Bruce Haigh sounds exactly like Barrack Obama before he became the President of the USA. Obama was all for peace. He was going to close Guantanamo Bay, and pull US troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. What happened to Obama? Perhaps when you get in the hot seat reality bites and you suddenly realise that what you were advocating was total stupidity?

My take is, that Obama wanted to show the Muslims how much the yanks loved them by attacking Syria and punishing Assad for using poison gas on civilians. But he is copping it not from the doves, but from the usual war advocating hawks who seem to have a more mature appreciation of reality.

The right wing "war mongers" do not see any reason why the USA should save people from themselves who are guilty of un American activities. Saving the Muslims in Kosovo from genocide and the Muslims in Somalia from starvation was hardly received with any gratitude from the Muslims in those two wretched countries, or anywhere else in the Caliphate. So this time, the Muslims can pisss up a rope.

The sensible thing to do would be for US ground forces to invade Syria and confiscate or destroy the vast stockpiles of chemical weapons that that idiot Assad has stored away. After all, if you saw an idiot child playing with a loaded gun you would take it off him, wouldn't you? And if the religious fruitcakes get hold of those weapons then they will use them on you know who, and they will try to use them on us, also.

But the yanks are tired of the ingratitude of the world when it comes to being the world's policeman, and (Obama excepted) the yanks think that this time all the whiners and whingers can solve the problem. This time their enemies can kill each other off for all they care. Won't the whiners and whingers be disappointed when the yanks don't intervene? Then they will attack the USA for not intervening.

Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

Well what do you know.

Here we have an ex diplomat, who is so upset with Assad & his Syria that he wants us to voice strongest condemnation against them. I wonder if that hurts.

Then even more serious, he wants to talk about it at the UN. God he is getting serious isn't he. Isn't that what happened at the UN about Kosovo? They talked about it, & talked about it, & talked about it. I think they even roused on the Czechs for being naughty. That was as effective as everything the UN has done in the last 50 years.

For god's sake Bruce, in the famous words of Yoda, "Do or Do not", & if you are not going to do, for heavens sake, stop wringing your hands & shut up, you're sounding just like that other ex diplomat, KRudd.

As LEGO says, the only intelligent thing to do about Syria is to ignore completely, & let them finish what they started. At least while they are fighting among themselves, they are less likely to fight us, & have no excuse to expect us to take in the losers as refugees.

Two quotes from this article demonstrate how the story grows, this time in eight quick paragraphs, from a still uncertain and unproven beginning into a certainty:
1)The American Administration seems determined to carry out a punitive attack against the Assad regime for the latter’s alleged use of nerve gas against Syrian civilians.
2)There is no doubt that the cruel attack on innocent civilians by the Assad regime is worthy of the strongest condemnation and sanction.
In the second statement, the 'alleged' is gone. That Assad carried out the attacks is now presented as a self-evident truth.
But if that self-evident truth is so self-evident, why not present it to the UN and world opinion?
This is looking like a re-run of Iraq and those mushroom clouds that were to appear over our cities in 15 minutes. Or was it 45? Assumptions made with nothing proven, but what the hell, let's stay on song and bomb them anyway. Who's to know, or at least until the dust settles and by then we have another case of 'facts on the ground'.
And if boots go on the ground to accompany those facts, you can bet any amount that this time the search for chemical weapons will yield positive results. That will be one lesson learned from Iraq - don't go looking for damning evidence unless you have it in your back pocket to begin with.

I think Assad is toast, much like Saddam was toast a decade ago. Pity about all the little toasties that will get toasted along with him. And after? Will Russia finally man-up and come to Iran's defence? This is looking increasingly unlikely as Putin slowly emerges as the straw man in all these confrontations. He gave a whistle-blower sanctuary but precious little else in the way of standing up to a school yard bully. Mostly bluster, that one. Maybe the now running artist who depicted him in a corset got it right.
And China? When will they show their hand? Quietly, quietly catchee monkey.
Who is it in this equation that seems so determined to leave no stable government standing from the Mediterranean to the Indus Valley?

Bruce

I disagree and agree.

1. Disagree with your argument that the US has not approached the UN Security Council. There have been 2 years of efforts by the US, UK and France to persuade Russia and China (the other 2 permanent UN Security Council (P5) members) to agree to UN peace-keeping efforts in Syria. China and Russia have exercised their vetos to bloc any UNSC action on Syria.

2. Agree that the matter can be referred to the UN General Assembly for it to vote whether armed intervention is warranted.

3. Agree that Australia has been lobbied-pressured by the US to become a bit player in a Coalition against Syria.

The most visible type of Australian military support would likely be the frigate HMAS Newcastle currently deployed just off the Middle East

HMAS Newcastle is deployed as part of "Operation SLIPPER, the Australian Defence Force contribution to the international campaign against terrorism, smuggling and piracy in the Gulf of Aden, and for enhancing regional maritime security and engagement."

http://news.navy.gov.au/en/Sep2013/Operations/363/A-view-from-the-other-side.htm#.UiaUB51-_X4

Regards

Pete

The major publicised piece of intelligence "proving" Assad launched the 21 August 2013 attack appears to be http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-05/assad-ordered-a-poison-gas-attack-says-german-intelligence/4936372

BND's "evidence" is largely circumstantial. BND records conversations about an attack but not specifically a gas attack.

The lead-in linking the attack with gas was actually written by a journalist.

The comeback from intelligence analysts would typically be "we base our estimates on a wide range of classified and overt sources".

But what if the pivotal sources are circumstantial?

Could it be that the intelligence analysts, military and political staffers are interpreting intelligence in line with Obama's need to go to war?

Pete