Dear people of Syria

i am not in possession of any more facts than yourself.

but the only other option is that the rebels gassed themselves to claim Assad did it. now i can (like everyone else) can see how that "could" work...but it's much more likely that if that were the case then the truth would out at some point and the rebel leaders would then lose credibility among their own, and any uprising then dies.

tyrannical dictators do not stand down because observers say "ooh you're not nice, can we have someone else please" the very nature of their character leaves little else but military intervention to overthrow these despots.
and it doesn't matter whether it's civil or international the solution (unfortunately) is a one-size-fits-all
hitler, amin, saddam, pol pot, pasha, milosevic,...the list is extremely long (in the complete absence of any other solution) we are left with military action

as regards Russia - well, they've come as close as they can to condemning what's going on - see today's international news. however, regardless of oil/gas/economic interests - a universal condemnation would not work - or help to remove Assad - it would merely create greater tensions and further isolate Israel.

Another story has been reported on a German economy website: Saudi Arabia brought the gas to Syria and through mishandling the tragedy happened killing 12 terrorists in the process. Unfortunately, the original article creates an error 
http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/ 

so we cannot read it anymore - funny, isn't it.
I am NOT claiming that this is the truth but I do not trust the US when they claim they know the truth. I think nobody outside the USA does believe them, even English members of parliament asked for actual proof and do not take the word of the American government anymore.

[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]
. I think nobody outside the USA does believe them, even English members of parliament asked for actual proof and do not take the word of the American government anymore.[/QUOTE]
you are a little misguided if you think distrust of America is the reason for the English (sic) parliament asking for proof. the reason is quite simple:

Cameron's position as statesman is under question - even the (lunatic tory press/comic) is turning against him in recent months, therefore he needed to put his name in the history books like some "mini-thatcher"...no other reason.
Milliband was starting lose ground with voters so preened and postured so he could preach he'd "done the right thing"
Cameron's party don;t think he can win the next election (let's face it he came to power without a majority) so 30+ backbenchers opposed his "vote" to make him look foolish and non-credible as a leader.

the tory/lib dem coalition has 359 seats. to carry this vote they needed 326 in agreement. they lost by 13 (285/272) which included many abstentions and non-voters....make of that what you will

[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]

What would a military strike achieve in your opinion? Who would be killed and what would be the outcome? How can it be a punishment for the Assad regime when more innocent victims are killed? Would you personally take responsibility for killing these innocent people? You are right "would haves" and "should haves" do not matter now but for once the international community should come together and find a peaceful outcome. [/QUOTE]

I am not privy to the attack plans but would hope a strike would take out the chemical weapon delivery capabilities, if not the chemical weapons themselves – though I have no idea how those weapons can be safely destroyed. And no, I would not take personal responsibility for any innocents caught in a military strike any more than I would guess you would take personal responsibility for anyone caught in another chemical weapons attack if nothing is done.

Your distrust and disgust of and for the US is clear – and not completely without merit. However, to see what was done to those people and still believe a peaceful outcome is possible, while hopeful, sounds naïve to me. Even though, I would guess, most of us wish it could be that way, we know it can’t. I think the blood already shed is proof of that.

Thanks for the explanation, brensky and sorry if I offended you - the guys looked "English" to me (I watched on BBC website)

@magical - I do not have a disgust for "the US", I do have a disgust and very strong distrust for the political class in the USA, Europe, Russia, China and everywhere else. I am sick and tired of being lied at, tired of regimes spying on me, tired of being used as an excuse. I do not feel guilty about the victims in Syria because there is nothing I could have done to prevent it but I feel sick to my stomach watching the genocide and not seeing the slightest effort to solve the situation peacefully. The difference between you and me is that you believe that a military strike would bring improvement and I do not believe that. Military strikes  did not help in Palestine, in Afghanistan, Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East. If the international community had spent a tenth of the money they spent on the "war against terror" on schools, education and economic help to give people a perspective, the whole area would be so much better off but of course there is not much  profit in just helping the people.

[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]

Thanks for the explanation, brensky and sorry if I offended you - the guys looked "English" to me (I watched on BBC website)

I do not feel guilty about the victims in Syria because there is nothing I could have done to prevent it but I feel sick to my stomach watching the genocide and not seeing the slightest effort to solve the situation peacefully. The difference between you and me is that you believe that a military strike would bring improvement and I do not believe that..[/QUOTE]

Barb
I'm not offended - i dislike our leaders immensely. most of them are (by default) english - but there's also scots, welsh, and norther irish m.p.s- but they all have the same thing in common - their ignorant bastards, who jumped on board the "hypocrisy gravy train" pigging at the trough in the "first class buffet carriage for c*nts"
the cabinet (senior ministers) are generally inadequate examples of humanity coming from cossetted privileged inherited wealth, educated at Eton and Harrow - which teaches the cost of everything and the value of f-all.

think the main point here is that time and history - Serbia, Darfur, and many many other holocausts were completely and utterly unstoppable without military action...lunatics and despots DO NOT listen to reasoned argument - until it's accompanied by a missile strike - direct to their fucking nasty fat c*nt faces

[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]

If the international community had spent a tenth of the money they spent on the "war against terror" on schools, education and economic help to give people a perspective, the whole area would be so much better off but of course there is not much  profit in just helping the people. [/QUOTE]

With this, I completely agree.

It is interesting to watch this unfold. The French would be unwilling to act on their own, so are waiting for the Americans to vote. The Americans probably wouldn't be voting if not for the UK vote. Putin is probably hiding Russian intelligence reports from being announced. If anyone's credibility is in question, at this point, it would be Putin. And he knows it. The G20 would be interesting ( if we could listen in). By the way, the Germans were able to intercept a telephone call:

http://m.spiegel.de/international/world/a-920123.html

Since everyone has an opinion, here is mine: we should have gone in with the military long ago, with UN approval (which never happened), but at this point, I think going through the UN still makes the most sense (getting international approval and cooperation). Although a military strike is one option, it is not too late (I think) for negotiations with the goal of getting Syrian government allies to stop supplying weapons to the Syrian government and to start putting pressure on them to find a peaceful solution. We need a break in the fighting (maybe impossible). Then of course additional humanitarian assistance to those displaced by the war. And UN peacekeeping forces in Syria (boots on the ground). War crimes need to be dealt with (Assad), so if he could be captured (Navy Seals?), that would be good. No problem, right?

But I think if it were just about oil and gas, there would have been a faster intervention. I don't know why there has been such hesitation over trying to stop the fighting, other than the economy maybe seeming more important and all governments realizing that we just can't afford to be constantly fighting hopeless wars where nobody ever surrenders (which seems to be the middle east tradition). And the problems of international coordination and agreement with Russia and China on the UN security council.

Well, I hope it all gets settled in the best way and safest way.

i haven't offered an opinion...just observations

but one thing i would say:
it can't just be about oil/gas....the events in Libya rule that out

[QUOTE] [b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote:[/b]

[QUOTE] [b]YourValentine wrote:[/b]

If the international community had spent a tenth of the money they spent on the "war against terror" on schools, education and economic help to give people a perspective, the whole area would be so much better off but of course there is not much  profit in just helping the people. [/QUOTE]

With this, I completely agree.
[/QUOTE]

I as well.

I think the most telling thing here is the fact that the US has only one ally for this mission - France. This clearly reveals how much damage the Bush administration did to the US' international reputation.

And France, of all countries. Sarkozy's France would've even made sense, but Hollande's socialist France? Bizarre, to say the least.

Many of the media are leaving this out, but probably the most loyal (or at least supportive) of the US allies right now is Turkey. However, they also have their own pro-Muslim Brotherhood president and anti-Kurd motives, which means they are a dangerous and not wholly trustworthy ally in this case. The main problem with allies does not seem to be a lack of faith in the US, but such a thorough paranoia towards all muslims that a majority of the people in the west are quite willing to believe the most bizarre conspiracy theories in which all of Syria (except Assad and his men) consists of Islamic fanatics who are staging all kinds of atrocities to lure the west towards them only to massacre all of the west. It doesn't make any sense, but this is what increasing numbers of people seem to believe (for the sake of argument, I've combined a number of separate views into one whole here). Ever since 9/11, there has been a massive resurgence of paranoia and mistrust towards all news reporting, and a highly disturbing growth in conspiracy theories and the number of people who believe them. I think this is a much more important than the US standing in deciding whether or not individual countries support the US here.

@Bob:

It's not about political color here - France has a long history with Syria, and that's probably what this is about. Also, it's traditionally been the left that has been most vocal in opposing the use of chemical weapons, ever since WWI.

To illustrate my point about paranoia: Britain's resident nutjob David Icke (the guy who claims Elizabeth II, Tony Blair and George W. Bush are descended from alien lizards who secretly rule the world) says Syria is "another false flag operation" (conspiracy nuts' favorite term since they learned it around 2003). This gets posted on a Dutch news/discussion site, and the responses? Roughly 80% of the people don't give a damn that he's the king of conspiracy theories so absurd that even most hardcore conspiracy theorists don't want anything to do with him, and enthusiastically support his dribble. http://www.nujij.nl/algemeen/david-icke-leg-t-simpel-uit-syrie-is-weer-een.24830121.lynkx (google translate: http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=nl&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nujij.nl%2Falgemeen%2Fdavid-icke-leg-t-simpel-uit-syrie-is-weer-een.24830121.lynkx&act=url)

People have become so paranoid that a large section, possibly a majority, will rally around freaks like this rather than accept a glaringly obvious reality. It's things like this that make me utterly depressed about the stupidity of the masses.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

It's not about political color here - France has a long history with Syria, and that's probably what this is about. Also, it's traditionally been the left that has been most vocal in opposing the use of chemical weapons, ever since WWI.[/QUOTE]

Fair play.

You and your "rational" responses. It's just unusual behaviour for this place. Thank you for always being bang on.

[QUOTE] [b]thomasquinn 32989 wrote:[/b]

People have become so paranoid that a large section, possibly a majority, will rally around freaks like this rather than accept a glaringly obvious reality. It's things like this that make me utterly depressed about the stupidity of the masses.[/QUOTE]

Nah, don't be so glum.

Icke is a complete crackpot, and most people know it. It's only a minority of people who will listen to guys like him who are that "out there."

That said, I do share your concern that even very rational people are just searching for any alternative to whatever mainstream media says. But I'd like to think that the availability of virtually everything on the internet is arming more and more people with basic researching capabilities.

[QUOTE] [b]The Real Wizard wrote:[/b]

You and your "rational" responses. It's just unusual behaviour for this place. [/QUOTE]

Hey!