US & Syria - What drives Kerry?

[Scarabin]

I am genuinely puzzled by Secretary of state, Kerry's recent speech: He seems to say he has no direct evidence against the Syrian government and does not expect the UN investigation to provide any evidence but judges them guilty and proposes to punish them nevertheless.

 

With a fine disregard for history he seeks to cloak this with a high moral tone. Is this really what America has sunk to?

[mike777]

I am genuinely puzzled by Secretary of state, Kerry's recent speech: He seems to say he has no direct evidence against the Syrian government and does not expect the UN investigation to provide any evidence but judges them guilty and proposes to punish them nevertheless.

 

With a fine disregard for history he seeks to cloak this with a high moral tone. Is this really what America has sunk to?

 

 

Assuming what you say is 100% true, I would say 99.99% of americans do not know these facts.

 

 

I understand you may find this shocking but the vast majority think the govt is guilty and deserves to be punished by someone ..somehow.

 

 

If your facts are correct and the govt is not guilty and does not deserve punishment, well now you see how misinformed we are.

[Scarabin]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I do not have any special information and am just quoting Kerry's speech. My reference to history concerns the only hard evidence, (a) from Russian analysis of type of chemicals used on a previous occasion, suggested the rebels as the culprits, and (b)the Iraq WMD debacle (as a reason for caution).

 

My real concern is that a US rush to judgment will result in appalling suffering for relatively innocent people. The Europeans are equally guilty in this respect but I do not find them quite so eager to expend money on expensive missiles.

[Cyberyeti]

Sorry for the misunderstanding, I do not have any special information and am just quoting Kerry's speech. My reference to history concerns the only hard evidence, (a) from Russian analysis of type of chemicals used on a previous occasion, suggested the rebels as the culprits, and (b)the Iraq WMD debacle (as a reason for caution).

 

My real concern is that a US rush to judgment will result in appalling suffering for relatively innocent people. The Europeans are equally guilty in this respect but I do not find them quite so eager to expend money on expensive missiles.

 

The Russian analysis is unsurprising as they're Assad's biggest supporters. I suspect Kerry simply doesn't believe it.

[Aberlour10]

What drives Washington?

 

Assad must go.

 

Why?

 

Because he is the last allie Iran's in the region. To isolate Iran is the name of the this game.

 

If Assad would be the same despote as he is, but enemy of Teherans regime and vassal Washingtons like f. ex. the despote in Jordania, the things would be different.

 

In the eyes of Washington he would be "In the war on terror" against FSA , Al-Nusra-Brigades (Al Qaida) and other islamists and become any support of the USA in this "war", you bet.!

[mike777]

My real concern is that a US rush to judgment will result in appalling suffering for relatively innocent people. The Europeans are equally guilty in this respect but I do not find them quite so eager to expend money on expensive missile

 

 

ok you don't want the US to rush to what judgment? How long should they take? I assume it has been years and years so far...but that may be too rushed.

 

 

btw how many years have you been in judgment? I hope many years so far.....but I don't want to rush you..take your time

[mike777]

What drives Washington?

 

Assad must go.

 

 

 

 

let us all be clear...THIS DOES NOT DRIVE WASHINGTON IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD.

 

As for the rest of America we are not sure who the heck assad is or where he lives on a map. he does sound like a bad guy...check....

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

 

Al-Nusra-Brigades

 

ok I will bet a million bucks America has no idea what the hell that is....

 

but it must be bad......

[kenberg]

I strongly suspect that I am one of many Americans thinking "Good God, do I really have to learn enough about Syria so that I have an informed and credible opin ion?" At first galnce, and at second and third glance as well, it appears that our choices are:

1. Help the Syrian government kill Syrian rebels.

2. Help the Syrian rebels overthrow the Syrian government.

3. Sit back and let them kill each other.

Is there a fourth choice?

 

My expectation is that no matter who finally prevails, it won't be good.

 

A more informed opinion, with largely the same conclusion, came from Michael Gerson in the morning Washington Post:

 

http://www.washingto...94a1_story.html

 

I realize Gerson is a conservative and a religious one at that, but I generally find him an interesting person to read.

 

 

From Gerson:

U.S. policy is making difficult adjustments as well. Since the worst elements in Syria have grown stronger over time, delay has complicated every course. At first, the Obama administration hoped that Bashar al-Assad would fall without being pushed. Then it adopted a policy of wait-and-see as the tide of battle turned in Assad's favor, with help from Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Then a policy of arming selected rebels that doesn't seem to have armed any rebels.

 

President Obama may finally be provoked beyond endurance by another Baathist regime prone to brutish miscalculation. But a cruise-missile campaign to protest and deter the use of chemical weapons would do little to change the situation on the ground. And Obama would need to decide if this is his goal.

 

So we should do what? Beats me.It's a tough world out there.

[billw55]

It is a difficult situation. We do not want a surrogate war with Russia. Nor do we want checmical weapons used in the world. In the end there will be harm no matter what option we choose. I think we should stay out.

[PassedOut]

U.S. intelligence has established timeline of Syrian chemical attack, officials say

 

The Obama administration believes that U.S. intelligence has established how Syrian government forces stored, assembled and launched the chemical weapons allegedly used in last week’s attack outside Damascus, according to U.S. officials.

 

The administration is planning to release evidence, possibly as soon as Thursday, that it will say proves that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad bears responsibility for what U.S. officials have called an “undeniable” chemical attack that killed hundreds on the outskirts of the Syrian capital.

This "evidence" better be convincing.

 

I well remember the "evidence" that Colin Powell presented to the UN about Iraq's so-called "weapons of mass destruction" before the US invasion. It is safe to say that everyone with an IQ over 80 realized that no evidence at all had been presented to justify the attack. This better not be more of the same...

[Trinidad]

I think that the term "U.S. intelligence" has changed meaning since Iraq.

 

Back then, the UN was right and the USA wrong leaving egg on the faces of their allies who trusted them.

 

In my mind it is entirely correct to come up with a punishment for whoever uses nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. But let's rely on evidence rather than on "U.S. intelligence". I can't believe that the British and the French leaders are gullible enough to believe "U.S. intelligence" again, when there is a UN team on site investigating the matter.

 

Rik

[kenberg]

In the WMD case, no WMDs had been dropped. In the current situation, gas has been used. Or at least it is my understanding that there is little or no question that gas has been used. Who used it? Well, there are, I suppose, still people who would claim it is unknown who flew places into the Twin Towers. But at some point evidence becomes clear enough so that we can regard it as established fact.

 

What should we do? And to what purpose? We are speaking of a region where events often make pessimists later look like naive optimists. This is most definitely not a time to do something to show that we have done something. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, many said that nothing could be done. The first George Bush, the one who did not have his head up his rear end, disagreed, said what could be done, and accomplished it. Even then, the long term results were not so good. So we really need some solid thinking here. Early ion the Viet Nam days, with LBJ picking the targets, bombing this but not bombing that, some military type opined that it's really not a good idea to bomb someone just enough to make them mad. Sounds like good advice to me.

 

There are times that the U.S.A., or any country, must act unilaterally and there are times when it should not. This seems like the latter to me. Syria is hell on earth producing far more refugees than can be handled, causing misery and death in and outside its borders. But it is always possible to make a bad situation worse. If a reasonable portion of the rational part of the world is up for doing what must be done, and if there is a plausible plan, well then maybe. But let's hold off on the Lone Ranger approach here.

[Cyberyeti]

Has anybody seen any convincing suggestion of where the rebels might have got chemical weapons from, other than capturing some from the regime ?

[PassedOut]

I think that the term "U.S. intelligence" has changed meaning since Iraq.

 

Back then, the UN was right and the USA wrong leaving egg on the faces of their allies who trusted them.

 

In my mind it is entirely correct to come up with a punishment for whoever uses nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. But let's rely on evidence rather than on "U.S. intelligence". I can't believe that the British and the French leaders are gullible enough to believe "U.S. intelligence" again, when there is a UN team on site investigating the matter.

 

Rik

At the time, neither the French nor the Russians believed the "US intelligence" and the British knew that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

 

I have no problem with the US working with the UN to punish those who've actually used banned weapons. Let's just be sure that the right people are punished.

[hrothgar]

Good article

 

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/08/28/obama-ought-to-listen-to-himself/

[onoway]

For sure it is a very difficult situation. However, there's certainly no question at all that the regime in Syria has been directly responsible for the brutal assassination of citizens, including children, on an ongoing basis.It looks to me as though all the dithering has just made things worse, actually.

 

It's like a parent saying don't do that...no I mean don't DO that.... I am warning you, don't do that again... If you do that again I am going to have to do something you will regret...why do you keep doing that, do you want me to have to punish you? ... oh please don't do that...etc I don't know how you get out of that without causing feelings of shock and betrayal because you stopped dithering and actually followed through. Not the sort of parenting which is recommended. Not that I think the US should be a "parent" to the world, but since that's the role it has chosen to adopt for decades now, what can you expect?

 

Aside from that, governments (including ours) which value human life and suffering well below that of business concerns when it comes to intervening in situations elsewhere should not be expected to change those values when dealing with their own citizens. just sayin'

[Antrax]

I can't believe that the British and the French leaders are gullible enough to believe "U.S. intelligence" again, when there is a UN team on site investigating the matter.

Here's the thing: in the intelligence world, you often know more than you can admit to knowing - if you tell everything you know, it allows the bad guys to figure out what your source is and eliminate it. So, what looks like gullibility is sometimes reaction to evidence which can't be exposed publicly. Yes it's problematic and a slippery slope and has been abused and all that - but that's just how these things work.

[mike777]

wow everyone debate if who is innocent....

 

200,000 children killed but good point ...prove it

 

assume proof..but so what........again so what

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

 

fwiw I have no idea what antraz point what the f?

1000,,,,20000...3000000 dye but so what?

[mike777]

wow everyone debate if who is innocent....

 

200,000 children killed but good point ...prove it

 

assume proof..but so what........again so what

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

 

fwiw I have no idea what antraz point what the f?

1000,,,,20000...3000000 kill but so what? if your child die .so what...

[Trinidad]

I can't believe that the British and the French leaders are gullible enough to believe "U.S. intelligence" again, when there is a UN team on site investigating the matter.

Here's the thing: in the intelligence world, you often know more than you can admit to knowing - if you tell everything you know, it allows the bad guys to figure out what your source is and eliminate it. So, what looks like gullibility is sometimes reaction to evidence which can't be exposed publicly. Yes it's problematic and a slippery slope and has been abused and all that - but that's just how these things work.

Sure, I understand all that. The point is that the previous time "US intelligence" was not intelligence at all. It simply was a set of lies fabricated to manipulate America's friends (friends!, not enemies) into a war.

 

Most people have learnt that the USA is a friend that cannot be trusted. Therefore, they insist that there will be independent evidence which is gathered right now.

 

Of course, I think it is likely that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against their people. But that is no justification for military action. We have all agreed that this falls under the jurisdiction of the UN. They investigate, they provide the evidence and conclusions and they decide what will happen, not the USA.

 

Or do you really want to repeat the disaster that happened the last time (part of) the world believed "US intelligence"?

 

Rik

[Antrax]

Most people have learnt that the USA is a friend that cannot be trusted.

Most governments already knew it. Not because the USA is so terrible. Governments just routinely do it. The only thing special about the WMD lie was that a) it was publicized and b) it was publicly debunked.

[Trinidad]

wow everyone debate if who is innocent....

 

200,000 children killed but good point ...prove it

 

assume proof..but so what........again so what

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

 

fwiw I have no idea what antraz point what the f?

1000,,,,20000...3000000 dye but so what?

Nobody says anybody is innocent. In fact, it looks more like everybody is guilty.

 

But in a civilized world, an independent entity first investigates what has happened and who is guilty. The action that the USA is considering is akin to lynching the most convenient suspect without a trial.

 

Yes, there are lots of casualties in Syria. That is what war does. And if you (like anybody else) are appalled by the number of casualties, you could count the number of civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

The point of the whole thing is that we -the world- never agreed that there wouldn't be any war anymore. The large numbers of casualties (on both sides) are horrible, but that is no justification for a third party to join the war. However, we -the world- did agree not to use any chemical weapons. And despite the fact that the number of casualties from this chemical attack is much smaller than the total number of casualties in this conflict, this chemical attack is a justification for the world to interfere.

 

And that is what the world is doing: They have started the independent investigation. I sincerely hope that they can finish it as well as passing judgement before the lynch mob is flown in.

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

Most governments already knew it. Not because the USA is so terrible. Governments just routinely do it. The only thing special about the WMD lie was that a) it was publicized and b) it was publicly debunked.

Sure, most governments routinely lie... but not to their friends and certainly not on matters of life and death.

 

But if we are so sure that the US government is routinely lying, why should we be so naive and believe them? We were that once, it won't happen again (I hope).

 

Rik

[Scarabin]

I think that all over this world there is a gap between the executive and other branches of government. We have all seen examples of the executive branch manipulating other branches through lies and forms of coercion: party discipline or accusations of lack of patriotism/humanity.

 

I am reassured that our small community retains a facility for independent thought and not being swept along by a climate of "if I can portray it as sufficiently evil then it must be so".

 

Of course I agree that the balance of probability is that the Syrian government is guilty but there is enough evidence against this to cause us to wait for all available evidence and to weigh this carefully.

 

Surely I cannot be the only person to view with incredulity the Western governments destroying any claim to the world's trust. Especially when they do it so ineffectively?

[Antrax]

Sure, most governments routinely lie... but not to their friends and certainly not on matters of life and death.

Um... you keep believing that. It's not some dystopian nightmare, for various practical security-related reasons governments habitually lie, spy and steal, from friends, enemies and citizens alike. It's worrying in principle, and in some countries in reality as well, but it's really not all that shocking. I can assure you the UK higher-ups weren't too surprised and/or insulted about being lied to back then, for instance.