”Will this video evidence be used for British intervention in Syria?”

As Britain doesn’t want to get involved, probably not.
Iran is Syria’s neighbour and they will cause grievous harm to any westerners who try to influence the outcome of this civil war by intervening.

The question’s not Will but Should.

Given that Britain has already made a mess of Iraq and Afghanistan isn’t it about time someone else took a bit of responsibility? We have neither the right nor the duty to police the entire world.

The UK has carried out some acts which other countries quite rightly could view as requiring intervention.

What’s the difference between a country deciding to intervene in the UK’s internal issues when we lock up Irish people with just a facade of justice and our intervention in Syria’s internal civil war because they use chemical weapons. Is it just the scale of the abuse of human rights? Locking up without trial as opposed to poisoning?

Either we allow all countries to get involved in all other countries internal affairs or we say that there is a boundary, a border over which we stop.

Ok, so we’ve crossed that boundary with Iraq and Libya but a lot of people think that we shouldn’t. Why did we in these cases, but not in the case of North Korea were more human rights abuses are carried out than pretty much anywhere else? I doubt it was because us western countries cared so much about the arabs, more like oil was a major factor.

The question is also whether we could if we wanted to. The government has effectively closed down our armed forces. We now have a basic national defence force, nothing more.

By the invasion of Poland in September 1939, Nazi Germany crossed a Red Line, drawn by Britain and France. At the end of the ensuing conflict in August 1945, 55 million people had been killed. The Red Line had been intended to prevent such an invasion but Hitler, a reckless meglomaniac with absolute power, wasn’t deterred. We may have “won” that war and Hitler did commit suicide in late April 1945 but humanity paid a terrible price.

Just one of many challenging issues besides checking on whether chemical weapons were used in Syria and by which side in the civil war, is that many parties have interests in extending the conflict for their own reasons, which may have little to do with just deposing the Assad regime.

Well, one of the biggest problems preventing possible western intervention in Syria is that not one major military force has shown the slightest inclination to intervene in Syria.

Ignore all the blahblah about the evil Russians and Chinese; put aside all the stick-waving about red lines and military aid and this aggression will not stand, man, and what are you left with?

A bunch of governments that plainly have no intention of sending any kind of serious military force to Syria.

It may seem an obvious point, but it’s one that often passes folk by whenever some new awful atrocity occurs.

A bunch of governments that plainly have no intention of sending any kind of serious military force to Syria.

Do you support military intervention? Because it seems like if we stay out of it some people around here will complain about the UK letting abuses continue but if we intervene those same people will complain about British imperialism.

In the news from Reuters on Friday night:

“Evidence” of Syria chemical weapons use not up to UN standard

(Reuters) – Assertions of chemical weapon use in Syria by Western and Israeli officials citing photos, sporadic shelling and traces of toxins do not meet the standard of proof needed for a U.N. team of experts waiting to gather their own field evidence.

Weapons inspectors will only determine whether banned chemical agents were used in the two-year-old conflict if they are able to access sites and take soil, blood, urine or tissue samples and examine them in certified laboratories, according to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which works with the United Nations on inspections.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/26/uk-syria-crisis-chemical-weapons-idUKBRE93P11B20130426

I guess Israeli settlers will have to put off planning to build settlements on the Golan Heights for a while longer.

1. damon

Iran is Syria’s neighbour and they will cause grievous harm to any westerners who try to influence the outcome of this civil war by intervening.

Iran is in the neighbourhood but it is not a neighbour. And it is not causing harm to the Gulf States that are giving weapons to the Islamists so I am not sure they can do much to anyone else.

3. SadButMadLad

The UK has carried out some acts which other countries quite rightly could view as requiring intervention.

Ahh, the cry of the terminally morally corrupt.

What’s the difference between a country deciding to intervene in the UK’s internal issues when we lock up Irish people with just a facade of justice and our intervention in Syria’s internal civil war because they use chemical weapons. Is it just the scale of the abuse of human rights? Locking up without trial as opposed to poisoning?

Are you really this stupid or you are just trolling? First of all, Britain has not locked up any Irish people without a trial lately. If they did, it would be par for the course as far as Syria is concerned. There is an enormous difference – one did not exist outside your head, the other involves innocent people dying. Deal with your problems by seeking medical help, not by posting on the internet.

I doubt it was because us western countries cared so much about the arabs, more like oil was a major factor.

That and the fact that the North Koreans have nuclear weapons.

6. flyingrodent

Well, one of the biggest problems preventing possible western intervention in Syria is that not one major military force has shown the slightest inclination to intervene in Syria.

Another triumph of the Left – they have made sure that no one will intervene anywhere for another decade or so. Whether this is a good thing or not remains to be seen.

@damon #1:

Iran is Syria’s neighbour

Have you been talking to Mittens? There’s a country you may have heard of, called Iraq, between the two…

Do you support military intervention?

No.

Because it seems like if we stay out of it some people around here will complain about the UK letting abuses continue but if we intervene those same people will complain about British imperialism.

“Some people around here” need to grow the fuck up and realise that we can’t bomb the whole world into a shape we like more, while others need to realise that not everything is about us.

@11 fr

Don’t you think there’s an element of moral imperative that, if you have the power, you should help someone in distress?

Of course, we haven’t the military power any more though some people might want to ignore the fact. We could still offer humanitarian aid, help refugees and try to work with all parties to end the conflict.

Even the Americans can see that a military solution right next to Iran may be one adventure too far.

Robin Levett

There’s a country you may have heard of …

Oh dear – and I thought I was quite good at geography.
Indeed there is Iraq between them, I temporarily forgot.

So Much for Subtlety, I think that any western troops on the ground in Syria would be attacked quite ferociously by Iran and Iranian backed militias. The same as they did in Iraq … and where they ultimately humiliated the British forces.

As for any other western help to undermine the Assad government, it’s either not enough to make much difference or too dangerous to do it. It’s all just talk at the moment. If Islamists come out on top in Syria, as well as major ethnic cleansing, Israel could become embroiled in future conflict with Syria too.

Cherub: Don’t you think there’s an element of moral imperative that, if you have the power, you should help someone in distress?

If there are two thing in this world I’d like to put an ocean of separation between, its phrases like “moral imperative” and “war”.

SMFS: Another triumph of the Left – they have made sure that no one will intervene anywhere for another decade or so. Whether this is a good thing or not remains to be seen.

It never ceases to amaze me, this kind of whiny, woe-is-us twaddle. The idea that “the left… have made sure that no one will intervene anywhere” is absolutely hilarious on its face and requires no refutation, since it’s plainly the belief of an abject simpleton.

[12] atrocities in countries without meaningful rule of law, or strong institutions tend to ebb and flow like the housing market – at its most simplistic level this reflects our failure as a species to recognise and prevent the drift toward episodes of incredible barbarity either on the national or international stage.

Commentators like Hitchens believed there WAS a moral imperative to intervene in some circumstances otherwise characters like Saddam would have remained free to have his evil way in Iraq while provoking further bloodshed in Iran, Kuwait, and amongst the Kurds. Needless to say he was vilified by some for arriving at such conclusions.

I anticipate further hand wringing and lamenting when nuclear tensions in the middle east become rather tasty – unless N Korea pip them to it – we will be equally ineffective when this entirely predictable situation arises.

Needless to say he was vilified by some for arriving at such conclusions.

Largely because he openly endorsed major wars then spent the best part of a decade trying to squirm away from their consequences, by shamelessly insulting the intelligence of his readers.

I anticipate further hand wringing and lamenting when nuclear tensions in the middle east become rather tasty

If there’s one issue on this Earth that merits lots of hand-wringing and lamenting, it’s the existence and potential use of nuclear weapons.

And if there’s one idea that’s been utterly discredited and pished on in this last decade, it’s the idea that war and belligerence represent some kind of manly and decisive nobility, while scepticism about war is some womanly feebleness.

It really is absurd that it’s necessary to point that out at 2013.

[16] ‘Largely because he openly endorsed major wars then spent the best part of a decade trying to squirm away from their consequences, by shamelessly insulting the intelligence of his readers’ – examples please, just one will do.

‘And if there’s one idea that’s been utterly discredited and pished on in this last decade, it’s the idea that war and belligerence represent some kind of manly and decisive nobility, while scepticism about war is some womanly feebleness’ – this is positively hallucinogenic.

The question being posed is what to do when psychopathic leaders use their own countrymen for bullet practice – that’s got nothing to do with gender characteristics it’s simply poses a rhetorical question – do we let them get on with, or try and prevent it?

If you want we can use the dilemma as a dry run to think about what might, or might not happen once the slide toward nuclear conflict gets under way.

The question being posed is what to do when psychopathic leaders use their own countrymen for bullet practice – that’s got nothing to do with gender characteristics it’s simply poses a rhetorical question – do we let them get on with, or try and prevent it?

I hate to break this to you, but Syria is not “psychopathic using their own countrymen for bullet practice”. It’s a full-on bloodcurdling civil war and whichever side loses is going to lose big, in population terms.

And let’s also note how quickly the question always shifts from “what shall we do about this horrible war in particular” to “Let’s talk about horrible wars in general and highly hypothetical terms”. It’s almost as if there’s some kind of compulsory sleight of hand going on, every single time the issue arises.

[18] ‘I hate to break this to you, but Syria is not “psychopathic using their own countrymen for bullet practice”. It’s a full-on bloodcurdling civil war’ – have you ever heard of amnesty – have you heard what they say about Assad?

Apparently ‘Syria is a one-party state without free elections. The authorities harass and imprison human rights activists and other critics of the government. Freedom of expression, association, and assembly are strictly controlled. Women and ethnic minorities face discrimination’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Syria

So after years of abuse it was perhaps not surprising that enough Syrians felt sufficiently disappointed with their torturing, murderous leader to try and do something about it.
Of course non-intervention in any circumstances is a position some might argue for, but ultimately such a position can only be maintained by living in a hermeneutically sealed world.

11. flyingrodent

“Some people around here” need to grow the fuck up and realise that we can’t bomb the whole world into a shape we like more, while others need to realise that not everything is about us.

I don’t see why we can’t bomb the whole world into shape as it happens. Or at least large parts of it. But that misses the point. I may not be able to save every cancer patient in the world, but that is not a reason not to treat the one before me this morning. In the same way, we may not be able to save every fly-blown sh!thole in the world, but can we do something in Syria? As it happens I think not. But if we can then we probably should.

13. damon

I think that any western troops on the ground in Syria would be attacked quite ferociously by Iran and Iranian backed militias. The same as they did in Iraq … and where they ultimately humiliated the British forces.

Humiliated them not because they defeated the British Army in a military sense but because we lost the will to do anything but stand around and act as targets. Thanks to the general treason of the Left, British soldiers knew they would not have support to do what they wanted and probably could have done.

If Islamists come out on top in Syria, as well as major ethnic cleansing, Israel could become embroiled in future conflict with Syria too.

Well a war with Israel would not keep me up at night, but the ethnic cleansing would.

14. flyingrodent

If there are two thing in this world I’d like to put an ocean of separation between, its phrases like “moral imperative” and “war”.

Good for you. But it is meaningless. The world is as it is. Whether you like it or not. Which means that one of the main ways we have to deal with evil on the state level is war. We cannot escape that by pretending otherwise.

It never ceases to amaze me, this kind of whiny, woe-is-us twaddle. The idea that “the left… have made sure that no one will intervene anywhere” is absolutely hilarious on its face and requires no refutation, since it’s plainly the belief of an abject simpleton.

Always glad to amuse. However my point is not, I notice, rebutted. Or even addressed. You’re loud, you’re self righteous, you’re often rude. But that does not make you right.

16. flyingrodent

If there’s one issue on this Earth that merits lots of hand-wringing and lamenting, it’s the existence and potential use of nuclear weapons.

I fail to see why. Nuclear weapons have been in existence for a while and since 194 have killed precisely no one. They may have a lot of potential uses, but so far they have had no actual uses except deterrence. It is even quite hard to think of a useful use. In the meantime while you’re breast beating over an issue you clearly know is an irrelevance, real people are dying in respectable numbers and you are insisting that we should do nothing. I am sure nuclear weapons serve as a useful stalking horse for your purposes.

And if there’s one idea that’s been utterly discredited and pished on in this last decade, it’s the idea that war and belligerence represent some kind of manly and decisive nobility, while scepticism about war is some womanly feebleness.

I disagree. It depends on the skepticism. But given what you are displaying is not skepticism but an outright refusal it is irrelevant. It is not wrong to do as Chuck Hagel did and question the logic of the Iraq War. It is wrong to do as the Stop the War Coalition did and oppose any War that might further democracy and the interests, however tenuous, of the West. You are not questioning the logic of the war but opposing it roots and all.

It really is absurd that it’s necessary to point that out at 2013.

Given it is not true you will have to go on pointing it out for some time to come.

18. flyingrodent

I hate to break this to you, but Syria is not “psychopathic using their own countrymen for bullet practice”. It’s a full-on bloodcurdling civil war and whichever side loses is going to lose big, in population terms.

I agree about the first statement, but of course Syria has been that for the past thirty or forty years. Only now are some people shooting back. Part of the reason for a Western intervention is precisely to prevent that massacre when one side or another wins.

A lack of investment in the military, due to not being worried about the Cold War anymore, plus right wing aversion to ‘public spending’ (which is what a national military boils down to after all) has far more to do with why we’re not likely to intervene anywhere than what ‘the left’ has been up too.

@flyingrodent

I never mentioned war when I introduced the moral imperative argument. My point was that if one has the power to help another then surely there is a moral imperative to do so?

We have to power to offer humanitarian aid to refugees, for example.

While I don’t share your opinion that military intervention is always wrong I agree in this case. As soon as the Russians took their position behind Assad Syria was fucked.

I guess Israeli settlers will have to put off planning to build settlements on the Golan Heights for a while longer.

Doesn’t take long for you to make every issue about Israel.

I have no position in this confrontation yet. I really don’t know what, if anything, should be done.

But I do recall one thing, a few years ago when Israel bombed a suspected nuclear weapon production site (the country’s first big try at doing nuclear) in Syria. The left erupted about Israeli bombers destroying a facility intended to build weapons of mass destruction, because it was just a fertiliser plant or whatever tosh self deceivers sought to believe. Yeah, nuclear fertiliser or whatever shit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Orchard

How could Israelis (especially Israelis) invade territory to bomb a nuclear fertiliser plant? There are at least two answers. Israeli aircraft could do it because they were better than the anti-aircraft defences in all of the countries that they crossed. Or that everyone in the rest of the world was determined to end Syrian bomb building before it got started.

The most able country to destroy the military infrastructure of Syria is, without fanfare, Israel. If local problems are to be sorted out on an international basis with aggro, you need Israel.

But Israel is untouchable, at least in public.

@24. Charlieman: “But Israel is untouchable, at least in public.”

Qualification. “Israel is untouchable” in diplomatic terms. Civilisation requires that Israel is a political part of the Middle East, but many countries deny what should be called plain manners.

Would there have been a civil war if there wasn’t a severe drought in Syria over the past few years?

My point was that if one has the power to help another then surely there is a moral imperative to do so?

This assumes that one has the power to help other another.

We do have the power to help refugees, and should do so. We don’t have the power to stop Syria being a sewn-together patchwork of vying ethnic and religious factions who hate each others guts and, let’s be clear that even if we did, nobody on Earth intends to actually get stuck in and help out.

The Americans have no intention of getting involved, and neither do we, and we’re the prime busybodies of international tut-tutting.

And so. The moral imperative. I see the implicit capital letters, but I don’t see a plan, a massive combined arms military force or an exit strategy.

Which means that the “moral imperative” is basically a lot of windy bullshit that some people talk about, but has no substance whatsoever.

So, why talk about something so utterly hypothetical?

@27 fr

Humanitarian aid and diplomacy are within our power. If we’d grown up a bit quicker instead of playing big boys with the US for far too long we might have had more influence, but we can make a start.

[29] ‘So, why talk about something so utterly hypothetical?’ – because problem solving when it comes to tooled up psychopaths is a problem that is not going to go away and sooner or later will lead to truly epic consequences if the international community does not have the wherewithal to come up with some way to curb such excesses.

People finally woke up to risks associated with climate change well we will just have to find the political will to recognise that megalomaniacs with chemical or nuclear weapons need to be reigned in before the party really gets going – obviously this will require some sort of commitment for all states to abide by international rule of law.

I reckon it would be prudent this time round to follow the advice of Phony Blair in that keynote speech he made to the Economic Club in Chicago in 1999:

“If we want a world ruled by law and by international co-operation then we have to support the UN as its central pillar.”
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/international/jan-june99/blair_doctrine4-23.html

9. So Much for Subtlety

Why is it morally corrupt to say that what we do to other countries they could do to us. And we would complain just as much about external interference. I would have thought that it takes into account true morals. Either we interfere with every other country’s right to decide for itself how to govern itself and accept that we have no right in return. Or we let them sort out their problems then afterwards help them recover when they ask for it.

To help them in their current civil war means we take sides. If the side we support doesn’t win what do we do? What about if the side we support turns out to reject us afterwards. What if our help enables a third party to get involved changing the situation away from what we would like. There are just too many unknown and unforeseen consequences to be able to get involved. Just the recent experiences in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, et al show that getting involved is not necessarily the best thing to do. Think, don’t just react using emotions.

Not getting involved doesn’t mean that we should not provide support to refugees. Far from it. We should do our utmost to help them escape and to look after them.

The other points.

You erroneously think I talking about the current state. I meant in the past. We locked up Irish people by removing proper justice. Diplock courts? Either the law is equal or it’s not fair and is an injustice. Some people in the US didn’t like what we did to the Irish. They tried to interfere with our internal civil conflict.

Nuclear weapons that are aren’t even on any missiles and unlikely to be and missiles that have a very limited range. If North Korea’s neighbours ask for our help to protect them, then we can get involved. But we don’t go barging in on the basis that we know best. That attitude truly is imperialistic. And even then if they have nuclear weapons, will they use them knowing that they will get wiped out. They are nutters in the North Korea, but even nutters have a sense of self preservation. What about India and Israel. They have nuclear weapons. Is it just because they are our friends that we allow them to have them. So we are the world’s policemen then? Only allowing countries that are friends with us to run themselves without interference, but all other countries have to bow down to our rule? Very moral. Not!

If your taking videos purporting to come out of Syria as solid evidence then the FSA also have access to, and by some accounts have used, the same chemical weapons as the government. This presents a massive problem in relation to humanitarian intervention. Cutting through the bull, intervention in a civil conflict is never a neutral attempt to stem the bloodshed but a conscious effort in support of one side (I’m not saying this is necessarily bad, just a fact), in the case of Syria are we honestly going to intervene based on one sides use of chemical weapons while ignoring comparable evidence of similar activity by the other?
Personally I don’t believe these videos can be used as a pretext to intervention as they are not independent and are completely unverifiable, there are plenty of actors in this conflict with reason to produce them (again, I’m not saying the videos are fake just that a lot of people might want to fake them). With regards to gaining actionable evidence that chemical weapons have been used, those that Assad is said to have access to are mainly old stockpiled weapons not newly produced material, most of these chemical weapons have a very short shelf life (weeks rather than years) and, as such, any release may have different or less severe effects than would be expected and therefore be more difficult to identify or prove.

Chemical weapons use is indiscriminate, illegal, and utterly deplorable in any context but nothing is black and white about this conflict.