US & Syria - What drives Kerry?

[Scarabin]

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.

Granted, but it's still shocking when governments conspire with each other to mislead their own citizens. This is the real treason and deserves punishment as much as anything else.

[Antrax]

I concur - but again what's surprising is that they got caught. You can see in declassified documents how 50+ years ago the government really couldn't care less, and I see no reason to expect the situation will be different in 50 years when they declassify today's secret documents. Also, Wikileaks.

[Trinidad]

If you concur that the US government is lying, then why do you believe them?

 

Rik

[Trinidad]

I just read a (Dutch) web newspaper article. It is based on information from AP (sorry, no source). It states that the US intelligence (CIA and DoD) isn't that sure about things after all. Furthermore, only a few hundred people are working on this.

 

Seems like an even better reason to let the UN do its job.

 

Rik

[Antrax]

If you concur that the US government is lying, then why do you believe them?

I haven't said I believe they're lying. I said I believe they lie.

Moreover, where have I said I believe them in this particular instance?

[Trinidad]

Let me rephrase:

 

If you concur state that other governments know that the US government is lying lies, then why do you should they believe them?

 

Rik

[Aberlour10]

Tja, its seems there are "good" chemicals weapons and "bad" chemical weapons for US administrations

 

The "good" ones have been fired by Sadam against Iran in the 80's with knowledge and full logistic support of Reagan's team. xx.ooo troops and civilians died.

 

Many lies followed it.

 

 

http://www.dailymail...ald-Reagan.html

[Antrax]

When talking about lies, citing a tabloid is somewhat ironic.

 

Trinidad, they shouldn't believe anyone - any country should have its own intelligence service report and believe that.

[Cyberyeti]

When talking about lies, citing a tabloid is somewhat ironic.

 

Trinidad, they shouldn't believe anyone - any country should have its own intelligence service report and believe that.

 

It's also particularly awkward where you have intelligence but can't publish it without compromising how you got it.

 

There is talk over here that somebody in Assad's army launched the chemical attack without authority and of UK/US intelligence having a tape of the people of a level that should have been required to authorise that sort of thing discussing what the hell to do next.

[billw55]

Seems like an even better reason to let the UN do its job.

I don't expect the UN to do much, other than pressure the USA to get involved.

[ArtK78]

Seems like an even better reason to let the UN do its job.

 

With all due respect, of all of the "stuff" in this thread, this is perhaps the most laughable.

[Trinidad]

[/size]

 

With all due respect, of all of the "stuff" in this thread, this is perhaps the most laughable.

 

The respect is mutual.

 

Rik

[kenberg]

As I understand it, the Russian position is "Gas? What gas? Nyet." I'm all for examining evidence but I seriously doubt that observers dedicated to accurate assessment rather than a political agenda will have much doubt about what happened. There are not many in the U.S. who are saying "Oh goody, another chance to go to war.". Not many in the U.K. either. There is simply no upside for us going to war on some pretext here.

 

Rather than discuss whether the evidence is sufficient to convince the unconvinceable, it seems better to discuss what to do. It's far from clear.

 

Surely the most convincing lesson from history is that it is never as easy as you think, and it never goes as you hope. We should absolutely not send in the bombers, or the missiles or whatever, unless we are prepared to deal with what happens next, whatever that might be. I don't want, six months down the road, to hear "Gee, whoever thought that this would happen?".

[onoway]

It astonishes me that apparently at least the US army now has the capacity to spy on people with cameras and tapes that are housed in something the size of a house fly and they can supposedly hit a man sized or smaller target from who knows how many hundred miles away but they can't seem to come up with an effective way to help the rebels do what the western governments at least have publicly and frequently agreed needs to be done.

 

It would be sort of the equivalent of turning a known pedophile into the general hard core prison population but when the powers that be want a (likely) result but don't want to be held responsible it's an optional and often effective technique. Only thing is, here nobody seems to be able to do anything without getting the credit (or blame) for it. No doubt the rebels would be delighted to claim credit for taking out the regime in whatever manner they can, even if it's just pushing a button when told. They could likely even be convinced it was 98% their own doing. Even if it was a thin lie it would likely be more or less happilly accepted by the rest of the world; I doubt that Russia is any more eager - or financially able- than the US or any other country to engage in a major confrontation now. Giving everyone a way to say that it was the rebels that did it with a "lucky strike" or whatever takes all of them off the hook of having to do more than bluster to save face.

 

If the US had kept out of it entirely from the beginning then that would be one thing. This half hearted involvement in something else again. It would seem to be in an impossible situation now..if they back off then they've look like they've been chased off by a vicious bully who called their bluff and if they don't they're in a possibly much worse scenario. It's time someone thought a bit creatively, beyond the direct nose to nose sort of thing they seem to be considering.

 

In the meantime apparently nothing much beyond promises is being done for the refugees either.

[Trinidad]

As I understand it, the Russian position is "Gas? What gas? Nyet." I'm all for examining evidence but I seriously doubt that observers dedicated to accurate assessment rather than a political agenda will have much doubt about what happened. There are not many in the U.S. who are saying "Oh goody, another chance to go to war.". Not many in the U.K. either. There is simply no upside for us going to war on some pretext here.

 

Rather than discuss whether the evidence is sufficient to convince the unconvinceable, it seems better to discuss what to do. It's far from clear.

 

Surely the most convincing lesson from history is that it is never as easy as you think, and it never goes as you hope. We should absolutely not send in the bombers, or the missiles or whatever, unless we are prepared to deal with what happens next, whatever that might be. I don't want, six months down the road, to hear "Gee, whoever thought that this would happen?".

Ken, I am probably missing something, but the ones that are on record for being unconvincable are the USA.

 

There were serious allegations about WMDs in Iraq. The UN went in to inspect. The USA pointed at places where there would be chemical weapons depots, based on US intelligence. The UN went to look to find fire stations, a soap factory, and other perfectly normal buildings or installations. The UN inspectors looked everywhere in Iraq and could come to only one conclusion which they made public to the whole world in no uncertain terms: "There are no WMDs in Iraq!".

 

The USA was unconvincable. They attacked and expected to find WMDs on day 1.. well err day 2... week 1... . The things simply weren't there.

 

But the fact that the USA is unconvincable doesnot mean that the whole world is unconvincable. If the US intelligence is correct, these UN inspectors will come back and tell the whole world that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people. What makes you think that the world wouldn't believe them?

 

On the other hand, suppose that the inspectors come back and say that the rebels were responsible for the attack or that there was no chemical attack but a shell hit a chemical storage or whatever other possible explanation there might be, the whole world will believe them, except for the unconvincable USA.

_______

 

Of course, the Russians have their interest in Syria. They have a navy base there and a lot of other stuff. The USA should start any diplomatic discussion with the Russians with the guarantee that they are not aiming to harm those interests. Once the Russians know that their interests are not at stake, and there is a clear conclusion from the UN that Assad used chemical weapons they just might come around. But they will view a unilateral attack from the West, solely based on US intelligence, as an attempt to increase Western influence at the expense of Russian interests... And that is a legite way to look at it.

 

Rik

[blackshoe]

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...

Or what?

[blackshoe]

From Gerson:

 

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

I would go with your third option: stay out of it. Yes, what's going on there is appalling. Yes, Assad is no friend to the US. Yes, if we stay out, whoever wins will not be our friend. Doesn't matter. Every time we stick our nose into something like this, we get it bloodied. I don't know about anybody else, but I've had enough interventionism.

[billw55]

Of course, the Russians have their interest in Syria. They have a navy base there and a lot of other stuff. The USA should start any diplomatic discussion with the Russians with the guarantee that they are not aiming to harm those interests. Once the Russians know that their interests are not at stake, and there is a clear conclusion from the UN that Assad used chemical weapons they just might come around. But they will view a unilateral attack from the West, solely based on US intelligence, as an attempt to increase Western influence at the expense of Russian interests... And that is a legite way to look at it.

Agree, Russia would see an attack that way. But I think that advance diplomacy is unlikely to change that.

 

And perhaps it is true that the USA will not be convinced that the Syrian regime did not use chemical weapons. On the other hand, Russia seems unlikely to be convinced that they did.

[kenberg]

 

 

On the other hand, suppose that the inspectors come back and say that the rebels were responsible for the attack or that there was no chemical attack but a shell hit a chemical storage or whatever other possible explanation there might be, the whole world will believe them, except for the unconvincable USA.

 

Rik

 

If this should happen, I, and I think just about everyone here, most especially our President, would be very highly gratified. Virtually no one here wants to get into this mess. It is impossible to see how intervention will be a big plus for us.

 

As I understand it, the Arab League, the British, the French, the Germans, damn near every government except the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians, have little doubt as to who was responsible., I am not talking of the famous man in the street here. I saw the other day that 29% of Republicans in Louisianan think that Obama was responsible for the botched response to Katrina in 2005. The man in the street is not really what one might call well-informed. For that matter, I do not regard myself as well-informed regarding Syria. But it appears to me that a lot of informed people who are not at all anxious to go to war are pretty sure what happened. They would be delighted to find that they are wrong, since it would then relieve them of the obligation to think about what to do in response.

 

Waiting until we are sure is a fine idea. No quarrel with that. But I don't expect problems on that front. I expect the problem will be that no response, including the response of not doing anything, will work out very well.

 

It is possible to be too eager to believe what you want to hear. It is also possible to be too eager to dis-believe what you do not want to hear. Such is life, it has always been so.

[Trinidad]

Agree, Russia would see an attack that way. But I think that advance diplomacy is unlikely to change that.

 

And perhaps it is true that the USA will not be convinced that the Syrian regime did not use chemical weapons. On the other hand, Russia seems unlikely to be convinced that they did.

I don't understand where you get that idea.

 

The Russians seem to want to wait for real evidence before they draw conclusions. I don't know, but that seems a lot smarter than the American way of jumping the gun and not apologizing when you turn out to be wrong.

 

I don't know where you get the idea that the Russians wouldn't listen to UN inspectors when they show evidence that Assad launched a chemical attack. I am not guaranteeing that they will listen (who am I? I don't look remotely like Putin.) but in recent years, they have a pretty good track record in believing UN inspectors, which cannot be said of some other countries...

 

So far, there is no solid evidence. There is "US intelligence" of which the CIA and DoD themselves say that the "evidence" is not as solid as it should be. So, let's wait for conclusive evidence, coming from the UN. In the mean time, of course, it is a good idea to be prepared for the real evidence when it comes and have many options available. But it is way too early to make a choice.

 

Rik

[billw55]

I don't understand where you get that idea.

 

The Russians seem to want to wait for real evidence before they draw conclusions. I don't know, but that seems a lot smarter than the American way of jumping the gun and not apologizing when you turn out to be wrong.

 

I don't know where you get the idea that the Russians wouldn't listen to UN inspectors when they show evidence that Assad launched a chemical attack. I am not guaranteeing that they will listen (who am I? I don't look remotely like Putin.) but in recent years, they have a pretty good track record in believing UN inspectors, which cannot be said of some other countries...

 

So far, there is no solid evidence. There is "US intelligence" of which the CIA and DoD themselves say that the "evidence" is not as solid as it should be. So, let's wait for conclusive evidence, coming from the UN. In the mean time, of course, it is a good idea to be prepared for the real evidence when it comes and have many options available. But it is way too early to make a choice.

 

Rik

Well, let's distinguish what governments really think/know from what they publicize. Regarding the Iraq issue, the USA government probably knew the evidence was weak. But they wanted to invade for other reasons, and this was the angle they used to push it to the public. And they weren't entirely alone in doing so.

 

And in the current circumstance in Syria, chances are good that many governments know quite well what happened. And it is reasonable to think that Russia, as a close ally, knows better than anyone. But Russia has interests in Syria, and so publicly the are unlikely to acknowledge guilt by the Assad regime. For that matter, the (alleged) chemical weapons must have come from somewhere. If Russia supplied the weapons, this might be reason enough to deny they were used, or ever existed.

 

Anyway, if the end point of your argument is that the USA should not unilaterally attack Syria, I certainly agree with that.

[PassedOut]

Anyway, if the end point of your argument is that the USA should not unilaterally attack Syria, I certainly agree with that.

As do I.

 

If the UN votes to take action, I expect the US to participate. If not, the US should not take military action.

[billw55]

As do I.

 

If the UN votes to take action, I expect the US to participate. If not, the US should not take military action.

Hard to believe that vote will happen with Russia and China both wielding veto power.

[PassedOut]

Hard to believe that vote will happen with Russia and China both wielding veto power.

Yes, seems unlikely. We'll see how it plays out.

[Cyberyeti]

Hard to believe that vote will happen with Russia and China both wielding veto power.

 

They do in the security council, if they wield it, expect the US to go for a general assembly motion.