Syria: What should the US do/not do?

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yes. You. Did.

Think hard. It was a country starting with the letter "A"...

Hmmm... Akrotiri, Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Anguilla, Antarctica, Argentina, Armenia, Aruba, Australia, Austria (as technically they issued war on the US after they were overthrown by Nazi Germany),... ? Help me out. You can't mean Afghanistan because of: The Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), Pub. L. 107-40, codified at 115 Stat. 224 and passed as S.J.Res. 23 by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, which authorizes the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001.

force eleven

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

It is most important that al Qaeda never get control of Syria. The problem is, suppose the FSA won: al Qaeda would keep the war going much like in Iraq.

Kerry hasn't ruled out troops going in at some point. Obama bleating on about no boots on the ground,but you can be sure that scenario is being talked about behind closed doors. Be interesting to see US troops fighting alongside Al-Nusra militia.... its all a big con anyway.

BuilderPlumber

force eleven wrote: »

Kerry hasn't ruled out troops going in at some point. Obama bleating on about no boots on the ground,but you can be sure that scenario is being talked about behind closed doors. Be interesting to see US troops fighting alongside Al-Nusra militia.... its all a big con anyway.

It is strange. Ever since 9/11, the US has been getting involved in wars against perceived enemies and threatening other perceived enemies. However, Iraq, Syria, Iran and North Korea had nothing got to do with 9/11. Yet we see the US licking up to al Qaeda and those who were involved in 9/11 as if a deal is made: 'you help us overthrow the governments of the Middle East and you will have no more 9/11s'. I guess North Korea is threatened for PR reasons (but no one is serious about going to war with them): just to show those who think otherwise this is not a war against Islam or Middle Eastern oil producers!

clairefontaine

Why don't they just goin and assassinate Assad and get this whole thing over with, because that's where this is going.

Amerika

clairefontaine wrote: »

Why don't they just goin and assassinate Assad and get this whole thing over with, because that's where this is going.

It could still be the goal (wink wink), but they can’t state it as such as the term "regime change" is taboo in democratic circles.

clairefontaine

Does anyone know if this has credibility?

http://www.examiner.com/article/syrian-rebels-admit-to-being-behind-chemical-weapons-attack

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

UN doesn't approve this.

Russia can veto any UN resolution and has done so fragrantly. To be honest the Russian populace is a lot less informed/critical and Russian press is heavily controlled.

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

Does anyone know if this has credibility?

http://www.examiner.com/article/syrian-rebels-admit-to-being-behind-chemical-weapons-attack

Here's the original story
http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

Make up your own mind, but these private internet "news" sites are dodgy as hell.

SuperInfinity

clairefontaine wrote: »

Why don't they just goin and assassinate Assad and get this whole thing over with, because that's where this is going.

That's one of the stupidest posts I've ever read about world politics.

Amerika

SuperInfinity wrote: »

That's one of the stupidest posts I've ever read about world politics.

Why? It's not like courtries (including the US) have never tried to eliminate heads of state of sworn enemies before. Elminating Assad with short term surgical strikes would be the fastest and most economic way to effect change in the country.

SuperInfinity

Amerika wrote: »

Why? It's not like courtries (including the US) have never tried to eliminate heads of state of sworn enemies before. Elminating Assad with short term surgical strikes would be the fastest and most economic way to effect change in the country.

You'll have to excuse me, I am really at a loss of words.

Attacking a sovereign nation where it's not even certain the leader is the one causing all the harm, and handing the power over to some extremist militia guys, is hardly something you want to rush in on doing. They need to at least try to sort out what is going on there, the longer they wait the more things will become apparent.

"short term surgical strikes" are not how it works. If they do decide to go to war, they would obviously do that if they could. They can't just decide they're going to assassinate him and do "short term surgical strikes", if it were that easy then there would be no talk of a long term war.

I think they'd already have thought of that idea if it were that easy...

Be like Nutella

' It is nice to be able to sit in moral judgment of men like Assad, but sadly not have the power to do anything. Where life gets hard is when sitting in moral judgment forces you to do something because you can. It teaches you to be careful in judging, as the world will both demand that you do something and condemn you for doing it. '

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/obamas-tightrope-walk?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130903&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=ba70136a292a452e92aeb17985118641

Amerika

SuperInfinity wrote: »

You'll have to excuse me, I am really at a loss of words.

Attacking a sovereign nation where it's not even certain the leader is the one causing all the harm, and handing the power over to some extremist militia guys, is hardly something you want to rush in on doing. They need to at least try to sort out what is going on there, the longer they wait the more things will become apparent.

"short term surgical strikes" are not how it works. If they do decide to go to war, they would obviously do that if they could. They can't just decide they're going to assassinate him and do "short term surgical strikes", if it were that easy then there would be no talk of a long term war.

I think they'd already have thought of that idea if it were that easy...

Attacking a country is a declaration of war and not entered into lightly by anyone. War sure as hell isn’t some bloddy game of tiddlywinks. It doesn’t look like the US is rushing into anything now that it will be debated in congress. Short term surgical air strikes is what President Obama said he would do. With no boots on the ground how can one capture and turn over a leader? If Assad is killed by accident as a result oh well, but the president said he wouldn’t be interested in regime change. I wouldn’t leave it off the table though, as even I don’t think Obama is stupid enough to give our entire strategy away to our enemies. But we would have to be in a state of war to do it. And where is it written two countries at war cannot target each other’s leaders. Soldiers and unfortunately innocents will surely to pay the price of any military involvement. And Assad is placing potential military targets in civilian areas… where is that outrage?

Mr.Micro

Looks to me like America decides for us all? The UN is dead. In future can big nations get the sanction of their parliaments or assemblies and go to war, knowing full well that UN approval would never come. Use the UN when it agrees with you and go it on your own when it does not? What next? There is no longer a need for the UN.


No ground troops but just blanket bombs to kill thousands of innocents? I am not defending the Assad shower but it will be the innocent again who suffer and die.

Jonny7

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Looks to me like America decides for us all? The UN is dead. In future can big nations get the sanction of their parliaments or assemblies and go to war, knowing full well that UN approval would never come. Use the UN when it agrees with you and go it on your own when it does not? What next? There is no longer a need for the UN.

UN resolutions are regularly voted on, and a UN resolution was used to intervene in Libya.

No ground troops but just blanket bombs to kill thousands of innocents? I am not defending the Assad shower but it will be the innocent again who suffer and die.

There's no such plan.

Mr.Micro

Jonny7 wrote: »

UN resolutions are regularly voted on, and a UN resolution was used to intervene in Libya.



There's no such plan.

Yes I know but when the UN is not accommodating then its go it alone.

The plan is strategic bombing..... Whatever that means..... Still destructive and Assad will not be worried about his people...or use them as a shield.

clairefontaine

Be like Nutella wrote: »

' It is nice to be able to sit in moral judgment of men like Assad, but sadly not have the power to do anything. Where life gets hard is when sitting in moral judgment forces you to do something because you can. It teaches you to be careful in judging, as the world will both demand that you do something and condemn you for doing it. '

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/obamas-tightrope-walk?utm_source=freelist-f&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20130903&utm_term=Gweekly&utm_content=readmore&elq=ba70136a292a452e92aeb17985118641

This is real politic couched in a lot of moralising. The facts are if we were not at war and brought home all our troops god knows what the real unemployment rate would be.

Sorry but its hard to take telling the US to intervene when one does not want to compromise ones own country's neutrality.

I'm hearing a lot of silence is consent rhetoric from the pro side of going into Syria.

I'm also hearing other Arab countries are willing to pay us to do this. Haven't heard whether we've accepted the offers or not.

clairefontaine

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Yes I know but when the UN is not accommodating then its go it alone.

The plan is strategic bombing..... Whatever that means..... Still destructive and Assad will not be worried about his people...or use them as a shield.

Has anyone got a convincing argument for why the UN still exists? What's its point?

BuilderPlumber

US intervention into Syria is crazy overall. Whatever one thinks of Assad, the dangers US intervention will definitely cause Syria and potentially cause the rest of the region and the world are too grave to contemplate.

For definite, it will set off an escalation of the war with or without Assad. 2 or 3 sets of organisational entities against each other. Another Iraq. Genocide, terrorism, instability, etc. will prevail.

It will definitely be more propaganda for yet another Western intervention into a Muslim country by Middle Eastern hardliners. It could ruin or at least delay detente and negotiations between the new moderate Iranian government and the West (hardliners in Iran can use it to influence their cause: lest we not forget that the last moderate government of Iran was sunk by hardliners who used Bush's carry on as propaganda). Likewise, hardliners in Israel will no doubt use it as an excuse to continue to occupy territories esp. Golan Heights! Hezbollah and Hamas will take advantage of anything they can. Iraq could descend into chaos and other until now stable nations like Jordan could also be engulfed.

How could the US control any of this stuff? On top of this, Egypt also smoulders and Libya is not too great either at present. Syria could also inspire rebel movements elsewhere to follow suit and this need not be confined to the Middle East (the so-called Arab Spring was attempted in parts of China we must remember too not to mention of course Iran, Bahrain and Iraq). A revolution in Saudi Arabia (admittedly, a regime that is probably the most repressive in the region and the biggest sponsor of terrorism) would not be good news for the West if it ever were to happen.

But Syria could throw open all these possibilities with rebel movements saying: 'if they can do it and get US support, so can we' elsewhere and governments saying: 'we will clamp down on even the most benign of protests'. Paranoia and repression would become a way of life.

Amerika

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Looks to me like America decides for us all? The UN is dead. In future can big nations get the sanction of their parliaments or assemblies and go to war, knowing full well that UN approval would never come. Use the UN when it agrees with you and go it on your own when it does not? What next? There is no longer a need for the UN.

The UN should disband except for humanitarian efforts where they are most effective and actually do something constructive.

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

Has anyone got a convincing argument for why the UN still exists? What's its point?

Well apart from the..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolutions_2001_to_2100

16 current peacekeeping missions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_Nations_peacekeeping_missions

The IAEA, WHO, UNICEF, World Food Programme, IMF, the UNHCR, UNESCO

what did the UN ever do? exactly, no point whatsoever

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

Here's the original story
http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

Make up your own mind, but these private internet "news" sites are dodgy as hell.

I agree that some of these news sites are not always the most reliable, but neither are the mainstream sites for that matter e.g. churnalism. The real question though is that if such claims are being made by people on the ground in Syria, why is it that the mainstream media are not reporting this. It may be that it is a nothing story, with no credibility, but in the whole debate of action against Syria, these people and what they are saying, is something that must be in the mainstream news if we are to fairly assess the situation.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

I agree that some of these news sites are not always the most reliable, but neither are the mainstream sites for that matter e.g. churnalism. The real question though is that if such claims are being made by people on the ground in Syria, why is it that the mainstream media are not reporting this. It may be that it is a nothing story, with no credibility, but in the whole debate of action against Syria, these people and what they are saying, is something that must be in the mainstream news if we are to fairly assess the situation.

From experience I'd much rather read the story from a variety of outlets that have credibility, accountibility, journalistic integrity, are subject to controls on impartiality, watchdogs like Ofcom, press standards - have a history of backing up their stories. For instance, yesterday evening, on the nightly news, I watched interviews with people from Damascus who were arming themselves and speaking in support of Assad, interviews with those who were offering themselves as human shields and as usual heard from Syrian state media and the main spokesman.

Some of these self-professed internet news sites (and I'm not saying all of them) have a tendency not to fact-check stories and often to allow only those which support a particular agenda get onto their front pages. When I see every story is about GMOs/US/Israel I generally avoid.

No outlet is immune to making mistakes, leaning left (Guardian) or right (Telegraph), and the freedom of the internet has drawbacks as well as advantages for free press.

There's all too often a tendency to be drawn to selecting only information that conforms with beliefs rather than the more difficult task of getting the truth.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

From experience I'd much rather read the story from a variety of outlets that have credibility, accountibility, journalistic integrity, are subject to controls on impartiality, watchdogs like Ofcom, press standards - have a history of backing up their stories. For instance, yesterday evening, on the nightly news, I watched interviews with people from Damascus who were arming themselves and speaking in support of Assad, interviews with those who were offering themselves as human shields and as usual heard from Syrian state media and the main spokesman.

Some of these self-professed internet news sites (and I'm not saying all of them) have a tendency not to fact-check stories and often to allow only those which support a particular agenda get onto their front pages. When I see every story is about GMOs/US/Israel I generally avoid.

No outlet is immune to making mistakes, leaning left (Guardian) or right (Telegraph), and the freedom of the internet has drawbacks as well as advantages for free press.

There's all too often a tendency to be drawn to selecting only information that conforms with beliefs rather than the more difficult task of getting the truth.

While I agree with you in general, Im afraid that modern mainstream journalism is not what it seems. Most stories are not independently sourced, or checked or verified, but simply repeated and usually all from the same outlet. There are numerous books on this, by respected journalists who are deeply concerned at the state of modern journalism. The majority of stories that are repeated on mainstream media have not had any of the details checked as being true i.e. churnalism. Modern day mainstream journalism is in a seriously precarious state and this is indisputable. A study at Cardiff University by Professor Justin Lewis and a team of researchers found that 80% of the stories in Britain's quality press were not original and that only 12% of stories were generated by reporters. In this type of system, there is not a lot of room left for credibility, accountability, journalistic integrity, and impartiality.

Im getting off track here though, my point is that there are Syrians on the ground who claim that the chemical attack was accidently caused by the rebels and their voice is not being heard in the mainstream media. Im not suggesting it is due to some media control or anything, it is simply that there are not enough investigative reporters there trying to establish if this is true, and all we have to rely on is some small scale website publishing this story.

Instead, what we are being left with in relation to Syria is not so much journalistic reporting as it is public relations. We get an update on the news and it is usually after some statement from the white house , or the kremlin, and always from the public relations department of each respective institute. This is the line being drawn on Syria. For the majority, gone are the days of true, impartial, objective and investigative journalism.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

While I agree with you in general, Im afraid that modern mainstream journalism is not what it seems. Most stories are not independently sourced, or checked or verified, but simply repeated and usually all from the same outlet. There are numerous books on this, by respected journalists who are deeply concerned at the state of modern journalism. The majority of stories that are repeated on mainstream media have not had any of the details checked as being true i.e. churnalism. Modern day mainstream journalism is in a seriously precarious state and this is indisputable. A study at Cardiff University by Professor Justin Lewis and a team of researchers found that 80% of the stories in Britain's quality press were not original and that only 12% of stories were generated by reporters. In this type of system, there is not a lot of room left for credibility, accountability, journalistic integrity, and impartiality.

This is how journalism works.

If the Guardian and Washington Post release information on the NSA based on an informant, then other papers will run with that story, referring to those outlets. Original content? no. Reporting the news? yes.

If a story can't be fully corroberated then usually the wording reflects that.

Likewise if a plane crashes in the jungles of Brazil, I am pretty sure that the Observer in the UK may not get a reporter right to the scene.

Every once in awhile a false or misleading story makes it into the headlines (a classic example of this was the false early capture of Saif in Tripoli), then again that is the nature of fluid breaking news - there will always be issues.

I would argue we are recieving more accurate information than before, and also more disinformation - due to technology, freedom, easy of production and so on.

Instead, what we are being left with in relation to Syria is not so much journalistic reporting as it is public relations. We get an update on the news and it is usually after some statement from the white house , or the kremlin, and always from the public relations department of each respective institute.

I'm not defending every outlet, some of which do a terrible job (Daily Mail I'm looking at you) but during the Libyan conflict we saw every Gadaffi speech and his spokesman spent more time on our screens than lady gaga. It was

The UK government can't sneeze or MP's can't buy a duckhouse on public money without it being uncovered. Internal memos from the White House are leaked all the time, they can't even keep their national secrets.. secret. Netanyatu can't conduct a raid into the occupied territories without press and reporters going directly to the scene, interviewing victims, filming those in hospitals, speaking to the Palestinians directly.

I see no "agenda" in operation, only the standard spin. The press are like the markets, they can be influenced, but not controlled.

I mean it would be astonishing find long established Spanish, German, Italian and Finnish papers and competing domestic papers all working together to suppress the truth or paint a certain picture, you know, the ones which ran scathing editorials on the Iraq war or on yet another Berlesconi scandal or ran uncovered countless examples of ministerial or corporate corruption around the world.

Likewise it would be equally astonishing to find them all incompetant enough to suddenly avoid asking questions on Syria or misreporting the entire situation down there for the last two and a half years. Over 150 journalists have been killed down there.. for what.. to produce a false picture? no.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

This is how journalism works.

This is not how journalism works, this is how modern day journalism works. There is a general consensus that modern day journalism is in a very very bad situation, and this opinion comes from modern day journalists, who deeply care for and worry about the state of their profession. I implore you to read any such book that investigates this, and your belief of accurate, informative and impartial news will be shattered.

Those 150 or so reporters killed, the majority were most definitely not from western media outlets.

Again my original point is that, for some reason, mainstream media is not reporting the story that was linked to earlier, whereas it should be reported.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

This is not how journalism works, this is how modern day journalism works. There is a general consensus that modern day journalism is in a very very bad situation, and this opinion comes from modern day journalists, who deeply care for and worry about the state of their profession. I implore you to read any such book that investigates this, and your belief of accurate, informative and impartial news will be shattered.

Those 150 or so reporters killed, the majority were most definitely not from western media outlets.

but what difference would that make if modern journalism is somehow flawed?

Again my original point is that, for some reason, mainstream media is not reporting the story that was linked to earlier, whereas it should be reported.

Why should they pay this any more heed than my story that I could put up tonight on my own personal news website?

I've personally come across many more misleading or outright false stories on these internet news sites than from any standard credible press outlets.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

but what difference would that make if modern journalism is somehow flawed?

You brought up this figure, not I. If western media want to truly investigate what is going on in Syria, then get some people on the ground there doing proper investigative work. I think the BBC have one correspondent in Syria. Instead, they are all fed the same news, from the same sources, without ever questioning its credibility and you say journalism nowadays is more credible. Dont ask me though, just ask the professionals who work in this industry and it is known that media nowadays is for the majority churnalism, which by its very nature, lacks impartiality, credibility, fact checking, clarity.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Why should they pay this any more heed than my story that I could put up tonight on my own personal news website?

I've personally come across many more misleading or outright false stories on these internet news sites than from any standard credible press outlets.

The story quoted people on the ground in Syria who were drectly involved in the incident, so maybe their opinion or insight should at least be respected. I am not saying some blog with some guys biased opinion should be taken as gospel, but this was a written piece that as usual gets brushed aside as its not from a mainstream outlet, which is shocking and ignorant.

Jonny7

esteve wrote: »

You brought up this figure, not I. If western media want to truly investigate what is going on in Syria, then get some people on the ground there doing proper investigative work.

It's one of the most dangerous places on earth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/10/world/middleeast/journalists-in-syria-face-dangers-of-war-and-rising-risk-of-abduction.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/aug/16/journalist-safety-syria

Foreign journalists have had difficulty operating in Syria because of the extreme violence, threats from the regime, jihadists and kidnappers and also because much of the foreign press was barred (were refused visas to enter the country) in order to report

To give you some perspective, approx 63 journalists died during 10 years in Vietnam.

I think the BBC have one correspondent in Syria.

The Panorama team were there recently
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

Lina Sinab, 18 year ME vet Jeremey Bowden, Ian Pannell, and several more over the years

Here's the editorial and impartiality guidelines, good luck reading that
http://www.bbc.co.uk/editorialguidelines/guidelines/

Instead, they are all fed the same news, from the same sources, without ever questioning its credibility and you say journalism nowadays is more credible.

This is simply not true there are many freelance journalist as well as reporters from many different networks

Here is an AMA with Robert King who is a true veteran in the field
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/141ze4/im_robert_king_veteran_conflict_photojournalist/

Tracey Shelton from the global post
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1bqlcz/i_am_tracey_shelton_an_awardwinning_multimedia/

Olly Lambert
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1bzppj/i_just_spent_five_weeks_on_both_sides_of_the/

Al Jazeera correspondent
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1bnm9h/i_am_zeina_khodr_an_al_jazeera_english/

Dont ask me though, just ask the professionals who work in this industry and it is known that media nowadays is for the majority churnalism, which by its very nature, lacks impartiality, credibility, fact checking, clarity.

I've read biographies from a number of respected journalists over the years - they often lament the "crazy days" and the modern reporters who hang around on the roofs of hotels. Many of them are still reporting. There is criticism but nothing like the image you are creating.

esteve

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's one of the most dangerous places on earth.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/10/world/middleeast/journalists-in-syria-face-dangers-of-war-and-rising-risk-of-abduction.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I can completely respect this fact, but how then can we watch western news and gobble down everything that is said to us as being the truth. That literally makes no sense as you said it yourself, its too dangerous to send people there, then how can we report objectvely on it.

Jonny7 wrote: »

This is simply not true there are many freelance journalist as well as reporters from many different networks

This is simply and depressingly very true. There are less reporters than there ever were. More and more inforamtion is coming from less sources, with journalists having no time to actually fact check what stories they recieve. This is a fact, we can ignore it as much as we like but it is a fact of modern day journalism.

Jonny7 wrote: »

I've read biographies from a number of respected journalists over the years - they often lament the "crazy days" and the modern reporters who hang around on the roofs of hotels. Many of them are still reporting. There is criticism but nothing like the image you are creating.

Im not talking about biographies, im talking about journalists critically analysing their profession due to a severe moral dilema that they have due to the fact they have to work under this new system. These people know better than any of us how their profession works, and how it has changed, and the general consesus, from what i would consider true journalists, is incredibly alarming and cannot be ignored.