4 ms·

The stated goal of military action in Syria isn't regime change. It's creating a powerful disincentive against the use of chemical weapons, agents of mass murde

by natrius 13y ago

The stated goal of military action in Syria isn't regime change. It's creating a powerful disincentive against the use of chemical weapons, agents of mass murder that kill indiscriminately. I didn't completely understand the need for action, so I did some Wikipedia reading on the history of chemical weapons, and now I'm more conflicted about it. I highly suggest doing the same.

powertower 13y ago
When the government comes out and says - "The evidence and proof that Bashar was the one that ordered chemical weapons use is so obvious and unquestionable that you don't really need to see or ask for it... Because doing so would be irrational!" Start worrying. In a few weeks or months when it comes out that the chemical attack was really done by one of the 57 or so US and Al-Qaeda backed + funded insurgent groups operating in Syria, I really hope that Obama keeps his word on punishing those responsible (for crossing the red line). Though the best info I could get is saying right now that the rebel group that launched the attack didn't know what they had, and thought they were launching conventional rockets. So I'm not sure you can blame them the same way you could blame Bashar. The funny thing about all this is that if the US just came out and said we are doing this to secure the next 50-100 years of US energy needs and geo-political strategy - I'd be all for these middle-eastern wars because I understand the need for it. But I'm not sure the general public could shed its moral supremacy desires, nor understand complicated issues or how the world really turns.
- pipy 13y ago
  Or, as another poster summed up [1]: Syria sits right in between the oilfields in the Middle East and the oil consumers in Europe, so when a pipeline is built connecting the two, Syria has a vote for or against its completion. Since oil pipelines are both necessary and quite profitable, this can lead to very large disputes. Al Jazeera covered this last year here [2] where it was suggested that the West would be inclined to usurp Assad for someone more favorable to the West's long term energy interests. It seems their prediction was correct as the US (along with Britain and Turkey) is escalating relations with Syria, using chemical attacks and civil rights violations as justification. The Guardian also has a great summary of the issue here. [3] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313628 [2] http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/20128513344.. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/20128513344.... [3] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/au.. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/au....
foobarqux 13y ago
The stated motivation is not the actual motivation. Moreover there is no convincing evidence to date that the Syrian government has deployed chemical weapons. In fact there is little corroborating evidence that typical chemical weapons were used at all. On the other hand we do know that the conditions were such that the use of chemical weapons by Assad would have been completely irrational, providing little benefit while breaching well publicized conditions for the intervention of powerful adversaries in a war that he was winning. As Galloway put it: "First, that there is no compelling evidence, to use the leader of the opposition's words, that the Assad regime is responsible for this crime yet. Not that they are not bad enough to do it. Everybody knows they are bad enough to do it. The question is, are they mad enough to do it? To launch a chemical weapons attack in Damascus on the very day that a United Nations chemical weapons inspection team arrives in Damascus must be a new definition of madness. "

by natrius 13y ago

powertower 13y ago

When the government comes out and says - "The evidence and proof that Bashar was the one that ordered chemical weapons use is so obvious and unquestionable that you don't really need to see or ask for it... Because doing so would be irrational!" Start worrying. In a few weeks or months when it comes out that the chemical attack was really done by one of the 57 or so US and Al-Qaeda backed + funded insurgent groups operating in Syria, I really hope that Obama keeps his word on punishing those responsible (for crossing the red line). Though the best info I could get is saying right now that the rebel group that launched the attack didn't know what they had, and thought they were launching conventional rockets. So I'm not sure you can blame them the same way you could blame Bashar. The funny thing about all this is that if the US just came out and said we are doing this to secure the next 50-100 years of US energy needs and geo-political strategy - I'd be all for these middle-eastern wars because I understand the need for it. But I'm not sure the general public could shed its moral supremacy desires, nor understand complicated issues or how the world really turns.

pipy 13y ago
Or, as another poster summed up [1]: Syria sits right in between the oilfields in the Middle East and the oil consumers in Europe, so when a pipeline is built connecting the two, Syria has a vote for or against its completion. Since oil pipelines are both necessary and quite profitable, this can lead to very large disputes. Al Jazeera covered this last year here [2] where it was suggested that the West would be inclined to usurp Assad for someone more favorable to the West's long term energy interests. It seems their prediction was correct as the US (along with Britain and Turkey) is escalating relations with Syria, using chemical attacks and civil rights violations as justification. The Guardian also has a great summary of the issue here. [3] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313628 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6313628 [2] http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/20128513344.. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/20128513344.... [3] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/au.. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/au....

foobarqux 13y ago

The stated motivation is not the actual motivation. Moreover there is no convincing evidence to date that the Syrian government has deployed chemical weapons. In fact there is little corroborating evidence that typical chemical weapons were used at all. On the other hand we do know that the conditions were such that the use of chemical weapons by Assad would have been completely irrational, providing little benefit while breaching well publicized conditions for the intervention of powerful adversaries in a war that he was winning. As Galloway put it: "First, that there is no compelling evidence, to use the leader of the opposition's words, that the Assad regime is responsible for this crime yet. Not that they are not bad enough to do it. Everybody knows they are bad enough to do it. The question is, are they mad enough to do it? To launch a chemical weapons attack in Damascus on the very day that a United Nations chemical weapons inspection team arrives in Damascus must be a new definition of madness. "