Damascus gas attack - who did it and how will the west spin it ?

[Dave2002]

The whole operation was a blatant power grab just as the intended attack on Syria will be.

I don't think I can agree to this statement. You specifically wrote "power grab", rather than "land grab", so presumably you see such a grab as allowing those who behave that way as having a vested interest in doing something with the power that they gain, or alternatively preventing something - or maybe both. It is not by any means clear to me that in the case of Serbia/Kosovo that such vested interests by external forces were at work. What could the external forces really have wanted? Perhaps they really did want to stabilise the region, and to prevent or reduce unwanted killing, which is hardly a power grab. In the case of Syria it is again not clear that any potential forces have much to gain.

Indeed I can't think of any other recent conflicts where actions by externals have obviously given significant benefit to them. Afghanistan has hardly been an easy case, and has been like that for centuries. Perhaps intervention there really has been to prevent or reduce action by potential terrorists. This has neither wholly succeeded or wholly failed. Iraq might seem to have a more obvious motive for intervention in order to control or influence energy resources, but in fact this has not, as far as I know, happened. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been costly for external countries.

Other areas of tension include India/Pakistan, Israel/Palestine/Egypt, Iran and North Korea, with possibly the last being the most problematic. I feel that generally there is not a great appetite for intervening in any of these areas.

Of course there could be a view that there is a long term devious plot by one or more external participants - usual suspects - US, UK, France, Germany, Russia etc., but this is not at all obvious to me. Perhaps you could explain your views on this more clearly, but I can't see any obvious motives by externals which would give great benefits to them without at the same time incurring severe problems. Whole world domination perhaps, but it would be almost impossible to achieve, and why do it anyway? Of course reasons for action do not have to be sensible - and sometimes things happen which are completely misguided.

[scottycelt]

RM has really hit the nail on the head. 'Doing Nothing' is not necessarily the most humane option for the West.

I remain doubtful that any military intervention will work but if it does and the combatants are eventually dragged to the negotiating table it certainly could be justified. On the other hand it could well make things even worse. The simple truth is that nobody (including members) really knows.

Most military interventions are a huge gamble. So are 'non-interventions' simply hoping that the fighting won't spread to other countries and everyone will suddenly decide to live happily ever after. Not to mention turning a blind-eye to the horrific use of chemical weapons inflicted on innocent civilians including women and small babies.

Whatever the West does or doesn't do there will be those who claim it has blood on its hands. That is never likely to change. Let's just hope whatever decisions are made these turn out later to be the correct ones ...

[Richard Barrett]

I don't think I can agree to this statement.[...] Perhaps they really did want to stabilise the region, and to prevent or reduce unwanted killing, which is hardly a power grab.

Presumably though you would agree that the stated aim of the bombing of Serbia had as much reality as the WMDs in Iraq... and now the Kosovo operation is being investigated by the US administration as a "legal" precedent for going into Syria without UN backing. Time and again people seem to swallow the idea that the way to stop violence is to send in soldiers or bombers and kill more people.

[ahinton]

Presumably though you would agree that the stated aim of the bombing of Serbia had as much reality as the WMDs in Iraq... and now the Kosovo operation is being investigated by the US administration as a "legal" precedent for going into Syria without UN backing. Time and again people seem to swallow the idea that the way to stop violence is to send in soldiers or bombers and kill more people.

That second sentence is so very true - but why? In addition to the humanitarian consideration, what on earth is it that encourages (or permits) so many people to assume that ratcheting up violence as a means whereby to curtail it is other than the sheer illogicality that it so obviously is?

[Resurrection Man]

Presumably though you would agree that the stated aim of the bombing of Serbia had as much reality as the WMDs in Iraq... and now the Kosovo operation is being investigated by the US administration as a "legal" precedent for going into Syria without UN backing. Time and again people seem to swallow the idea that the way to stop violence is to send in soldiers or bombers and kill more people.

So your solution would be what?

[Resurrection Man]

That second sentence is so very true - but why? In addition to the humanitarian consideration, what on earth is it that encourages (or permits) so many people to assume that ratcheting up violence as a means whereby to curtail it is other than the sheer illogicality that it so obviously is?

Oh how easy it is to adopt that stance from the cosy comfort of our armchair, while sipping a latte and browsing the Guardian. Laudable aims, I agree, but when talking fails or the parties concerned won't even get around the negotiating table? What then? Do we just sit idly by going 'tut..tut..what to do?' while innocent children continue to get gassed, bombed and maimed?

[Richard Barrett]

Do we just sit idly by going 'tut..tut..what to do?' while innocent children continue to get gassed, bombed and maimed?

Why does that apply to Syria but not for example to occupied Palestine or numerous other parts of the world where such brutality goes on with the full support of the governments that are so keen on attacking Syria, on the pretext that the Syrian government might be using the "wrong kind" of weapons (whereas presumably white phosphorus, and depleted uranium, and drone assassinations of entire families are somehow the "right kind")?

[ahinton]

Oh how easy it is to adopt that stance from the cosy comfort of our armchair, while sipping a latte and browsing the Guardian. Laudable aims, I agree, but when talking fails or the parties concerned won't even get around the negotiating table? What then? Do we just sit idly by going 'tut..tut..what to do?' while innocent children continue to get gassed, bombed and maimed?

But whose armchair, whose latte and whose copy of the Guardian? Not mine, for starters! Nor are those who agree with Richard Barrett about the sheer pointlessness of inevitably imflammatory efforts to curb violence by means of more of the same merely "tut-tutting" or sitting "idly by"; however, when one considers the number of countries where inhumanity on a medium to large scale is almost endemic alongside the ongoing problems in those tinderbox areas in the Middle East (Tunisia, Libya, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, not just Syria and Egypt), the prospect that "we" should expect or be expected to go wading into all of them to try to stop such widespread activities is so unrealisable in practice that it borders on the absurd.

[eighthobstruction]

Oh how easy it is to adopt that stance from the cosy comfort of our armchair, while sipping a latte and browsing the Guardian. Laudable aims, I agree, but when talking fails or the parties concerned won't even get around the negotiating table? What then? Do we just sit idly by going 'tut..tut..what to do?' while innocent children continue to get gassed, bombed and maimed?

....Ah yes that one ....that many times used message board cliche....a message delivered while doing most of those things (not the Guardian obviously) with regularity as we all do....'What then' ??....Which 'we' do you write about.....well I think 'you' will not be doing anything other than writing on this message board and nor will 'I'....perhaps pausing to write an email to MP's....perhaps asking for a 'no fly zone' or something like that....Probably 'we' will be waiting for the next news report, and getting the coffee pot on (Assam tea in my case)....

[Richard Barrett]

Well, the Stop the War Coalition has organised a demonstration in London against military intervention in Syria this Saturday; I guess it wouldn't be appropriate to post a link here but it wouldn't be hard to find.

Having temporarily abandoned my threadbare old Guardian-reading chair for the pipe-smoke-marinated chesterfield of the Telegraph, I see that a reader's poll there currently shows 12% supporting an attack on Syria, 11% only with UN backing and 77% saying "no, what comes after Assad could be even worse". Are the politicians going to listen to the people who (sort-of) elected them? or to the US military-industrial complex? I wonder.

[eighthobstruction]

Do Betfair and Bet365 have odds on this sort of thing....

[Resurrection Man]

....Ah yes that one ....that many times used message board cliche....a message delivered while doing most of those things (not the Guardian obviously) with regularity as we all do....'What then' ??....Which 'we' do you write about.....well I think 'you' will not be doing anything other than writing on this message board and nor will 'I'....perhaps pausing to write an email to MP's....perhaps asking for a 'no fly zone' or something like that....Probably 'we' will be waiting for the next news report, and getting the coffee pot on (Assam tea in my case)....

Your point being what exactly ? Or maybe you prefer to stick your head in the sand?

[Resurrection Man]

Do Betfair and Bet365 have odds on this sort of thing....

Your continued sniggering snide comments do not present you in a very good light. If the topic of Syria is too difficult for you to understand or to contribute positively then perhaps you should go elsewhere?

[Resurrection Man]

Why does that apply to Syria but not for example to occupied Palestine or numerous other parts of the world where such brutality goes on with the full support of the governments that are so keen on attacking Syria, on the pretext that the Syrian government might be using the "wrong kind" of weapons (whereas presumably white phosphorus, and depleted uranium, and drone assassinations of entire families are somehow the "right kind")?

Rather than introduce yet another red herring, perhaps you could respond as I asked in earlier posts the following...

One could be pragmatic and say that they want to try and stop more bloodshed. It is a hard call. It was so much 'simpler' when the Kosovo/Balkans happened. The UN got involved and quite rightly so and I don't think that anyone was mentioning hidden agendas. The trouble is that as soon as the Middle East is the 'battleground' then hidden agendas such as allegedly wanting to destabilise Iran/war on terror/etc/etc start getting discussed.
So are people saying that the UN should simply stand aside and let events take their course in Syria? More bloodshed, more chemical weapon strikes ?
Is the view that if the UN was unanimous (ie Russia and China both supported intervention such as the imposition of a no-fly zone) then that would be OK? But if the UK, US and others go it alone in declaring a no-fly zone then suddenly it is not.

and

So we should stand by and do nothing in Syria then? Is that your view

and

So your solution would be what?




I'd be delighted to hear what you would recommend.

[Serial_Apologist]

Your continued sniggering snide comments do not present you in a very good light. If the topic of Syria is too difficult for you to understand or to contribute positively then perhaps you should go elsewhere?

Eighth is just commenting that before firing off ad hominem attacks (such as the above) none of us is holier than thou.