So, the Syria vote

[sparkindarkness]

So the parliament has, to everyone’s shock, voted against military adventures in Syria.

That’s a relief.

As to “intelligence reports” that they keep waving us saying that they prove whatever? I don’t care.

I don’t care because I am unable to believe them. They could be true. They could be false. They could be created from sheer ineptitude. They

Comments

[redstapler]

I am so, so nervous that Obama is going to engage in military action on Syria.

[sparkindarkness]

I cringe because I can see no good ending to that - I'm having trouble seeing a good ending for Syria anyway, for a long time - but western intervention isn't going to make things better

[redstapler]

I was so uplifted by the Parliamentary vote, and then I heard the US's plans, and it was all dashed against the rocks.

Western intervention won't make things better.

I saw something earlier that Charles Stross(I think?) said the best assistance we can provide is getting gas masks into the hands of Syrians.

Also, if the US engages, it'll put us back at odds with Russia in a way we haven't seen in almost thirty years. Putin's out of his goddamn mind, and I don't trust the situation at all.

ETA: We're already pissing off Russia already with Obama's rejection of the LGBT laws recently enacted. Putin's got his nose out of joint from Obama cancelling talks during G20. We don't need to, pardon the expression, add fuel to the fire.

[aviv_b]

And there are reports that both sides may have used chemical weapons. Which isn't totally unbelievable considering that it would be one way the rebels could other forces in to help them. Like the Parliament, I want to see forensic evidence before even considering retaliation.

In any case - I think the whole idea of a 'shot across the bow' is ridiculous. Assad isn't going to care. Unless whoever goes in is prepared to do enough damage to shift the balance of power, there really is no point. And shifting that balance requires risks to outside forces. All it takes is one American/UK/French plane shot down and we're into a new protracted conflict, which is not something most Americans want.

[sparkindarkness]

It's not like we're being unreasonable for wanting more evidence given the powers that be have used the spectre of WMDs to send us to war before.

Which is another point - what is this "shot across the bow" going to do? Depose Assad or severely weaken him? That would involve massive destruction of Syria, the Syrian army and Syrian infrastructure. "Punish" Assad? And how are we going to do that? By spanking him? Or, again, raining destruction on Damascus? Because I doubt it will hit Assad - and if our weakening of Assad makes him more desperate surely that is when he will reach for the chemicals again.

As to removing chemical weapons from whoever's hand - we cannot do that from the air. That will be a ground battle. Which means sending in troops to a Middle Eastern Country in the midst of not just a civil war, but apparently a multi-sided civil war (since Kurdish and other minorities among the rebels are fighting with the religious-possibly-extremist factions in the rebels)

Can we get an "AWWW HELL NAH?!" to that one

[empty_mirrors]

I want a like button! But yes, yes, 100% yes. I couldn't agree with this more.

[sparkindarkness]

Thank you

[spinsterwithin]

I think the people need help but I am at a loss what should be done and it seems like military involvement will only make it worse for the Syrian people. There has to be another option out there.

[sparkindarkness]

Exactly - I would love to help, but only if said help is actually helpful rather than (at best) desperate, ineffective flaliling that will hurt people or (at worst) another cynical ploy to use human rights to advance our own agenda

[teleens_journal]

All of this. I'm going to be very pissed off if the U.S. goes ahead and bombs anyway, sigh.

[sparkindarkness]

I'm dreading it, to be honest