Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[dexters]

So now you are going to personally attack me.

No But I'm pointing out that you kept it going then complained why we spent so much time on it

Spheres of influence are hardly proxy wars. Don't you think "that's a rather binary logic going on there".

That's not what I said though, I said proxy wars are an extension of spheres of influence. You still haven;t shown why the cold war's termination automatically means no/or few proxy wars.

I don't doubt there was a period in the 1990s when this was true, but with the realignment of the world order post 9/11, post Putin's autocracy and desire to reassert Russia's primacy over its traditional sphere and china's rise, the world is very different now

Of course they are. Because the Bush administration said so.

Nope. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/flynt...erett/stumbling-into-a-proxy-wa_b_654041.html

I also snipped out your attempt at a thread derail. Let's keep this discussion to proxy wars.

The "discussion" is whether or not this a "proxy war" between the US and Russia. There have indeed been many proxy wars in the not-so-distant past which I think should make it quite clear that this is not one, at least between them. If you really want to further than line of thought, you should discuss the real "proxy war" here. This is yet another conflict between the Shiites and the Sunni. Those who are Shiites are supporting Assad. Those who are Sunni are supporting the rebels and the assorted Sunni terrorists.

Why is this not a proxy war? What criterion?

I find this line of yours quite telling and hypocritical and arbitrary, which is really your only hope of claiming a proxy war doesn't exist in Syria -- that is to redefine the term

Countries like Russia and China blocking the US government from even more incessant meddling in the affairs of other countries by using the UNSC to further their own agenda is hardly "proof" that such "proxy wars" continue to occur.

basically it's only meddling if the US is doing it. And let me reiterate the one country that is incessantly meddling in Syria is Russia as Syria has been a traditional client of the USSR since the Soviet days.

 

[Rashiminos]

Legitimate government? Methinks they lost that legitimacy when they put down the last uprising in the 80's at the cost of tens of thousands of lives.

Do you deem the US to be a legitimate government?

 

[red_elk]

Though in this case, its very clearly Russia through their proxy actions created and fueled the civil war.

So, now it's Russia who created civil war in Syria. Moreso, "very clearly".
Why should it have forced their friendly government to back down in the first place?
By your logic, Britain should be blamed for starting WW2, because they didn't persuade Poland to accept German ultimatum in 1939.

I hate semantic arguments like these as it leads nowhere

Not sure if you understood me, I merely corrected your mistake that Georgian war happened at the time of Syrian protests. There is almost 3-years period between them.

And let me reiterate the one country that is incessantly meddling in Syria is Russia as Syria has been a traditional client of the USSR since the Soviet days.

Can you explain how exactly Russia is meddling in Syrian affairs?
- Trying to overthrow its government?
- Supplying weapons to Islamic fundamentalists on their territory?
- Threatening to bomb the country?

Oh wait, it is supplying defensive weapons to the country, fulfilling their pre-war contracts.

 

[dexters]

So, now it's Russia who created civil war in Syria. Moreso, "very clearly".
Why should it have forced their friendly government to back down in the first place?
By your logic, Britain should be blamed for starting WW2, because they didn't persuade Poland to accept German ultimatum in 1939.

So put differently, why should US allow 'friendly' governments it supports to be overthrown. You're ok with agressive American intervention when its puppet states are threatened? Are you sure you wont be posting up a storm about Americans sending weapons to dictators and all that when it suits you?

Can you explain how exactly Russia is meddling in Syrian affairs?
- Trying to overthrow its government?
- Supplying weapons to Islamic fundamentalists on their territory?
- Threatening to bomb the country?

Oh wait, it is supplying defensive weapons to the country, fulfilling their pre-war contracts.

US was also merely sending defensive weapons to the the mujahadeen. And I like your 'defensive weapons' bit; defense against whom? unarmed civilians?

Oh right, lets take this to its logical conclusion. If not against the civilians, those weapons were aimed at the West's proxies in the area. It is as if Russia was trying to project power through syria, treating Syria like you know, a proxy state.

If it is against Civilians, what in the world is Russia doing 'meddling' in a revolution in Syria.

 

[red_elk]

So put differently, why should US allow 'friendly' governments it supports to be overthrown. You're ok with agressive American intervention when its puppet states are threatened?

There is no US friendly government in Syria. As for aggressive intervention, I wouldn't be ok with Russian aggressive intervention in Syria either. Though I'm ok with diplomatic support to current government, humanitarian aid and supplying defensive weapons which don't violate embargo. Which basically is what Russia is doing now.

US was also merely sending defensive weapons to the the mujahadeen.

And nobody said USA is responsible for Soviet-Afghan war, or was meddling in Afghan affairs any more than USSR was.

And I like your 'defensive weapons' bit; defense against whom? unarmed civilians?

Those unarmed civilians who cut throat of Christian priests or eat liver of government soldiers.
Also S-300 could considerably beef up their air defense, but it's unclear if they were supplied.

 

[dexters]

There is no US friendly government in Syria. As for aggressive intervention, I wouldn't be ok with Russian aggressive intervention in Syria either. Though I'm ok with diplomatic support to current government, humanitarian aid and supplying defensive weapons which don't violate embargo. Which basically is what Russia is doing now.

Russia is already intervening in Syria, that's kind of the point.

And yes, there is no 'good' outcome in Syria that I can see, but that's not the point. You asked how Syria is a proxy war, then go on to make my point by showing that Russia is supplying arms against barbaric enemies that kill christians and eat liver. I mean, at this point, the entire rebel movement might be islamo-zombies!

 

[red_elk]

You asked how Syria is a proxy war, then go on to make my point by showing that Russia is supplying arms against barbaric enemies that kill christians and eat liver. I mean, at this point, the entire rebel movement might be islamo-zombies!

Russia claimed to maintain embargo on supplying attack weapons to Syria and nobody shown otherwise. I don't even know what kind of weapons exactly Russia is currently supplying (except planning delivery of air defense systems).
As for barbaric enemies, I was talking about the fact that it's not unarmed civilians who oppose the government. Which should be obvious by now.
You can watch the work of some "civilians" here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO3QgUMTm0E

 

[JoeM]

It's been a long time since I posted here, and longer since we discussed the invasion of Iraq. It's good to see that forum posters have become more adept at debate and less prone to strawmen and ad hominem attacks Though a few posts came close to Godwin, red_elk

A return to the original debate would be interesting though: does the use of chemical weapons justify military action or not? And if so, what action?

I'm interested to hear what the members think, rather than whether this could or could not be a proxy war...

Cheers.

 

[dexters]

It's been a long time since I posted here, and longer since we discussed the invasion of Iraq. It's good to see that forum posters have become more adept at debate and less prone to strawmen and ad hominem attacks Though a few posts came close to Godwin, red_elk

A return to the original debate would be interesting though: does the use of chemical weapons justify military action or not? And if so, what action?

I'm interested to hear what the members think, rather than whether this could or could not be a proxy war...

Cheers.

TBH, I does not in itself justify military action. But I think geopolitically it's now an issue of the West making a line in the sand and having to collectively live up to that threat.

This is why I pivot back to the proxy war issue, because in my view that underlines the entire military action.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I believe that there is no cause for the US to launch cruise missiles in any case.

I think Syria is fighting its own War on Terror, and if the US gave a damn about fighting terror, IT would not be supporting the "opposition."

Governments winning these types of wars, which Syria is, do not use chemical weapons in their own capital.

Isn't it strange how the US is itching to launch something? The US said it drew the line at chemical weapons, so why would the Syrian government risk it?

Sent via mobile.

 

[JoeM]

@dexters

I wouldn't pretend that there are not other factors driving a decision, but the crux is the same.

If gassing civilians does not motivate intervention;

How do we enforce the ban?
How do we punish breaches of the ban?
What, if anything, can motivate external intervention?

 

[Rashiminos]

A return to the original debate would be interesting though: does the use of chemical weapons justify military action or not? And if so, what action.

Yes. Syria is currently combating an insurrection. The insurrection's choice of weapon does not ennoble its cause.

 

[JoeM]

I believe that there is no cause for the US to launch cruise missiles in any case.

I think Syria is fighting its own War on Terror, and if the US gave a damn about fighting terror, IT would not be supporting the "opposition."

Governments winning these types of wars, which Syria is, do not use chemical weapons in their own capital.

Isn't it strange how the US is itching to launch something? The US said it drew the line at chemical weapons, so why would the Syrian government risk it?

Sent via mobile.

@ReindeerThistle

It's interesting that your answer is so specific concerning the US and cruise missiles. If it were not the US or the use of cruise missiles, would you change your stance on intervention ?

Also, I'm surprised the 'War on Terror' is a concept you'd support at home or abroad - is this not a widely ridiculed term on both sides of the political fence anymore?

Lastly, I share your cynicism - perhaps even more so - but it's my experience that it is impossible to disprove a conspiracy.

 

[JoeM]

Yes. Syria is currently combating an insurrection. The insurrection's choice of weapon does not ennoble its cause.

Note that I didn't specify whether the action should be taken against the Surian government or the rebels.

 

[Rashiminos]

Note that I didn't specify whether the action should be taken against the Surian government or the rebels.

Note that I didn't specify that the US should be taking an action.

 

[JoeM]

Note that I didn't specify that the US should be taking an action.

Perhaps then I should have been clearer:

Does the use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Syrian government and its rebels justify *external* military intervention?

 

[dexters]

@dexters

I wouldn't pretend that there are not other factors driving a decision, but the crux is the same.

If gassing civilians does not motivate intervention;

How do we enforce the ban?
How do we punish breaches of the ban?
What, if anything, can motivate external intervention?

I think it should motivate intervention, but does not justify it; why?
because we are in an imperfect international system where ultimately, when it comes down to it, might makes right.

We can engage in theory of power, morality, marxist dichotomies and rhetoric, but it comes down to a cabal of 'great powers' determining what is tolerated and what isn't; this has been true since the days of Hattusili III and its dealings with its proxies on the Turkish coast and with the Acheans, and likely predates that; but the Hittite diplomatic archive reveals an international dialogue over spheres of influence, proxy warfare , not dissimilar to what we have today.

It is ultimately in the interest of great powers to discourage use of WMD; in this case, it is complicated by the fact that a 'faction' of great powers have a vested interest in protecting a state that used it, while another does not. That is the quarrel, and the quarrel predates the use of chemical weapons as these factions (The West and its allies vs. Russia/China and their allies) have been locked in a struggle for influence over the entire region.

What punishment is justified for using chemical weapons? I honestly don't know. I don't think deposing Assad is the answer right now, as there are no suitable replacements. But it cannot go unanswered either.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

@JoeM:
They keep showing cruise missiles on the news and since Syria has air defence system (purchased ftom Russia), air strikes with planes are too risky.

I use the term "War on Terror" to show the US government hypocrisy. After alk, four of the five Cubans who were REPORTING terrorist plans to the US authority are in jail, while Jose Luis Posada, an anti-Castro Cuban who was admitted blowing up a plane and killing 76 people, walks free.

See the film Will the Real Terrorist Please Stand Up? By Saul Landau. Very revealing.


Link to video.

It is not cynicism, it's historical materialism. The US system cannot survive without wars, it seems. That's why I work so hard in the US to organize to change that fact.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Rashiminos]

Let's also remember, this was part of a wave of protests in the region, not as an armed insurrection. But people can be forgiven for forgetting because Russia has had their hands in this thing for 3 years. It's been that long.

Wait. Is it your understanding that the Syrian rebel factions are NOT armed?

Edit: Nevermind. The hostilities sponsored by the rebels and their backers are not "real" enough for you.

 

[Defiant47]

Update

U.S. President Barack Obama has officially laid the blame for a large-scale chemical weapons attack with the regime of President Bashar al-Assad in his strongest comments yet on the gas attack that killed hundreds of Syrians.

Mr. Obama says the U.S. has examined evidence and doesn’t believe the opposition fighting the Syrian government possessed chemical weapons or the means to deliver them, but Mr. Obama says he hasn’t made a decision about how the U.S. will respond.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...ows-assad-will-face-appropriate-consequences/

(Canadian article; Baird is our foreign affairs minister)

Discussion

Obama has now officially come out against the Syrian regime. No more Kerry. No more Biden. The president of the United States has officially accused the Syrian government of using chemical weapons.

Looks like we're definitely heading towards at least a no-fly zone now.

Who knows? Maybe CIA intel is more conclusive on the matter.