Hard News: This time it's Syria
224 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 … 9 Newer→ Last
-
And is anyone taking bets on whether the US kills more civilians with its "intervention" than were killed in the gas attack?
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
I haven’t seen any evidence beyond the victims being on the rebel side.
Colin Powell has some vials of white powder he'd like to discuss with you.
-
according to this report its the rebels
http://www.aina.org/news/20130826131925.htm#.Uh07zqxCYrc.twitter
in short its a complicated relationship that bombs will not undo
-
Somewhere in the commentary about the Australian election I heard that Australia is about to join the Security Council, which probably means their rep will get their instructions from Abbott.
(Which will also mean no welcoming of refugees) -
Kumara Republic, in reply to
Like support for people to make their own decisions, support the over throw of despots etc
It’ll all be for nothing if a dick gets booted out, only for an arsehole to take his place. Especially if Egypt and Libya are anything to go by.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
according to this report its the rebels
That report's based on a Washington Times report from May -- it's both dated and from a very ropey source.
But that hasn't stopped it being taken up by the conspiracy sites. Ditto this insane Daily Mail story, which claimed proof that the US was setting up a false-flag chemical weapons attack to provide a pretext for invading Syria.
Actually, the emails were faked and the Mail paid out a tidy settlement to the people it defamed in the story. If someone directs you to this story, feel free to set them right.
-
bob daktari, in reply to
ahh cheers... feel free to delete that post so as not to add to anyones confusion
latest fisk is interesting reading
-
Phil Lyth, in reply to
Somewhere in the commentary about the Australian election I heard that Australia is about to join the Security Council, which probably means their rep will get their instructions from Abbott. (Which will also mean no welcoming of refugees)
Australia is currently a Security Council member for a two-year term. What happens on 1 September is that it becomes President of the Security Council for a month. Which would explain why Obama was recently reported as being on the phone to Rudd.
And which raises the interesting question of what would the NZ Government be doing? After all we are close to the end of a decade-long campaign for another term on the Security Council, for the Jan 2015 - Dec 2016 term.
If NZ succeeds (and the term starts after our next election), what would our Government be doing if faced with a similar crisis?
-
US imperialism’s firepower is rarely a positive response to anything. The yanks have exacerbated many of the problems that persist in the mid East with their continued backing of Israel.
Syria seems awful from this distance as did the Balkans in the 90s. Barely comprehendable from a relatively cosy kiwi perspective. But there were serious shooting wars here too in Aotearoa, and in the land of the free USA. So you have to dig deeper as to what is really going on.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Why are you so keen to believe the usual suspects’ affirmations?
Personally I find the use of chemical weapons abhorent and in this case very confusing.
Assad was probably going to "win" if the UN or US did not intervene, which they seemed disinclined to do. So he had a lot to lose by using chemical weapons. But if he didn't use them why did he prevent the UN inspectors from exonerating him? Was it a rogue element in his army?
But it makes equally little sense for the rebels to use chemical weapons on their own people. And nobody is convinced the rebels even had the capability to use chemical weapons in the first place. Of course given that there are multiple rebel factions one could suppose one faction used the weapons on another faction, but that is a a bizarre theory as well.
None of this makes much sense.
-
This Stratfor analysis says a lot of what's above and is very balanced, even if from a mainstream US perspective.
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/obamas-bluff?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130827&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=7c6317acb05946309031afd7beb835a8 -
Stephen R, in reply to
Nothing in the stratfor report is terribly surprising, but they do lay it out in depressing clarity just how bad the situation is.
-
Moz, in reply to
makes equally little sense for the rebels to use chemical weapons on their own people.
Why do people keep talking about "the" rebels, when there are multiple factions of rebels. There are enough competing factions, plus enough long-standing feuds within Syria, for one faction to decide that gassing their enemies-who-are-also-rebels is well worth the effort.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
depressing clarity
Crusader castle in Syria
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
depressing clarity
Roman ruins in Syria
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
depressing clarity
The bazaar in Damascus. Full of happy shoppers and a few tourists.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
There are enough competing factions, plus enough long-standing feuds within Syria, for one faction to decide that gassing their enemies-who-are-also-rebels is well worth the effort.
I did just say that
Of course given that there are multiple rebel factions one could suppose one faction used the weapons on another faction, but that is a a bizarre theory as well.
-
Alex Coleman, in reply to
Al Assad is a ruthless man: He would not hesitate to use chemical weapons if he had to. He is also a very rational man: He would use chemical weapons only if that were his sole option. At the moment, it is difficult to see what desperate situation would have caused him to use chemical weapons and risk the worst. His opponents are equally ruthless, and we can imagine them using chemical weapons to force the United States to intervene and depose al Assad. But their ability to access chemical weapons is unclear, and if found out, the maneuver could cost them all Western support. It is possible that lower-ranking officers in al Assad's military used chemical weapons without his knowledge and perhaps against his wishes.
Another possibility is that Assad believes (or believed) that the international community has no appetite for intervening in a way that will cost him the war. Using chems could have been about sending that signal to the rebels. 'I can do what I want, no one will win this war for you'.
But there does seem to be no way of being sure of who did it. I guess all that matters now is that Assad is being blamed for it, and the US is going to react in some way, probably soon. Because they told him not to do it, and it happened on his watch, so US credibility is on the line.
The main questions I have are based around what exactly the response is intended to achieve, how is Assad likely to react?
-
no one will expect New Zealand to do anything in the foreseeable future
Just wondering. Is New Zealand still vying for a seat on the UN Security Council in the next while? I thought that was being discussed a few months ago? In which case staying out of things might be politic.
-
Moz, in reply to
Bart:
I did just say that
(for some reason that's coming up as Alex)
Yes, but you proceeded to write it off as so obviously preposterous that it wasn't worth discussing. I don't agree. Hezbollah vs Fatah in Palestine, for example, has led to a great number of fatalities. The suggest that just over the border in Syria those two factions are happy comrades in arms seems odd. Add in the other factions and the idea that they are all focussed on evicting Assad and are waiting until after that to begin the war of succession just seems unlikely.
-
Any military action from "the West" is almost certain to kill someone in Syria which will basically add up to state-sponsored execution again, a la Osama bin Laden. The USA (and tag along UK) don't seem to think that evidence and presumption of innocence apply to anyone outside of said "West". How easy would it be to establish the details around this situation and then bring someone to trial for the deaths? Virtually impossible I would have to guess but does that make it OK to pick someone/something and blow it up so that we can show our disgust at these people being gassed?
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
The Snort Atlantic Treats Organisation
Colin Powell has some vials of white powder he’d like to discuss with you.
That'd be down to the joys of using the same toilet as George W. Bush, and other little white li(n)es
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Hegemony Funds...
Crusader castle in Syria
Roman ruins in SyriaUS ruins Syria...
-
A few military type heavy hitters going on the record in this WaPo piece about the risks of escalation:
Whether or not that's intended as a warning to the President or a signal from him, is a 'known unknown' I guess.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
write it off as so obviously preposterous
I'm sorry if you thought my intent was to write it off. Personally I think all the explanations are preposterous. Nothing makes sense. I'm not saying it isn't possible, it's as possible as all the other equally bizarre scenarios.
That I think that will be the conclusion that history make of this as well
... a senseless act precipitated ...
Post your response…
This topic is closed.