EJ's has chosen the flat earth approach.

Anyone can continuously claim that the earth is flat if you discredit anyone that brings you information to the contrary.

The reality is that multiple tests have shown that Sarin was used, and there is clear evidence that it was fired in rockets from government positions. It is possible that everyone is fabricating this evidence, but extremely unlikely.

Assuming that you accept the evidence of the EU and US over that of Syria, and that the massacre of hundreds of men women and children using poison gas by the Assad regime is accepted, the two options are:

a) do nothing and give carte blanche to anyone to use chemical or nuclear weapons without consequences or,

b) take limited action to ensure that future genocidal dictators understand that the costs of using horrific weapons far out weighs the benefits.

Sorry Jules, it's late in the week and I'm already into the red wine, but I can't quite follow your reasoning. As I understand you, the US are more or less the worst war criminals on the planet, and/or known to humankind, ever. Nobody has been worse than the Yanks.

Ergo, you suggest, they shouldn't intervene on anybody's behalf, in Bosnia, Rwanda, anywhere, because they are Bad.

On the other hand, [although, as an atheist, I feel funny about using this term], in order to redeem themselves, IF somebody should stand up for the Syrian people against a dictatorship AND against Islamist terrorism (a hell of a hard ask), it might as well be the Yanks.

Because sure as eggs, if nobody stands up for the innocents of Syria, then they will be gassed again. And, thanks to the pseudo-Left and the extreme right, again. And again.

But, as you imply, why should we care - Syria is a small country, a long way away, with which we have few interests.

We've got far more important issues to focus on, like gay marriage, or Myley Cyrus' @rse (well, it got my attention), or the importation of New Zealand apples.

Just suggesting :)

Joe

Hi again Jules,

I can't say it better than this:

Syria is the most brutal war of our generation, and this chemical attack on innocent civilians is the worst our world has seen in 30 years. The world has a responsibility to protect Syrians from extermination, but for two years the international community has been shamefully gridlocked and has failed the innocent victims. Now, despite overwhelming evidence that Assad’s forces launched the attack, Syria’s backers have sown doubt and, wary of war, the world is unsure about a humanitarian intervention. These talks are a new chance to stop the bloodshed.

It's always been believed that the US would never talk to Iran and that Iran would never help the US solve the Syrian crisis, but current evidence points to change and hope. President Obama may launch strikes, but he has no public support for a longer war, and he is looking for a way out of a sustained conflict. And 130 members of the US Congress are calling on President Obama to talk with Iran. A massive global public push for diplomacy right now could push Obama towards talks.

Iran's former President Ahmadinejad spent billions supplying cash and weapons to the Assad regime. But the new President Rouhani was elected on a ticket to build bridges with the West and favours a political settlement with the Syrian opposition. The chemical attack is eroding Iranian public support for Assad, rekindling painful memories of Iraq’s gas attacks on Iran, and insiders say pressure is building to reconsider Iran's support for Assad. This could be a tipping point to bring Rouhani to the table.

Talks won't stop the horror overnight, but there is no quick and easy solution. We urgently need to get started on a path that can stop the killing of innocent children and bring the world closer together rather than tear us further apart. Let’s get the US and Iran to start talks now:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/solution_for_syria_loc/?bxjGGdb&v=28884

[TBC]

[continued]

A roadmap has already been put in motion for a Syrian peace process in Geneva, but this is the first time there could be the political will to overlook all the differences and sit down. Iran is the only country in the world with sufficient influence in Syria to push the regime to the table. And the US, with its Middle East allies, can push the opposition to sit down.

It took the horror of the Second World War to get the United Nations and the Declaration of Human Rights. Maybe the horror of Syria might finally push the US and Iran, and their moderate presidents, to address longstanding differences and build the basis for a more lasting peace for Syria and the region, with consequences for a host of global issues from nuclear proliferation to peace in Israel and Palestine.

Our community has stood by the Syrian people from the very beginning. Now they need us more than ever.

Let's give it our best shot.

Avaaz

They get my vote :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Hi Loudmouth

You've presented some compelling arguments as to why strikes may be necessary. If strikes bring Assad to the negotiating table they may be justified.

However there are also risks that strikes will not bring positive outcomes.

These are some possible negative outcomes of US-French strikes:

- many Syrian civilian deaths caused by the strikes

- substantial international and home-grown terrorist reactions (see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-07/us-orders-beirut-embassy-staff-to-leave-over-security-threats/4942302 of September 7, 2013)

- Assad or Hezbollah use of artillery or missiles aimed at Israel, Turkey and Jordan, and

- Syrian use of anti-shipping missiles against tankers which would cause a large spike in world oil prices.

Regards

Pete

Hi Pete,

Unless we all walk away from worrying about regimes gassing their own people, as we did in Iraq in 1988, and focus on really important issues like gay marriage, and leave the Syrian regime to it, kicking up the number of refugees by another million or two [SHY: take note], maybe some of us remain anxious that something should be done.

It doesn't necessarily have to be done by the US, although it is revealing that even the most rabid anti-US Right- and Left-whingers assume that no other country will lead any strikes against the regime. Are they assume the natural, knee-jerk goodness of the Yanks ? I couldn't possibly comment.

But even if it comes down to NATO (i.e. the US) taking the lead, civilians don't have to be threatened: wiping out airfields, control towers, major military bases, helicopter hangars and workshops, port facilities, senior government buildings - none of this has to mean innocent civilian deaths.

Of course, this may be all academic - the world wants to sit idly by. And next time Assad uses gas against his own people ? It will sit idly by again. And again. What a gutless lot we are.

Joe