for their safety after one of their cars came under fire from unidentified gunmen as it crossed the buffer zone between government and rebel-controlled areas.
The Syrian government has strongly denied that it used chemical weapons and blames opposition fighters for the attack.
The US says it will release its own intelligence report into the incident in the Ghouta region surrounding Damascus the coming days.

If we were a strong nation that was united and if we had a strong leader with support from the most all the people than i would say that it would be right to intervene

But we do not have a strong leader, we are no longer feared nor respected. We have to many individual society's living within our nation to become a united nation.

These folks have been killing each other forever and will keep doing so. A caveman mentality so to speak.

It is sad indeed. The USA is in no position nor has any credibility anymore. I say NO.

Im sick and tired of trying to help around the world and then being villains around the world.

Back in the war between the Soviets and Afganistan, we armed rebels with anti-air missiles and automatic weapons. At the time, we knew they were terrorist, and even had Osama Bin Laden on the CIA payroll. The rebels in Syria right now are a part of Al-Queda, and once again we are arming them without thinking. I wonder how many Americans will die for this one. Probably not as many as the millions of innocents that will pay the price. Another foreign war is the last thing we need. At 17 trillion in debt, we can't even afford the principal on all the loans our country has taken from the banks. We have way more to worry about here than going out and being the worlds most ineffective police force.

I sincerily hope that, if any country does some kind of militar intervention on Syria, it will be made only to stop this very issue (this abominable, nasty civilian massacre). In other words: I hope that no country uses this intervention as an excuse to keep it any longer, or as an excuse to make profit (one example: aiming for the petroleum resources).
Money, greed, power - that's what will take us to our doom. Hope Laura can reach 90 years old without the need to live beneath the surface, chasing bugs to eat and survive.

I agree that if my own country were hit by chemical weapons, I would hope that the international community would stand strongly against the perpetrators. That is a good starting perspective in all this, with the victims.

Then you "pan out" to the rest of the world. Is there a united international community that holds humanitarianism as its pure objective, above politics, alliances, and money? Yeah what a pipe dream huh? However, this is a first requirement for our starting notion to have any hope of support that isn't short-sighted or suicidal for the intervening country or countries.

You can see the symptoms of this lack of united international community in the very question that is posed. Not by Ronnie as much, but by the news outlets. "What should the U.S.A. do here?" Huh? Why is this about the U.S.? Because we have military might? We're not the only ones anymore.

The U.S.A. should do nothing by itself. The U.S.A. should not stick its neck out there for anyone, BY ITSELF. Otherwise it makes itself and its citizens a target for whoever gets slighted. It would be nice if the United Nations was a body focused on true humanitarianism, but it is not that focused. It would be nice if there was a consortium of nations allied to fight oppression, but one country's view of oppression is another's definition of freedom. That is the heart of most conflicts, a different viewpoint on what means what.

So my net conclusion, a sad one, is that in the absence of a unified alliance of countries that would actually send a multi-nation military intervention, message, and long-term commitment, there should be no intervention.

I hate that conclusion, and have been struggling with it for days. But I keep landing there.

You can see from history that single nations (many examples, but a lot of them being U.S.-acted) intervening on the behalf of humanitarianism, have only got themselves into complex allegiances, fighting for what eventually will be the "wrong" side when the dust settles. There is no simplicity to international relations, and yet simplicity is what is required to avoid these weird advocations of one side for one war, and the other side for the other war. And because no one can ever truly support ONLY humanitarianism (because there are ALWAYS politics and elections and I'll-scratch-your-back), the ONLY path I see is... stay out.

All these paragraphs are a lot about what not to do and why. Here's the positive version, my ideal world:
- Each country sticks to their own business. Worry about your own, your borders, your economy. There's a lot to worry about there.
- Each country, with its varying definitions of freedom, does not impose that view on other countries.
- If some countries share core principles of treatment of individuals, they can have formal alliances for the LONG TERM. There should be no short term allegiances based on politicking.
- If one of those countries are invaded by others outside of the alliance, the long-term friends band together to counterstrike.
- If one of those countries has a civil war and associated atrocities, the allies can determine who has crossed the line of the alliance's principles. No one from outside the alliance should ever intervene. Wrong principles, wrong perspectives, stay out.

Some tell me that I have my head in the sand, and that my ideal setup will lead to two very big sides and an eventual WWIII and cremation of the planet. But I didn't say that the alliances would never talk. However, pure principles would need to be applied, without election politics. That's why this is a dream and not a reality.

These are pretty raw thoughts, and I'm open to inputs. Still developing my firm thoughts.

Manfred

EDIT: As I reread what I wrote, I have to admit that in the ideal scenario, Syria's long-term allies (who share its core principles) should be the ones intervening. Umm... that would be Iran, among a few others. Sure, the thought of Iran firing missiles on Assad's regime is frightening to westerners, since that would be an outright support of the Muslim Extremist rebels. However:
1) Wouldn't that be the result if the U.S. or U.N. retaliated against Assad?
2) Who's fault is this to begin with? Not iron-clad yet, but it appears that ASSAD acted badly.

MORE EDIT: The international community had better be DAMN SURE that Assad did this. You can see from the tangled web of outcomes that a chemical attack on the Syrian rebels actually benefits the REBELS' CAUSE (but obviously not the people who were killed and injured) when extrapolated to international intervention. This is a perfect scenario for such shananigans.

Manfred wrote: "What should the U.S.A. do here?" Huh? Why is this about the U.S.?

Manfred, you cant imagine how glad I am hearing it from a U.S.A. citizen.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the same line of reasoning could be applied to all other "USA interventions" on petroleum-based-economy-countries.
Oh, the greed!

Pedrinho wrote:

Manfred wrote: "What should the U.S.A. do here?" Huh? Why is this about the U.S.?

Manfred, you cant imagine how glad I am hearing it from a U.S.A. citizen.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the same line of reasoning could be applied to all other "USA interventions" on petroleum-based-economy-countries.
Oh, the greed!

True, and I'm personally mixed on whether it was direct greed or the appearance of greed. I'm not certain how the U.S. oil companies themselves fared after the Iraq War on Iraqi-based oil. But there certainly was the appearance, and where there is the appearance of impropriety, impropriety itself often is not far behind. I am led to believe that economic greed was less the motivator than world power, or rather, lack of power of targeted dictators who didn't share western principles. (If it were all economic, then we'd be drilling more within the U.S. itself. But we aren't.)

IMO, George W. Bush squandered a lot of good will post-9/11 with that invasion. Whether it had true intelligence behind it, it didn't matter in the end, because it appeared flaky. To me, retaliation for terrorism should be against terrorists and harborers of those terrorists - and you have to be careful how far you extend that definition, or you will look like a bullying goon. Syria's situation is fraught with intervention problems - such as, will evidence surface later that this was in fact a rebel-staged attack on its own people to make Assad an international target? Or even if not, will the international media turn against the intervener(s) at a later date?

Note that on these points, I often am separated from what otherwise are highly conservative beliefs. I am basically a conservative isolationist. Cut off aid to everyone, let the rest of the world disintegrate if that's their destiny, and all that. (Plus, it's arrogant to say that the world will not thrive without U.S. $$)

Manfred

Pedrinho, I am on board with Manfred especially his final edit. Further, as a citizen, I hate the image my government creates of me. Only 6 years ago, I identified mostly with the Republican party. Since then, I have witnessed the failure of the largest banks in the world when their ponzi scheme collapsed around them. Our government came to it's citizens and held them upside down by their ankles shaking every penny they could to bail out these ganstas like goldman Sachs, JP Morgan etc. It's these same gangstas along with Europen monarchy's that pull the strings of the pathetic ruling class that seems to be merging across international boundries.

There is a core of people in this country that believe in the constitution, the bill of rights and liberty. I suspect like you and your country and many others like us, we are becoming sick and tired watching these self proclaimed elite ruining our world. Unfortunately, history has a way of repeating itself.

Oh, and guess what? We no longer have any privacy...the supercomputers that we paid for are reading text like this and storing it for later use.

I better stop while I'm ahead...back to something sane like DogFight

So Manfred, are we agreed someone like Ron Paul is needed in this country? By the way, 6 yrs ago I was laughing at him.

Manfred wrote: will the international media turn against the Intervener(s) iat a later date?

Manfred

I don't know what your coverage is like over the pond but if the U.S.A do go, they will not be alone. David Cameron is a gutless b**tard and when it comes to spending money, hes cut, cut, cut, but he is looking (to me) to be wanting strikes and wanting them soon.
France is also well up for 'military intervention', I'm quite sure that us (uk) and the frogs French government are wanting to go but don't want to do it without the U.S.A's backing.

Out of curiosity, what do our other Allies think? Aussie telly anyone? (yak, Biggs)

EDIT:- just so you all know, I'm a liberal right winger seeking bombs, peace, love and war

mxmike wrote: So Manfred, are we agreed someone like Ron Paul is needed in this country? By the way, 6 yrs ago I was laughing at him.

Ron Paul's principles, but in a package that doesn't come across craggy and crazy. While I hate the politics of it, the media and voters and world will rally around a good pitchman. Ben Carson comes to mind, but you never know if he will survive. Or if he'll start pandering to where the money is and become a party man.
Manfred

Well, we didnt invade Iraq, topple Libya, and about to invade Syria to help US oil, we did it to keep the US dollar intact. The US dollar is worth as much as people think it is.

It would be much better for the economies of oil rich nations to sell oil on the Yen, or Euro. But, now, the US is the richest nation in the world because every country that wants oil has to buy US dollars first. They exchange goods of real value for worthless paper to get oil. If only one country started selling oil on another currency, it would set off a chain reaction that would rightfully destroy the US economy, specifically the banks, which everyone in the US works for. (I can explain that if you want)

2000- Iraq announces it will start selling oil on the Euro

2011- Libya announces it will start a gold based African currency to sell oil on

See the pattern?

Every country that says they will sell oil on something besides the dollar gets a can of "democracy" opened on em via the US Marines.

There is WAY to much to worry about at home too. NDAA, DHS illegal search and seizure, gun bans. At this point, there are so many protest groups that are becoming aware of what the government is doing that in a poll- 30% of people said they were willing to start a revolution, with 20% saying they were undecided. This also exclude the people like myself who are in the ideological revolution. Over 50% of the American people are atleast undecided about their tyrants in power. Ill get sources if you guys want them, but im doing all this off memory right now.

Quite frankly, if i was everyone, i would uninvest my money from everything, and buy gold with it. The dollar is about to collapse, and the economy will follow it.

Well said BigC...to further your point about gold; currently in the US, it takes 30% of all taxes collected to pay the interest on the debt. When that number reaches 50%, and it will, we enter super inflation.

I think we should....
Don't forget Iran is watching.
If we go soft on Syria, Iran will think we're going to be soft on them.
And will step up their work on nukes! Singing America the softies!

Let's do it and make a big show of it!

fox#1 wrote: I think we should....
Don't forget Iran is watching.
If we go soft on Syria, Iran will think we're going to be soft on them.
And will step up their work on nukes! Singing America the softies!

Let's do it and make a big show of it!

You are correct about Iran. That's what makes this such a catch-22. I wish the U.S. had taken more of a policy of isolationism in the past, so that inaction wouldn't be so interpretable as an act. But here we are.

Well again, I can't emphasize enough that we must know (and the world must be convinced as well) (without room to change their minds later on) who was responsible for the chemical attack, if we are to launch an intervening attack. Otherwise, this will become yet another finger-pointing oil-mongering power-grabbing military action in the history books, regardless of the actual reasons. And who will win long-term? China, for one. Iran, for another.

Which leaves me in the same place, but I sure do hear you loud and clear. I think we should hold firm, and at least start into my ideal world of Alliances Formed on Principle, making this a non-action for U.S., UK, and France. And making it an issue for Iran... aww geez, it does suck either way doesn't it?

Let's try it another way. If the greatest threat to the U.S. and western nations is China and Extremist Muslims (arguable, but let's go with that thought), then we really do need to quit intervening in the world for humanitarian reasons when it (a) costs us piles of $$, (b) costs us piles of international goodwill, and (c) allows China to edge ahead militarily while the rest of the world is asleep. We're not going to defeat jihadists nor will we ever befriend them (they just want us dead), so there is no E-Muslim play here. Maybe it is all about maximizing against China's domination. Which leaves me at -- no intervention.

My head is spinning. This is not an easy call.

Manfred

I say stay out of the situation!!! Our forefathers stated that we ahould not meddle into other country's affairs. Even though Assad is not my #1 choice for a leader, it doesnt mean they (powers that be) need to go attack them!!! Im certain it wasnt him who launched chemical weapons, but the cia, al queada backed rebels. To me its a false flag attack ao that it gives the United states a reason to attack for reasons I will not get into here. Well thats my take on the situation...

Take care!!!

With you all the way General...

I hate talking politics, do I say--gather all of our SKers....and have them camp over Syria AND Iran.....lol

Its a proxy war! You gotta nuke them from orbit....it's the only way to be sure.

Black Flag wrote: Its a proxy war! You gotta nuke them from orbit....it's the only way to be sure.

Ok ok that was almost a quote from the movie Aliens...and nuking almost never solves problems...almost.

Thank you for your contributions, all of which are welcome - even Black Flag's nuke'em proposal!
Let me try to summarise the debate:
We have isolationists, coalitionists, conspiracy theorists, go get 'em advocates and even Pedrinho's apocalyptic analysis (Ped, please report to room 101 for electro therapy as soon as we've finished with Black Flag).
Seriously, it's interesting to me how internalised a lot of the US opinions are. A lot of you are not satisfied with just being 'right'. Iraq and Afghanistan have perhaps brought into question the principle of 'ends justifying means'. It must be quite trying as a nation to be constantly criticised for doing what no other nation can do. Remember George Bush's statement after 9-11 'Either you're with us, or against us'. That level of single minded conviction is perhaps not so strong now.
I suppose you've already got my drift, which is that the US must act. But I understand that it all boils down to legitimacy (When its all over, how are we going to appear in the eyes of the rest of the world?). This is why a credible mandate is needed.  Notwithstanding the current Security Council veto dilemma, the UN was conceived to settle disputes between sovereign states. It's not good at dealing with internal issues within a sovereign state (Bosnia was a flaming disaster). 
Where am I going with this? I don't know. I have no better answer than any of the others given, but I would say that the Brits and French are ready to go - they just need Uncle Sam to unleash them.
Finally, I think it was JacobR who asked about the Australian position.... Well, Australia has a proud tradition of laying down the lives of its soldiers in other people's wars (Boer War, Dardanelles, Western Front, North Africa, Korea, Vietnam), so I'm sure we'll be there in some form or other.

Everywhere I go I meet the same people. Hard working with basically the same wishes of a peaceful world with the same basic morals we all want. Equal rights for all and a path to the future.
Then I turn on the news and wonder. Where are those people?

Ronnie, that's a good summary. I think what continues to stand out for me, regardless of position on response, is that the current situation is such a catch-22, like that move in chess where both my king and queen are suddenly simultaneously threatened by the enemy's knight. For a decent chess player, and for intelligent governments, there is no "sudden" catch-22. This situation was predictable several moves ago, and it smells very fishy that "oh no suddenly we are in a lose-lose predicament." No good chess player would ever get caught by that trick.

I'm less conspiracy oriented than Davy, but on this one, I really have to wonder whether this is set up by the ultimate winners in the scenario. China, Russia, Iran, and the Rebels. The conspiracy thinker in me is aware enough to add the Obama Administration to that list as well, because I've seen so much that may indicate an underlying agenda that has always wanted to take the U.S. off the superpower list. We really need to be 200% certain who did this, and make sure that someone is not playing us.

Beyond those cautions, I could see intervention going either way. My personal desire is no action for the reasons stated previously, but it's a close call and I don't sit here aghast at folks who want intervention. But I would be aghast and even more suspicious if the U.S./UK / France acted without full vetting and full confidence in the inspectors' conclusions. To me, that would indicate ignorance of a play, or some level of cooperation with a play... and that would cause me to lose my faith in humanity, that people would do that.

Manfred

General jackson wrote: I say stay out of the situation!!! Our forefathers stated that we ahould not meddle into other country's affairs. Even though Assad is not my #1 choice for a leader, it doesnt mean they (powers that be) need to go attack them!!! Im certain it wasnt him who launched chemical weapons, but the cia, al queada backed rebels. To me its a false flag attack ao that it gives the United states a reason to attack for reasons I will not get into here. Well thats my take on the situation...

Take care!!!

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". (Edmond Burke)

Heff006 wrote: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". (Edmond Burke)

Absolutely my mantra, Heff. But are we certain that we are not being played here?
Manfred Paranoidfred

Manfred wrote:

Heff006 wrote:

General jackson wrote: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing". (Edmond Burke)

Absolutely my mantra, Heff. But are we certain that we are not being played here?
Manfred Paranoidfred

Manny, I guess you and I are in the same boat on this...The question of whether or not respond should hinge on two requirements: 1. The evidence of the use of chemical weapons by Assad must be iron-clad. It must absolutely prove the use of the weapons, and it must absolutely link Assad to their use. Anything less and we have another Iraq on our hands. 2. Any action must not be unilateral. There must be a substantial consensus on the evidence and a multi-lateral response. If the international community can be appalled at genocide, then it must agree to participate in the response. If the administration hedges on either of these requirements, they are ultimately bound to fail. We cannot get into the business of investing American blood and treasure to simply stop people we don't happen to like...

Manfred wrote:

fox#1 wrote: I think we should....
Don't forget Iran is watching.
If we go soft on Syria, Iran will think we're going to be soft on them.
And will step up their work on nukes! Singing America the softies!

Let's do it and make a big show of it!

You are correct about Iran. That's what makes this such a catch-22. I wish the U.S. had taken more of a policy of isolationism in the past, so that inaction wouldn't be so interpretable as an act. But here we are.

Well again, I can't emphasize enough that we must know (and the world must be convinced as well) (without room to change their minds later on) who was responsible for the chemical attack, if we are to launch an intervening attack. Otherwise, this will become yet another finger-pointing oil-mongering power-grabbing military action iun the history books, regardless of the actual reasons. And who will win long-term? China, for one. Iran, for another.

Which leaves me in the same place, but I sure do hear you loud and clear. I think we should hold firm, and at least start into my ideal world of Alliances Formed on Principle, making this a non-action for U.S., UK, and France. And making it an issue for Iran... aww geez, it does suck either way doesn't it?

Let's try it another way. If the greatest threat to the U.S. and western nations is China and Extremist Muslims (arguable, but let's go with that thought), then we really do need to quit intervening in the world for humanitarian reasons when it (a) costs us piles of $$, (b) costs us piles of international goodwill, and (c) allows China to edge ahead militarily while the rest of the world is asleep. We're not going to defeat jihadists nor will we ever befriend them (they just want us dead), so there is no E-Muslim play here. Maybe it is all about maximizing against China's domination. Which leaves me at -- no intervention.

My head is spinning. This is not an easy call.

Manfred

The problem is there is little chance of getting a clear understanding of who really used the chemical weapons. Unfortunately conspiracies are real especially when it involves international relations and money. There are so many obscure and not so obscure powers at work who could have done this for myriad reasons.

Thinking that president Obama holds all of the cards in any situation is ridiculous. There are people within the US "military industrial complex" who can (and have) committed atrocities and effectively put the blame on others. Look no farther than the Iraq war or go back to the JFK assassination. It could be over money, power, oil, politics (all the same?)

The fact that Obama drew a line in the sand could have been the motivation for someone to make this happen. There really are nut cases like this out there. The best thing Obama could do is to come at it with a cool head and let a international body figure out what happened and who is to blame.

Of course it is very possible that we (USA) had nothing to do with the situation. Hopefully not. Hopefully we will not take it upon ourselves to "solve" the problems of another society again. Our track record has many bad outcomes. Even if there is a clear determination of who done it what would be the clear path with the least consequences?

If Obama had "been a strong leader" and jumped into action when this first happened this would have already been a much larger international conflict. Bravo to him for calculating instead of charging in.