Only you can prevent forest fires…Is Damascus burning? It goes something like a John Le Carre novel where the difference between the good and bad is mainly nuances in shades of grey. Or, like Ariel Sharon once said, the ends justify the means; no matter how repulsive they may seem. And where is terrorism in all this ? In Ami Horowitz’s U.N. Me documentary, he points out that the U.N. in all its bureaucratic glory, has not been able to wrap its way around a definition of the word “terrorism” or even what constitutes terrorism or what a terrorist is; apparently a “pending matter” for all concerned and most, including the “good guys” don’t seem to be pushing the issue to firmly.
( see link at end) …The stances of China and Russia have drawn much attention from both the international community and Chinese citizens. Some people say that it is easy to understand Russia’s veto of the Western and LAS resolutions since Russia possesses over $20 billion in investments in Syria and maintains a military base there which is the only one left outside of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
Meanwhile, Syria is a huge export market for Russia’s military equipment and Russia remains deeply concerned about the security of its southern border, provided that the Syria turmoil extends to Central Asia. However, China does not have too many interests in Syria….China does not seek selfish interests in Syria, but China’s attitude towards the UN Security Council resolutions is not perplexing. China exercised its veto power in the Security Council because the draft resolutions contained contents that violated the purposes and principles of the UN Charter (referred to as the “Charter” hereafter). These contents may be employed as the foundation for waging an interventionist war, making political dialogue over Syria completely at sea while further escalating the Middle East turmoil and posing negative consequences on global resource supply and economic development.
As a result, what China vetoed were violations of the basic principles of the Charter. They were challenging the “foundation” used by foreign or international military blocs to wage war against Syria, the possibility that the West would bombard another Arab state, and the disastrous possibilities if the West were actually to become militarily involved in Syria. …Read More:http://nsnbc.wordpress.com/2012/07/21/a-chinese-position-on-syria-issue-the-un-charter-and-the-responsibility-to-protect-r2p/
As forest fires rage in the U.S. this summer, the effectiveness of snuffing them out, is a good metaphor for quelling the sectarian violence and political flagration we have seen in Iraq/Afghanistan and wherever else America has seen fit to engage in diplomatic bombing. The road to hell may be paved with good intentions; but like the firefighting , piloting aging warplanes over wildfires is way more hazardous than it even sounds. And may not even be effective. The planes tend to be obsolete, they just above tree level, are subject to difficult to control air drafts, and the pilots are not worth writing life insurance policies on. Pretty much what the diplomatic efforts in Syria can be described as. But then, what is the value of human life?And in particular Arab life? In this end game, the means, to many do actually justify the ends.
ADDENDUM:
Maria Lipman:But on closer inspection, this sounds like an over-simplification. If “humanitarian intervention” implies use of force, then the intervening party assumes the role of god, as it were – as it decides that some people have to die. While sacrificing your own citizens’ lives – in case of a war or other emergency – is a leader’s legal prerogative, there is no such prerogative outside one’s national jurisdiction….
All the lives lost as a result of the villain’s deadly operation remain his responsibility, but once foreign forces intervene, they have to share that responsibility, whether they like it or not. The more casualties there are, the more blurred the original good cause.
If the fight is so atrocious that it calls for an outside intervention, it is hardly one between angels and devils. As it undertakes to protect one side against the other, the intervening forces cannot avoid double standards: by emphasising the atrocities committed by the villain’s men and playing down those of their adversaries.Read More:http://www.acus.org/natosource/syria-moral-urge-intervene-countervailed-moral-responsibility-consequences
…From Bruce Riedel, BBC: Syria’s embattled President Bashar al-Assad is sitting on a powder keg of angry citizens who want his brutal regime to end.
He also sits on the Arab world’s most lethal arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, hundreds of chemical warheads and dozens of Scud missiles which can deliver them anywhere in the Levant. Now there are reports that the regime is moving these weapons out of their usual storage facilities for reasons unknown.
Would Bashar use chemical weapons against a Nato military operation like the one that assisted the Libyan opposition? Almost certainly he would. He clearly has few scruples about mass murder and foreign air bases would be a logical target for Scuds. He might also be tempted to use them against Israel.
Would he use them against his own people? This is harder to know….Read More:http://www.acus.org/natosource/would-bashar-use-chemical-weapons-against-nato-military-intervention
—————————-
…Indeed both Qatar and Saudi Arabia have a long history of hostility to the Syrian Ba’ath Party and Syrian foreign policy, a fact which is reflected in both of their leading medias (Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya respectively) severely distorted coverage of events in Syria from the outset.
But to highlight this context would also give too much weight to the Syrian government’s consistent analysis that the crisis within its borders is externally created. A fact which leftist groups also fall over themselves trying to downplay or dismiss with the result of boosting the opposing narrative which imperialism has made dominant through its media machinery.
Why did that same Guardian article, and western leftists who claim that Assad is good for Israel fail to mention that for example in early April, the US openly pledged to double its assistance to the insurgents to the tune of an additional $12 million, under the cover of “humanitarian aid”? Or the recent US admission that it is actively arming the insurgency using Qatar as a proxy? Or that in February, solid Israeli ally British Foreign Minister William Hague pledged more equipment to the insurgents, insisting there was “no limit on what resources” Britain would provide? …
…MK Yitzhak Herzog, who has previously held ministerial posts in Israeli parliament, said that Syrian opposition leaders have told him they want peace with Israel after Syrian President Bashar al Assad falls.
Indeed, SNC member Bassma Kodmani attended the 2012 Bilderberg conference where regime change in Syria was on the agenda. Kodmani has previously called for friendly relations between Syria and Israel on a French talk show, going as far as to say: ‘We need Israel in the region’.
Another SNC member, Ammar Abdulhamid declared his support for friendly relations between Israel and Syria in an interview with Israeli news paper Ynetnews.
Earlier this year a telephone conversation between the SNC’s Radwan Ziyade and Mouhammad Abdallah emerged where they begged Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barack for more support.
Outside the SNC the children of former leadership figures now in opposition have joined the pro-Israel rat race. Ribal al-Assad, the son of Bashar Assad’s uncle and exiled former vice-president Rifaat al-Asaad welcomed the possibility of Syria making peace with Israel…Read More:http://lizzie-phelan.blogspot.ca/2012/07/how-leftist-anti-zionists-are-allied.html