Military support of Syrian rebels in by the US has by all accounts been minimal, it's primarily been non-arms tactical equipment. Arms support has come largely from the Gulf states / Iran. The idea that the US fomented the Syrian civil war is also largely groundless. If you want to talk about the private military sector, let's not forget that Russia is a major arms exporter.

Meanwhile Russia has armed and provided direct bombing to support Assad directly, a guy who uses chemical weapons and barrel bombs on his people to intimidate them. His Putin's priorities are to protect his only Mediterranean port in the Middle East and to use his war footing to prop up his own domestic support the same way he did in Ukraine.

If he wanted to end the conflict he would have pressured Assad to step down in favor of a traditional government and have the successor negotiate a settlement and eventual elections with moderate rebels. Instead he's poured fuel on the fire. The longer these conflicts last, the more radicalized the opposition becomes. Now that he's let it play out and fanned the flames, he can blame the US for creating the mess.

This is America fault. Leadership from behind has failed the wold. From the Arab spring to this disaster. 7 years of failed leadership of President Obama.

Obama drew a line in the sand and Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons and my pussy president did squat just as he did for Ukraine.

Leadership from behind has failed the wold.
My American President sits back and lets ISIL rape, kill and destroy with out impunity.


The world needs a super power to keep peace. This lesson has been well taught under the Obama legacy.

Saddam started the Iran Iraq war, which saw over a million dead, including the most prolific deployment of chemical weapons since WW1.

Saddam followed that up with the Al-Anfal campaign. Read up on it, it's one of the most brutal attempts at genocide in recent history, including chemical weapons, concentration camps, over a hundred thousand deaths and an effort to breed the Kurds out of existence through systematic rape of Kurdish women.

Saddam followed that up with the complete annexation of Kuwait. Effectively removing a UN member state and claiming at as part of his Iraq.

Saddam followed up his forced removal from Kuwait with a retaliatory genocide of Shia Iraqis again topping a hundred thousand dead again.

But yeah, he fortunately lacked the military might to succeed in such ventures for a time. He was bluffing having stocks of chemical and nuclear weapons to keep his neighbours in check. Pity he was removed from power then and we didn't wait till he could make good on his bluff.

As I see it, the anger about 'chemical weapons' is based on the idea that they do not distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. Of course, it's also true that conventional bombs don't discriminate either, so that argument is a weak one at best.
When collateral damage is greater than the damage to the intended target, your methods are usually deemed immoral. (let's just not think about Japan right now)
I would agree, this idea of 'drawing a line that must not be crossed' is stupid and limiting. I also agree, distinguishing between differing non-targeted attacks on a population seems silly, if the method ends in civilian death, it ends in civilian death. If it ends in more non-combatant civilian deaths than combatant deaths, it makes the attacker immoral.
The means seem far less important to me than the ends. (not intended to suggest that ends justify any means)

Normally I like to say it is 'good' when the far left and far right can agree on something. In the case of the chemical attacks in Syria though, I find the agreement that they are the worst crime during the whole conflict is deeply troubling. When hundreds of times as many noncombatants have already been killed by 'traditional' means it seems perverse to focus so much emphasis on the chemical attacks.

I even agree with placing a huge importance on the chemical attacks, but to somehow suggest the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Assad's regime rests on that question is just wrong imho. He had done far, far worse, over far less provocation long before the chemical weapons attacks.

I'm sure the Syrian people will be relieved to know that chemical weapons are either no longer 'in use' or are less deadly than this list...

*chemical weapons

Spoiler, Hitchens 'wins' the debate. I can't honestly say I've watched or listened to a debate between him and anyone were that did not seem to be the case. As often is the case though too, his grandest victory is understated, brief and easily overlooked.

Ritter thumps hard on the absence of WMD in Iraq to condemn the invasion, which on it's surface seems a strong argument. Hitchens casually references an unwillingness to be lectured on WMD's by those who cautioned against invasion for fear that Saddam would use those WMD on US troops. Scott Ritter went on Crossfire before the invasion to state that Saddam could easily reconstitute his chemical weapons and invading was too risky.

It's a more sinister piece of propaganda than that though, at least in that it IS citing true facts. For all the quotes save for those from the newly elected president(which I just haven't searched) there exists written and video evidence of the attributed quotes and none of the leaders quoted would deny them.

The propaganda part is in completely leaving out the reasons for the overthrow of the Shah, who was running a brutal regime of his own over the Iranian people. If the American support for the Shah wasn't enough reason for mistrust of America, there was the American backing of Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war that saw hundreds of thousands of Iranians killed in Saddam's war of aggression. That war included some of the most prolific use of chemical weapons in, well, pretty much ever and the use was entirely against the Iranians. The public support for anti-American sentiment didn't come out of a vacuum.

That said, the mistrust cuts both ways and with Iranian leadership promising death to America and Israel for the last couple decades while steadily building up the infrastructure required to build nuclear weapons is legitimately cause for concern too.

Sorry, I think that got long and preachy.

The Syrian moderates have given up on getting any help from the outside world, they are faced with fighting Assad's army and his use of Chemical Weapons alone, or with the assistance of Al Qaida fighters. As America and the rest of the world are all choosing to just continue to do nothing it is just reinforcing the desperation of the Syrian opposition in it's search for allies that will do anything to help them.

The only real meaningful assistance the outside world can give Assad's opposition is the implementation of a no-fly zone. That would be an act of war though, so the majority of the world has been railing in opposition to it, doubly so if America might be involved because it's fun to hate the empire. The Russians and Iranians don't want it because Assad is their man and they will oppose anything that evens the playing field. Even America's war hawk Kissinger crowd are against a no fly zone because because as bobknight33 observed seeing anti-american forces fight and kill anti-american forces is hardly something they want to slow down.

No the only people who want to a no-fly zone implemented over Syria are the Syrian opposition themselves and the very, very few of us who care about them and believe it would be to their benefit. It'll unfortunately take a landslide shift in public opinion to get enough of push for any nation to actually step up and provide meaningful help. I'm afraid the reality is we get to watch either a slide into Somalia like anarchy, or a continued escalation of ruthless repression from Assad that his chemical weapon attack was a precursor to.

And given the choice between moral and legal I'd like to think I'll never hesitate in choosing moral every time.

Your argument about nation's blood stained hands making any moral argument hypocritical I think goes to far. Your plenty right it's hypocritical for any nation state to declare "that was wrong and must be punished" when in virtually any given case every nation has likely got as bad and worse written throughout it's history. I object when you go further and then throw out the declaration "that was wrong and must punished" as not merely hypocritical to have been said, but acting as if the statement is then made false.

In the end the facts seem to clearly indicate that Assad used chemical weapons(with Russian made rockets) against his own people to hold onto his dictatorship. Personally, I believe that those of us who still listen to conscience are beholden to side against Assad. We needn't embrace any and all enemies of Assad, but at the least we should show solidarity with the moderates who started things off through peaceful protests. If America comes in and notes the exact same things, the hypocrisy of that DOES NOT make any of those facts less true.

Can you honestly tell me you deeply and truly believe it is in the best interests of the Syrian people for America and the rest of the world for that matter, to continue on the path of doing nothing but talk? You seem to have been around enough to appreciate that the UN will NEVER under any circumstances authorize force against Assad. Demanding we wait for UN approval is identical to demanding we do nothing to aid the Syrian people fighting Assad's forces which I just can't agree with.

That only seems to address the option of a military strike. What of the deployment of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians? The evidence from the UN report seems to remove any doubt to the fact that hundreds, maybe better than a thousand died in the chemical attacks on Aug. 21 alone. The evidence even further shows the trajectory from several craters point towards one of Assad's military bases. If the previous evidence had not already been sufficient, surely the conclusion can at least be made that the burden of evidence clearly suggests that Assad's forces committed the attack. That evidence as well is about as strong as it could possibly get. Even videotaped evidence of Assad's forces loading and firing said rockets would be hard to be declared more conclusive. After all, maybe it's just fake footage by America, or has been misrepresented or some other possible fault.

My trouble when speaking to the next generation is how exactly do you tell them that yes, Assad is a dictator deploying chemical weapons to maintain his hold on power, but the good and moral path is for us to not get involved with anything but words. Why? Well, because we might make the situation for Syria's civilians even worse. I just don't subscribe to the world view that ignoring in all but word such a dictatorship is the 'right thing'. When a dictator is deploying chemical weapons to hold onto power I support and advocate for the use of force against that dictator, and the absence of such by the entirety of the UN is to me a crime as well.

Hello again,

Just commented to a video and later noticed it was one of yours. Would've just commented to you instead had I noticed first. I have to say I still don't entirely understand where you come from in all this. Plainly and rightly you mistrust any American claims of humanitarian concern. However, in my view you seem to be misreading Obama's cues. If anything he's appeared very reluctant to go into Syria, as it'd be domestically very unpopular. As far as the Kissinger type pushers in America go, seeing Al Qaida sponsored rebels bleeding themselves out against Russian and Iranian backed Syrian military forces and even Hezbollah forces seems like a dream come true. I can hardly see cold hearted long game analysts in America wanting anything but to just grab popcorn and enjoy the show as their enemies mop each other up. I also see Obama's reluctant attitude as exactly what is being read by Assad and Putin in their responses and almost willful scorn for Obama's red line and apparent giddy eagerness to abandon the threats he'd tied to it. I just don't see the eagerness and enthusiasm for a march to war from America that you do. With an agreement to remove chemical weapons from the area, America is freed of the only possible concern it had about anything happening in the area. That seems evidenced by America's seemingly eager acceptance of it, and tacit recognition of Assad's control of the country out into 2014 in order to implement the agreement.

As for the angle I care about, what is your assessment of the UN inspection and their report? Unless you count them to be on the take of Western powers, or duped and stooged within the war zone where somehow America managed to influence them more than Assad I don't see any ambiguity to the findings. Samples from rockets, soil, and victims alike all tested positive for Sarin gas. The rockets found with Sarin on them had Russian engravings and the craters they could project trajectories from pointed towards a Syrian military base. I'm not sure how you reject all of that by pointing at 'counter evidence' gathered and presented solely by Syrian and Iranian sources.

Here is a link to the actual full text of the UN inspection team's report:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf

Their investigation was only about the use of chemical weapons, and not who may have used them. That said, they concluded they found basically irrefutable evidence of extensive deployment of Sarin gas in the region. They also were able to estimate the trajectory of some rockets based on their impact craters and the trajectories are clearly towards a Syrian military compound.

Unless you choose to believe that the UN inspections team is a pawn or puppet of the US, Assad is not being framed, he deliberately used Sarin gas on his own people.

Maybe Kerry was thinking of Israel's chemical weapons program... or maybe Lavrov and Kerry talked about this particular option during their meeting in Sweden and Kerry now got the green light from Obama to plant a little nudge as a sign for the Russians that the US is willing to play ball.