The British government has just lost the vote in the lower house of parliament, and can no longer consider taking part in an attack on any part of Syria.
This is major political news in Britain, though it will mean little to the victims of the civil war in Syria itself.

[QUOTE=cheesehead;351292]"Does Obama need congressional approval to bomb Syria?"
[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/does-obama-need-congressional-approval-to-bomb-syria--174613463.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

Ah, yes. John "It's not really torture" Yoo. I still want to get his opinion of waterboarding after he has experienced it at least half a dozen times. It should be once for every time for every prisoner tortured that way after he delivered his contorted excuse for a legal opinion.

Suffice it to say that I take any opinion of his as good reason to do something different, if not the exact opposite.

[QUOTE=kladner;351298]Suffice it to say that I take any opinion of his as good reason to do something different, if not the exact opposite.[/QUOTE]I agree.

So following the hallowed traditions of "It's not really torture" leading to "Well, even if it is torture, it's ok" and "It's not really war"..., now we have "Action must be taken" and the desire to "Send a message" but to Russia and China, and Iran it needs to not really be action but rather a polite request to the milkman that he leave the bottles where they won't be tripped over, while Syria will magically align with rainbows and ponies and the rest of the world will thank the kind uncle who straightened all this out.

[url]http://theoatmeal.com/comics/syria[/url]


Meanwhile on forums everywhere is heard the cry "Obama rushes headlong into action in Syrian conflict!"

I do not believe that there are any virtuous players in Syria. I don't think the interested parties outside of Syria have true humanitarian motivations.

However, I have yet to see evidence of Obama himself "rushing" into anything. Of course, Biden has been pontificating about it, which might fall into the "trial balloon" category. Who knows?

Much as I despise Assad, I don't think he's stupid. I think he would be quite aware of how the use of chemical weapons would bring more forces to bear against him. I also think that some of his opponents would be equally aware of these potential repercussions, and might well see fit to try to bring them about.

I heard Robert Siegel of NPR talk with Republican Representative Mike J. Rogers, chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, yesterday. You can read the [URL="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=216538266"]transcript[/URL].

There were some key exchanges in which I thought Rep Rogers was clearly dodging around direct answers.
[QUOTE]SIEGEL: But, first, is there evidence that nerve agent, not just some toxic or fatal substance, but nerve agent or sarin gas was used?
ROGERS: Well, I can tell you that there are still some forensic evidence review under way to determine exactly what it is, but it is very clear that it was a chemical agent of some nature.
SIEGEL: Is it clear that it was delivered by some system, say, a rocket, something that only the Syrian government and not the rebels would have?
ROGERS: Well, it's clear by the size and scope of it and, again, with the other evidence that we have that the regime was involved in the delivery of this particular chemical agent.
SIEGEL: But when we say the evidence that we have, we're not talking yet about a crater being identified that was where the rocket struck or fragments of the rocket?
ROGERS: Well, there is multiple ways that they can deliver a chemical weapon like this.[/QUOTE]

In the end, it seemed to me that Rep Rogers' real aim was to say that the president "drew a red line" and has risked "US credibility" by not following through.

I am encouraged that the British Parliament put the kibosh on participation in any adventure. I hope the US follows that example. We know too little of what is really happening, who is doing it, and who we might be helping if we get involved.

I am sick at heart for those of the Syrian people who are just trying to survive. I don't think tossing more bombs or other weapons into the mix is going to help them. Rather, it will only result in more death for Syrians, and more hatred of the US in the region.

We in the States have nothing to gain and much to lose by getting involved.

[QUOTE=kladner;351315]We in the States have nothing to gain and much to lose by getting involved.[/QUOTE]A lot gets accomplished by people reacting to things we say. If what we say is considered credible, oftentimes we do not need to follow through to difficult and dubious actions. However, if due to protracted inaction or issuing empty ultimatums or hypocrisy or the latest leak of the week, posturing becomes useless, then only actions will have effects: Reasoning and negotiation are hampered. Neocons and hawks rejoice. It is not only this engagement that is at risk.

[QUOTE=kladner;351315]

We in the States have nothing to gain and much to lose by getting involved.[/QUOTE]

Hmm, the US made sure it would not get involved in the silly second world war. It stayed out when Austria was annexed, when Czechoslowakia was overrun, when Poland was split up, when the UK and France declared war, when the Netherlands and Belgium were attacked and when Japan... Ah, see, if you don't choose when to join and under which conditions, make sure it is not going to be decided for you.

[QUOTE]Vinny Gambini: Lisa, I don't need this. I swear to God, I do not need this right now, okay? I've got a judge that's just aching to throw me in jail. An idiot who wants to fight me for two hundred dollars. Slaughtered pigs. Giant loud whistles. I ain't slept in five days. I got no money, a dress code problem, AND a little murder case which, in the balance, holds the lives of two innocent kids. Not to mention your [taps his foot] BIOLOGICAL CLOCK - my career, your life, our marriage, and let me see, what else can we pile on? Is there any more S**T we can pile on to the top of the outcome of this case? Is it possible?
Lisa: [pause] Maybe it was a bad time to bring it up.[/QUOTE]

[URL="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/29/syria-iran-retaliation-threats-not-empty/2726493/"]Iran threatens payback on Syria; Russia sends warships[/URL]
[QUOTE]Iran and Russia are working together to prevent a Western military attack on Syria. Russia even sent warships to the Mediterranean where U.S. destroyers are in position to strike if ordered.[/QUOTE][QUOTE]On Thursday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in statements carried by several Iranian state-controlled media outlets that Iran and Russia would work in "extensive cooperation" to prevent any military action against Syria. Western military action against Syria would be an "open violation" of international laws, Rouhani said.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=tha;351380]Hmm, the US made sure it would not get involved in the silly second world war.[/QUOTE]

Sort of...

If I understand things correctly (and I'm more than happy to be proven wrong) the US' industries came full-on-steam to supply the Allies. But the supplies weren't donated. There were invoices involved.

The US assumed they couldn't be attacked, since the war was "over there...". And, then, of course, Perl Harbor....

P.S. Interestingly, the US played a similar game during the first Gulf War. They had their strategic partners (like Japan) pay for the aging traditional weapons used during that conflict. Again, happy to be corrected if I'm wrong.

[QUOTE=chalsall;351386]Sort of...

If I understand things correctly (and I'm more than happy to be proven wrong) the US' industries came full-on-steam to supply the Allies. But the supplies weren't donated. There were invoices involved.[/QUOTE]Details here:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease[/url]