[Antrax]

Quote

Most people have learnt that the USA is a friend that cannot be trusted.

Most governments already knew it. Not because the USA is so terrible. Governments just routinely do it. The only thing special about the WMD lie was that a) it was publicized and b) it was publicly debunked.

[Trinidad]

mike777, on 2013-August-29, 01:22, said:

wow everyone debate if who is innocent....

200,000 children killed but good point ...prove it

assume proof..but so what........again so what
-------------

fwiw I have no idea what antraz point what the f?
1000,,,,20000...3000000 dye but so what?

Nobody says anybody is innocent. In fact, it looks more like everybody is guilty.

But in a civilized world, an independent entity first investigates what has happened and who is guilty. The action that the USA is considering is akin to lynching the most convenient suspect without a trial.

Yes, there are lots of casualties in Syria. That is what war does. And if you (like anybody else) are appalled by the number of casualties, you could count the number of civilian casualties in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The point of the whole thing is that we -the world- never agreed that there wouldn't be any war anymore. The large numbers of casualties (on both sides) are horrible, but that is no justification for a third party to join the war. However, we -the world- did agree not to use any chemical weapons. And despite the fact that the number of casualties from this chemical attack is much smaller than the total number of casualties in this conflict, this chemical attack is a justification for the world to interfere.

And that is what the world is doing: They have started the independent investigation. I sincerely hope that they can finish it as well as passing judgement before the lynch mob is flown in.

Rik

[Trinidad]

Antrax, on 2013-August-29, 01:53, said:

Most governments already knew it. Not because the USA is so terrible. Governments just routinely do it. The only thing special about the WMD lie was that a) it was publicized and b) it was publicly debunked.

Sure, most governments routinely lie... but not to their friends and certainly not on matters of life and death.

But if we are so sure that the US government is routinely lying, why should we be so naive and believe them? We were that once, it won't happen again (I hope).

Rik

[Scarabin]

I think that all over this world there is a gap between the executive and other branches of government. We have all seen examples of the executive branch manipulating other branches through lies and forms of coercion: party discipline or accusations of lack of patriotism/humanity.

I am reassured that our small community retains a facility for independent thought and not being swept along by a climate of "if I can portray it as sufficiently evil then it must be so".

Of course I agree that the balance of probability is that the Syrian government is guilty but there is enough evidence against this to cause us to wait for all available evidence and to weigh this carefully.

Surely I cannot be the only person to view with incredulity the Western governments destroying any claim to the world's trust. Especially when they do it so ineffectively?

[Antrax]

Trinidad, on 2013-August-29, 02:14, said:

Sure, most governments routinely lie... but not to their friends and certainly not on matters of life and death.

Um... you keep believing that. It's not some dystopian nightmare, for various practical security-related reasons governments habitually lie, spy and steal, from friends, enemies and citizens alike. It's worrying in principle, and in some countries in reality as well, but it's really not all that shocking. I can assure you the UK higher-ups weren't too surprised and/or insulted about being lied to back then, for instance.

[Scarabin]

Antrax, on 2013-August-29, 02:20, said:

Um... you keep believing that. It's not some dystopian nightmare, for various practical security-related reasons governments habitually lie, spy and steal, from friends, enemies and citizens alike. It's worrying in principle, and in some countries in reality as well, but it's really not all that shocking. I can assure you the UK higher-ups weren't too surprised and/or insulted about being lied to back then, for instance.

Granted, but it's still shocking when governments conspire with each other to mislead their own citizens. This is the real treason and deserves punishment as much as anything else.

[Antrax]

I concur - but again what's surprising is that they got caught. You can see in declassified documents how 50+ years ago the government really couldn't care less, and I see no reason to expect the situation will be different in 50 years when they declassify today's secret documents. Also, Wikileaks.

[Trinidad]

If you concur that the US government is lying, then why do you believe them?

Rik

[Trinidad]

I just read a (Dutch) web newspaper article. It is based on information from AP (sorry, no source). It states that the US intelligence (CIA and DoD) isn't that sure about things after all. Furthermore, only a few hundred people are working on this.

Seems like an even better reason to let the UN do its job.

Rik

[Antrax]

Trinidad, on 2013-August-29, 03:45, said:

If you concur that the US government is lying, then why do you believe them?

I haven't said I believe they're lying. I said I believe they lie.
Moreover, where have I said I believe them in this particular instance?

[Trinidad]

Let me rephrase:

Trinidad, on 2013-August-29, 03:45, said:

If you concur state that other governments know that the US government is lying lies, then why do you should they believe them?

Rik

[Aberlour10]

Tja, its seems there are "good" chemicals weapons and "bad" chemical weapons for US administrations

The "good" ones have been fired by Sadam against Iran in the 80's with knowledge and full logistic support of Reagan's team. xx.ooo troops and civilians died.

Many lies followed it.


http://www.dailymail...ald-Reagan.html

[Antrax]

When talking about lies, citing a tabloid is somewhat ironic.

Trinidad, they shouldn't believe anyone - any country should have its own intelligence service report and believe that.

[Cyberyeti]

Antrax, on 2013-August-29, 04:38, said:

When talking about lies, citing a tabloid is somewhat ironic.

Trinidad, they shouldn't believe anyone - any country should have its own intelligence service report and believe that.

It's also particularly awkward where you have intelligence but can't publish it without compromising how you got it.

There is talk over here that somebody in Assad's army launched the chemical attack without authority and of UK/US intelligence having a tape of the people of a level that should have been required to authorise that sort of thing discussing what the hell to do next.

[billw55]

Trinidad, on 2013-August-29, 03:53, said:

Seems like an even better reason to let the UN do its job.

I don't expect the UN to do much, other than pressure the USA to get involved.

[ArtK78]

Trinidad, on 2013-August-29, 03:53, said:

Seems like an even better reason to let the UN do its job.

With all due respect, of all of the "stuff" in this thread, this is perhaps the most laughable.

[Trinidad]

ArtK78, on 2013-August-29, 06:20, said:

[/size]

With all due respect, of all of the "stuff" in this thread, this is perhaps the most laughable.

The respect is mutual.

Rik

[kenberg]

As I understand it, the Russian position is "Gas? What gas? Nyet." I'm all for examining evidence but I seriously doubt that observers dedicated to accurate assessment rather than a political agenda will have much doubt about what happened. There are not many in the U.S. who are saying "Oh goody, another chance to go to war.". Not many in the U.K. either. There is simply no upside for us going to war on some pretext here.

Rather than discuss whether the evidence is sufficient to convince the unconvinceable, it seems better to discuss what to do. It's far from clear.

Surely the most convincing lesson from history is that it is never as easy as you think, and it never goes as you hope. We should absolutely not send in the bombers, or the missiles or whatever, unless we are prepared to deal with what happens next, whatever that might be. I don't want, six months down the road, to hear "Gee, whoever thought that this would happen?".

[onoway]

It astonishes me that apparently at least the US army now has the capacity to spy on people with cameras and tapes that are housed in something the size of a house fly and they can supposedly hit a man sized or smaller target from who knows how many hundred miles away but they can't seem to come up with an effective way to help the rebels do what the western governments at least have publicly and frequently agreed needs to be done.

It would be sort of the equivalent of turning a known pedophile into the general hard core prison population but when the powers that be want a (likely) result but don't want to be held responsible it's an optional and often effective technique. Only thing is, here nobody seems to be able to do anything without getting the credit (or blame) for it. No doubt the rebels would be delighted to claim credit for taking out the regime in whatever manner they can, even if it's just pushing a button when told. They could likely even be convinced it was 98% their own doing. Even if it was a thin lie it would likely be more or less happilly accepted by the rest of the world; I doubt that Russia is any more eager - or financially able- than the US or any other country to engage in a major confrontation now. Giving everyone a way to say that it was the rebels that did it with a "lucky strike" or whatever takes all of them off the hook of having to do more than bluster to save face.

If the US had kept out of it entirely from the beginning then that would be one thing. This half hearted involvement in something else again. It would seem to be in an impossible situation now..if they back off then they've look like they've been chased off by a vicious bully who called their bluff and if they don't they're in a possibly much worse scenario. It's time someone thought a bit creatively, beyond the direct nose to nose sort of thing they seem to be considering.

In the meantime apparently nothing much beyond promises is being done for the refugees either.

[Trinidad]

kenberg, on 2013-August-29, 06:31, said:

As I understand it, the Russian position is "Gas? What gas? Nyet." I'm all for examining evidence but I seriously doubt that observers dedicated to accurate assessment rather than a political agenda will have much doubt about what happened. There are not many in the U.S. who are saying "Oh goody, another chance to go to war.". Not many in the U.K. either. There is simply no upside for us going to war on some pretext here.

Rather than discuss whether the evidence is sufficient to convince the unconvinceable, it seems better to discuss what to do. It's far from clear.

Surely the most convincing lesson from history is that it is never as easy as you think, and it never goes as you hope. We should absolutely not send in the bombers, or the missiles or whatever, unless we are prepared to deal with what happens next, whatever that might be. I don't want, six months down the road, to hear "Gee, whoever thought that this would happen?".

Ken, I am probably missing something, but the ones that are on record for being unconvincable are the USA.

There were serious allegations about WMDs in Iraq. The UN went in to inspect. The USA pointed at places where there would be chemical weapons depots, based on US intelligence. The UN went to look to find fire stations, a soap factory, and other perfectly normal buildings or installations. The UN inspectors looked everywhere in Iraq and could come to only one conclusion which they made public to the whole world in no uncertain terms: "There are no WMDs in Iraq!".

The USA was unconvincable. They attacked and expected to find WMDs on day 1.. well err day 2... week 1... . The things simply weren't there.

But the fact that the USA is unconvincable doesnot mean that the whole world is unconvincable. If the US intelligence is correct, these UN inspectors will come back and tell the whole world that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people. What makes you think that the world wouldn't believe them?

On the other hand, suppose that the inspectors come back and say that the rebels were responsible for the attack or that there was no chemical attack but a shell hit a chemical storage or whatever other possible explanation there might be, the whole world will believe them, except for the unconvincable USA.
_______

Of course, the Russians have their interest in Syria. They have a navy base there and a lot of other stuff. The USA should start any diplomatic discussion with the Russians with the guarantee that they are not aiming to harm those interests. Once the Russians know that their interests are not at stake, and there is a clear conclusion from the UN that Assad used chemical weapons they just might come around. But they will view a unilateral attack from the West, solely based on US intelligence, as an attempt to increase Western influence at the expense of Russian interests... And that is a legite way to look at it.

Rik