Topic: The barbarity that is Syria

[alfonso]

How can this excuse of a politician have any credibility? No surprise as they are lobbyists:

Laugh at losing thousands while pushing for bombing and killing.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/XwFWvsIx_U8&amp;feature=player_embedded" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/XwFWvsIx_U8&amp;feature=player_embedded</a>

[jerseyhoya]

McCain has been active on the Syria issue for years now. He's been to the region and met key players. He's pushed the White House to engage the rebels more strongly, and has a very settled opinion on what is required in his mind.

Plenty of senators showed up late to the hearing and/or left early, while McCain was there for the whole hearing. Many asked repetitive questions (as they weren't there to hear them asked already). Kerry gave similar answers over and over again. Almost nothing of interest occurred, and McCain's questioning was one of the two or three highlights of the afternoon. Who gives a crap if he's playing poker on his phone while someone asks Kerry for the 10th time whether he's willing to commit to no boots on the ground in Syria?

Also what the heck does "No surprise as they are lobbyists" mean?

[JohnnoWhite]

Who gives a crap if he's playing poker while sitting at a table debating the launching of missiles against Syria - in the face of Russia's warning to wait for the UN Security Council motion to take action or else any strike will be judged as aggression? I carry no flag for Putin but though it pains me to say it, by Christ he's absolutely dead right in this situation. Yet again the spectre of an impending US-launched attack threatens to de-stabilise the region and the world.

 This is no reality TV show or generation game type-challenge. This was a pre-cursor to next week's Senate vote on taking military action against Assad which just could plunge the world into WW3.

So to respond to your astonishing question  "Who gives a crap if he's playing poker?(- while sitting at a table debating the launching of missiles against Syria of course)

I FUCKING DO pal and possibly so do many millions more around the globe.

[jerseyhoya]

Putin isn't dead right. He's protecting and coddling a murderous dictator. The UN Security Council can't act because of him and his veto. You're getting mad at someone for playing poker on their freaking iPhone while siding with someone who is backing up the thug at the center of this mess.

A US attack wouldn't destabilize the region. The region is already fucking destabilized. 100,000 people have died in Syria over the past couple of years. Millions have fled as refugees. The regime, backed by Russia, has used chemical weapons against its people.

But you give a crap about John McCain playing poker on his phone at a hearing where the same argument is being made for the 17th time. I'm glad you FUCKING DO, congrats at demonstrating your fundamental lack of seriousness.

[Red_Mist]

I'm glad you FUCKING DO, congrats at demonstrating your fundamental lack of seriousness.

Alright, wind your neck in, if you think Johnno lacks seriousness on this, you've badly misjudged him.

Putin's stance is a critical part of this mess. I agree and disagree with what he says.

"Mr Putin said that he “doesn't exclude” the possibility of backing force, but at this stage does not even accept that an alleged chemical weapons attack took place" http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/syria-crisis-vladimir-putin-halts-arms-shipments-to-assad--but-insists-un-must-sanction-any-missile-strikes-8797219.html

How on earth can he not accept what was obvious from the pictures of the attack and reports from the aid agencies etc. I suppose he's waiting for the UN Inspectors report, but even so that's a ridiculous comment to make.

He also finds the idea that the Assad regime was behind the attack "ludicrous" which is also at odds with logic.

However, I agree with Johnno that he's right to say evidence has to be presented to the UN before an attack can be launched. For those of us who remember the Cold War, Russia's opposition to strikes and request for international agreement prior to action has to be taken seriously. If this is ignored, you can understand him labelling it "an act of aggression".

[Red_Mist]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ready-for-war-barack-obama-and-vladimir-putin-set-to-lock-horns-over-syria-at-g20-summit-8798423.html

“The world set a red line when governments representing 98 per cent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent.”

Obama is dead right on this key point. So he should wait until those same governments approve military action. You can't quote them, then ignore them. If he can convince them, then all very well. Until then the consequences of going it alone are too unpredictable.

[Yorkykopite]

I'm listening to Kerry blather on about how attacking Syria is in some way connected with America's security. This is sounding familiar.

That sits uneasily with me as well. He has a problem with the truth however, because the truth seems to cut no ice either with the international community nor domestic voters in the US (or UK). The truth, of course, is that the UN has a 'Responsibility to Protect'. This was formalised in 2005. But, evidently, not enough people or nations care about dead Syrians or the fact that the Assad regime has shown itself willing to drop chemical weapons on a troublesome part of its own capital city.

Putin is a major reason why the Syrian crisis wasn't solved two years ago. He has so much blood on his hands. You can take the man out of the KGB I suppose, but you can't take the KGB out of the man. He's a complete bastard and in contrast John McCain is an angel - whether he's playing online poker or not. 

[Yorkykopite]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ready-for-war-barack-obama-and-vladimir-putin-set-to-lock-horns-over-syria-at-g20-summit-8798423.html

“The world set a red line when governments representing 98 per cent of the world’s population said the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent.”

Obama is dead right on this key point. So he should wait until those same governments approve military action. You can't quote them, then ignore them. If he can convince them, then all very well. Until then the consequences of going it alone are too unpredictable.

But what if some nations - in this case Russia and China - have no intention of adhering to the UN's directives? What if their stated opposition to 'crimes against humanity' is pure rhetoric and means nothing when those crimes are actually committed? Drawing 'red lines' is not enough. It's what you do when they're violated that counts.

[Corkboy]

Alright, wind your neck in

Fair's fair, Johnno started the caps war.

McCain has been active on the Syria issue for years now. He's been to the region and met key players.

Indeed he has.

I agree with you on the poker playing, by the way, a thing of nothing. If I had to listen to Kerry talk for that long, I would be bored too.

[Red_Mist]

But what if some nations - in this case Russia and China - have no intention of adhering to the UN's directives? What if their stated opposition to 'crimes against humanity' is pure rhetoric and means nothing when those crimes are actually committed? Drawing 'red lines' is not enough. It's what you do when they're violated that counts.

I agree it's a catch 22. But going it alone is not the way to isolate them, it's playing into their hands. I still think there's a chance Obama can get some form of consensus. So much for economics at this summit...

[Yorkykopite]

I agree it's a catch 22. But going it alone is not the way to isolate them, it's playing into their hands. I still think there's a chance Obama can get some form of consensus. So much for economics at this summit...

If America does go, then it's likely it won't be alone. Turkey will surely follow. France too possibly. And maybe some other European countries. Then there's the Arab League which has been campaigning for intervention since the start.

The Russian veto shouldn't be the be-all and end-all on whether the UN activates its doctrine of 'Responsibility to Protect'. The world can't put the fate of thousands of endangered lives in the hands of an autocratic regime like Russia's or a Napoleonic leader like Putin.

[Libertine]

I'm loving Putin's sudden regard for international law. I must have missed the Security Council resolution authorising the Russians to invade and bombard the sovereign nation of Georgia.

If scum like Putin are the ones defining what's legitimate and what isn't, then the whole concept is meaningless.

[Yorkykopite]

Some new information on how and why those people died in the chemical weapons attack.

According to Assad's spokesperson (in this clip http://news.sky.com/story/1136853/syria-us-using-lies-to-justify-strikes) the rebels kidnapped hundreds of children from the Assad stronghold of Latakia, transported them 350 km through war-torn Syria, placed them in a Damascus suburb, which the rebels were holding, and then launched a chemical strike against them. That's what this Assad stooge is saying!

This is the problem when totalitarian systems lie. Their lies are transparent and implausible. But they have no way of knowing that because public opinion doesn't exist in totalitarian countries. They therefore have no idea how stupid they sound.

It's a nice clue for us though.

[Corkboy]

Senator Bernie Sanders on the proposed attack.

“Our Republican friends have made it very clear. They’re not going to ask the wealthy or large corporations to pay more in taxes. They already want to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. What may well be happening is the cost of this war may be paid for by more kids being thrown off Head Start. Senior citizens being thrown off Meals on Wheels programs. Educational programs being cut. The Republicans would go in that way to pay for this war. That’s clear to me.” source

[Corkboy]

And some "public" American views...

"The latest polls show roughly two to one against action with large chunks of don’t knows and undecideds. Unlike the Senate, which can afford to ignore public opinion, and often does, House members tend to pay very close attention to what voters are telling them. Whether Democrat or Republican, every lawmaker I have asked says that 90 to 95 per cent of the voters who have contacted them – via email, phone or direct contact – strongly oppose the Syria resolution." source

[JohnnoWhite]

Jerseyhoya posted:- Putin isn't dead right. He's protecting and coddling a murderous dictator. The UN Security Council can't act because of him and his veto. You're getting mad at someone for playing poker on their freaking iPhone while siding with someone who is backing up the thug at the center of this mess.

A US attack wouldn't destabilize the region. The region is already fucking destabilized. 100,000 people have died in Syria over the past couple of years. Millions have fled as refugees. The regime, backed by Russia, has used chemical weapons against its people.

But you give a crap about John McCain playing poker on his phone at a hearing where the same argument is being made for the 17th time. I'm glad you FUCKING DO, congrats at demonstrating your fundamental lack of seriousness.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have to "quote" in this way as I am unable to use normal quoteing - remote locations.

I am also mightily pissed off with the shenanigins going on regards Russia's alliance with Assad. And obviously I clearly know why Putin's saying what he's saying. BUT and here's the rub - on THIS occasion in a GLOBAL HEADLINER, he's as correct as anyone anywhere is likely to be in "honouring" the stated Moon commitment to await the results from the UN testing professionals who went in there last week. He's stolen the high ground to which he has little right - but the play of others in this Game of Thrones has paved the way for him.

Neither am I having a European pop at the US. My despair with the entire business stems from the innane and frankly dismissive attitude displayed by John McCain here - KNOWING that the world HAD TO BE WATCHING. Only an imbecile would have believed that the world would NOT be watching and listening to every utterance. And in the midst of this critical discussion, he chooses to play - and presumably believes it's OK to play - online POKER?? Come on buddy !! Surely you can see the global repercussions of the very public "serious consideration" given by a very senior US Senator - and to make it worse, a former Presidential candidate!!
McCain's stupidly arrogant behaviour equates to Nero fiddling while Rome allegedly burned.

What is at stake is total regional conflagration - sucking in ALL the regions fucked-up nations and societies - with 2 world superpowers about to square up over what is the correct way to deal with a middle-east tyrant.
In fact Assad potentially now becomes an irrelevance. The centre stage players are a newly-sanctimonoius Putin  (in terms of interpretation by the world's newspaper readers who is undeservedly being seen as the only current player conveniently politically and diplomatically "correct") and the apparent onward stroll by the US and France towards taking " a measured response " to the use of chemical weapons. The whole vaudeville farce starts to assume scary proportions.

Don't be telling me I have a fundamental lack of seriousness. This is about as serious as shite gets but some of your politicians think it's a simple gambling game and a version of who can piss the highest. I suggest it's some of those clowns you should be directing your anger towards. Yet again, the question of who did what to whom and the deaths of so many thousands of innocents is Sword of Damacles-like hanging on the words and actions of less than serious sentient political animals. WE ought to be afraid and be very afraid of some of the participants in our respective corners.

[Yorkykopite]

Two things Jonno. Yes, by all means wait for the UN inspectors report. But do remember that they will not deal with the real question which is one of attribution.

Second, McCain playing online poker "KNOWING that the world HAD TO BE WATCHING"? So what, he must have thought. Another bloke, not so far away, seems to have escaped any consequences for launching chemical weapons at men, women and kids. The "world was watching" that too.

Let's get some perspective.

[JohnnoWhite]

Yorky,

I have said already that WE the West have allowed Putin the killer autocrat to assume the high ground to which he no moral right.

But by ignoring due process of the UN (Yeah I know it's a shite outfit but it's the only semblance of an outfit we've got) the West are unnecessarily teetering on the edge the abyss. It's that the scares the BeJasus out of me and mine.

[Yorkykopite]

Yorky,

I have said already that WE the West have allowed Putin the killer autocrat to assume the high ground to which he no moral right.

But by ignoring due process of the UN (Yeah I know it's a shite outfit but it's the only semblance of an outfit we've got) the West are unnecessarily teetering on the edge the abyss. It's that the scares the BeJasus out of me and mine.

If by 'due process' you mean  the decision made by the UN Security Council then Russia will nearly always use its veto. That's too much power for one country - especially (forgive me my prejudices) a non-democratic one.

'Due process' is important but international law is still an aspiration not a fact. And justice (which is obviously more important than any due process because it is the ultimate thing in law) should not be hobbled by "the only semblance of an outfit we've got". This does not mean that we all have to go 'rogue'. On the contrary. In this tragic case of Syria those wanting some kind of intervention can, and should, appeal to the UN conventions outlawing chemical weapons and crimes against humanity. They should take their cue from the UN doctrine of 'RP2' and not fetishise the (ever loaded) UN Security Council - that most political of bodies.

[KUNGFUDANCER]

If by 'due process' you mean  the decision made by the UN Security Council then Russia will nearly always use its veto. That's too much power for one country - especially (forgive me my prejudices) a non-democratic one.

'Due process' is important but international law is still an aspiration not a fact. And justice (which is obviously more important than any due process because it is the ultimate thing in law) should not be hobbled by "the only semblance of an outfit we've got". This does not mean that we all have to go 'rogue'. On the contrary. In this tragic case of Syria those wanting some kind of intervention can, and should, appeal to the UN conventions outlawing chemical weapons and crimes against humanity. They should take their cue from the UN doctrine of 'RP2' and not fetishise the (ever loaded) UN Security Council - that most political of bodies.

Putin has already stated in public he won't oppose military action if US presents credible evidence of Assad using chemical weapons. So what exactly is stopping Obama from presenting evidence which he says proves beyond reasonable doubt Assad is responsible?

[KUNGFUDANCER]

I'm loving Putin's sudden regard for international law. I must have missed the Security Council resolution authorising the Russians to invade and bombard the sovereign nation of Georgia.

If scum like Putin are the ones defining what's legitimate and what isn't, then the whole concept is meaningless.

Since WW2, US and the west have been responsible for far more deaths and instability in the region then Russia could ever hope. Something like 25 countries have been bombed . So if you live in the west you have no right to moral high ground either.

[JohnnoWhite]

Kungfudancer posted :- Putin has already stated in public he won't oppose military action if US presents credible evidence of Assad using chemical weapons. So what exactly is stopping Obama from presenting evidence which he says proves beyond reasonable doubt Assad is responsible?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is exactly what I was inferring. Putin is on record as saying Russia will support action against Assad where such is proven. Take him up on his statement before deciding to go to war. Hoisted and petard springs to mind.

[Corkboy]

"The United States has no choice but to attack Syria because dictator Bashar Al Assad is killing his own people with chemical weapons. Before he was just killing them with bullets, but if America cared about shooting people, we'd be invading Chicago."

Stephen Colbert

[JohnnoWhite]

There you go . . .

[Yorkykopite]

"The United States has no choice but to attack Syria because dictator Bashar Al Assad is killing his own people with chemical weapons. Before he was just killing them with bullets, but if America cared about shooting people, we'd be invading Chicago."

But there are police in Chicago aren't there? And courts?

[HarryLabrador]

But there are police in Chicago aren't there? And courts?

That's what Trayvon Martin's parents believed. That said,  I guess Chicago is not Florida.

[JohnnoWhite]

This thread is in danger of sliding into unreasonable barely linked comparisons folks.

[Yorkykopite]

The United States government and the State of Illinois try to do something about gun crime in Chicago. Ineptly maybe. But it's better than doing nothing, pretending it's not happening and withdrawing from the scene saying 'not our problem'.

[Corkboy]

Colbert is a comedian and so we have the Chicago comparison.

Having said that, he does raise an interesting point about why a government shelling its own people, for example, does not attract international action but use of chemical weapons does. I wondered about that, too, and the best I could come up with was that chemical weapons target people only, and not buildings, infrastructure, weapons dumps and so on.

[Yorkykopite]

Colbert is a comedian and so we have the Chicago comparison.

Of course good comedians tell jokes which contain a truth not ones that instantly unravel in pursuit of a cheap laugh

Having said that, he does raise an interesting point about why a government shelling its own people, for example, does not attract international action but use of chemical weapons does. I wondered about that, too, and the best I could come up with was that chemical weapons target people only, and not buildings, infrastructure, weapons dumps and so on.

He raises it awkwardly and incidentally in order to get to his real point (about Chicago). But your question is a good one. It's perhaps not as clear cut as you're saying. The use of chemical weapons is felt to be especially abhorrent for the reason you said (and because of the ghastly nature of the deaths). But it isn't just chemical warfare that provokes 'R2P'.

Gaddafi was stopped by the international community when he started shelling his own people. Milosevic was stopped when he used militias.

[Corkboy]

Of course good comedians tell jokes which contain a truth not ones that instantly unravel in pursuit of a cheap laugh

There was also a sly dig at the gun lobby in there. If you have any doubts as to whether or not Colbert is a good comedian, and a fucking brave one at that, watch this.

[HarryLabrador]

There was also a sly dig at the gun lobby in there. If you have any doubts as to whether or not Colbert is a good comedian, and a fucking brave one at that, watch this.

Thank you. That was brilliant. It was so amusing watching most of the guests cringe.

[۩ Imperator ۩]

This thread is in danger of sliding into unreasonable barely linked comparisons folks.

It was always destined to go rogue when it was given such an irritating title, which I think many Syrians would find pretty insulting.

[RojoLeón]

Pope urges G20 leaders to seek Syria peace talks

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/05/pope-g20-syria-peace-talks

Pope Francis has urged world leaders meeting at the G20 summit in St Petersburg to overcome their differences on Syria and agree to abandon "the futile pursuit of a military solution".

In a letter addressed to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, the leader of the world's 1.2 billion Roman Catholics reiterated his strong opposition to any military intervention in the country, writing that "armed conflicts … create profound divisions and deep wounds which require many years to heal".

Pope Francis pleads for peace in Syria as prominent Catholic legislators support action

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-faith/wp/2013/09/03/pope-francis-pleads-for-peace-in-syria-while-prominent-catholic-lawmakers-support-military-action/

Reps. John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif) support for President Obama’s planned strike on Syria in response to the Assad regime’s reported use of chemical weapons puts the two political adversaries on the same side of a contentious debate “for one of the few times in recent years.”

It also seems to put them at odds with Pope Francis, the leader of the Catholic Church to which they both belong.

[JohnnoWhite]

Imperator posted:- "It was always destined to go rogue when it was given such an irritating title, which I think many Syrians would find pretty insulting."

------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't know what the title's got to do with the off-topic point at issue but to explain,  the title I gave it came about on the back of the heart-eater's barbaric behaviour. I still hold that view.

The Syrian tragedy continues to unfold as humanity's (or a perversion of it) descent into barbarity.

[Red_Mist]

The Syrian tragedy continues to unfold as humanity's (or a perversion of it) descent into barbarity.

Not sure we're descending Johnno. The human race has done a pretty strong line in barbarity throughout history. But we're not getting any better either, which is extremely sad.

I know it's supposed to be an economic summit, but what an opportunity for the G20 to get some consensus and a concrete way forward on peace talks. If they fail to do this, as looks likely, then what hope is there? Is there no one among these 20 men and women who can rise above the usual mire and pull them all together? Pride, arrogance, stupidity. Always standing in the way.

[JohnnoWhite]

Totally endorse your hope's mate. Let's not hold our collective breath though eh?

[Yorkykopite]

Not sure we're descending Johnno. The human race has done a pretty strong line in barbarity throughout history. But we're not getting any better either, which is extremely sad.

But perhaps we are getting better. The evidence is at least ambivalent. The fact that there are conventions against the use of chemical weapons (and genocide) and that we now define 'crimes against humanity' are signs of advancing civilisation not barbarity. Yes, there are still genocidal regimes and there are still governments who believe in terrorising their own people with bombs when they dissent or rebel (Assad's is the latest), but now there international mechanisms to call them to account. We may not be using them in the current debacle, but at least they are there and they can be used if there's the political will. 

And I know it's unpopular to the point this out but many governments have now developed weapons that are more accurate, and ways of fighting war that are less barbarous, than they used to be. That was always the ambition of the (non-pacifist) democratic left - in my country and elsewhere. The phrase 'collateral damage' always seems to annoy people, but it refers to something that never used to exist because weapons dropped from the air were meant to kill innocent people (to take the most obvious examples, Operation Gomorrah or the USAF strikes on Hanoi).   

The rush to barbarism exists in some places. But it's not all one way.

[JohnnoWhite]

Points taken Yorky. 
But I'm not yet remotely close to performing celebratory somersaults for the meagre reductions in our tendencies towards barbarism as a species.

[Red_Mist]

But perhaps we are getting better.

Yeah I do agree with most of that. It was with those ideas in mind that I questioned Johnno's pessimistic view of our collective descent. I should've said "we're not getting much better" instead of "any better".

I still don't see the development of more accurate weapons and less barbaric ways of fighting wars as much of a great leap forward in the civilisation stakes. It's progress, yes, but negotiation, compromise and consensus to isolate the future tyrants of the world is the next advancement and beats fighting fire with fire for me. Syria could be a blueprint for that. Instead we seem to want to go down the unilateral road.

A well-targeted airstrike might be the best deterrent, if it's carried out with international support. And I realise that's what is frustrating the likes of Obama and Cameron, that they can't get others to see that. But I hope Obama follows Cameron's lead (following the Commons vote) by accepting that there are differences and doesn't plough on regardless.

Part of the problem is the polarisation of views in the world. Those in favour of targeted airstrikes are seen as dangerous war-mongerers and those against military action are lily-livered pacifists. Both of which notions are largely cobblers.