Syria: a civil war (closed)

[ganulv]

or assassinations in general, I do believe that this—if the particulars as reported turn out to be true, of course—counts as taking the fight to the other side.

Architect of crackdown in Syria and Defense Minister killed in bombing | the two-way

“The uprising in Syria against the regime of President Bashar Assad took a dramatic turn today when an explosion at a government building in Damascus killed the country’s defense minister and a brother-in-law of the president. […]”

[carl]

I will post the question I asked over at the blog here also.

"I have question about the suicide bombing in Syria today that killed a number of high ranking people. It may be that the group that pulled off that attack will gain status within the rebellion. Also history seems to show that groups that use suicide bombers are very unsavory. Do people think that assumption and observation are valid and if they are, is that suicide bombing an indication of good things happening or bad things happening?"

I will add that I don't think there is much if anything we can do to affect what is happening for good or ill, but I am interested in any responses to my question.

[JMA]

I will add that I don't think there is much if anything we can do to affect what is happening for good or ill, ...

Carl, the opportunity prevent a civil war in Syria came and went while the incompetent politicians of the West sat on their hands frozen in an abject state of indecision.

[davidbfpo]

Carl you asked:

Also history seems to show that groups that use suicide bombers are very unsavory. Do people think that assumption and observation are valid and if they are, is that suicide bombing an indication of good things happening or bad things happening?"

In societies where violence is not prevalent recourse to suicide bombing is a bad sign, especially when it is your own nationals / long-term residents - I would cite the 7/7 attacks in the UK as an example for their impact.

Where violence is so common, as it was in Syria prior to the protests, using the tactic shows IMHO how far some will go for their cause. Sad to say, I expected its use there earlier. After all Syrians were fed on a TV diet of suicide bombings locally in Israel, Lebanon and adjacent Iraq for years, so some of the contrary factors were less influential.

It is not an indication of 'good things happening or bad things happening', it is always a bad sign showing how far those participating have moved away from what others consider justifiable.

[Dayuhan]

Carl, the opportunity prevent a civil war in Syria came and went while the incompetent politicians of the West sat on their hands frozen in an abject state of indecision.

That statement would mean a bit more if it came with some suggestion of what might have been done, and when, and how exactly that action might have prevented civil war.

Not expecting anything, though...

[JMA]

That statement would mean a bit more if it came with some suggestion of what might have been done, and when, and how exactly that action might have prevented civil war.

Not expecting anything, though...

An other nonsense post from you... ending with a pathetic attempt at child psychology.

As I have said to you before, there is no point in discussing anything with you because you have a radical non-intervention mindset.

There were a number of opportunities prior to the out break of civil war short of military intervention. The prime problem is that in this case - due to the Russian and Chinese positions - the US has been scared ...... through a fear of a face-off with the Russians supported by the Chinese.

[Dayuhan]

There were a number of opportunities prior to the out break of civil war short of military intervention.

Such as? What do you think should have been done, and when?

The prime problem is that in this case - due to the Russian and Chinese positions - the US has been scared ...... through a fear of a face-off with the Russians supported by the Chinese.

I see no evidence whatsoever to support that contention. The Chinese don't give a rat's ass about Syria and aren't going to do anything more than vote against intervention at the UN. The Russians aren't going to stick their necks out for Assad either, in any way beyond verbiage.

American politicians aren't worried about the Russians or the Chinese, they're worried about American voters, which is as it should be. Given the lack of attractive options for intervention, significant probability of unintended adverse consequences, minimal US interests, limited resources, and above all an electorate that is focused on domestic concerns and very much disillusioned with intervention, engagement in Syria was always going to be a tough sell and nobody even made a serious effort to sell it. Given that array of factors, the idea that fear of Russia or China had a role is speculation from well beyond the fringe.

[JMA]

Such as? What do you think should have been done, and when?

You need to read me my rights before you can question me like that. So in the meantime why don't you ...

I see no evidence whatsoever to support that contention. The Chinese don't give a rat's ass about Syria and aren't going to do anything more than vote against intervention at the UN.

Nothing to do with Chinese interest in Syrian oil, huh? Or the Syrian ballistic missile programs?

The Russians aren't going to stick their necks out for Assad either, in any way beyond verbiage.

LOL... you got that wrong. In fact you have had this wrong from the beginning of this thread.

American politicians aren't worried about the Russians or the Chinese, they're worried about American voters, which is as it should be.

Then they are as stupid as I have thought all along. As if a collapse into anarchy and total civil war would not spill over into the Middle East and affect US interests there. Read my lips ... O... I... L.

Given the lack of attractive options for intervention, ...

Which are/were what exactly? If you don't mind my asking.

... significant probability of unintended adverse consequences, minimal US interests, limited resources, and above all an electorate that is focused on domestic concerns and very much disillusioned with intervention, engagement in Syria was always going to be a tough sell and nobody even made a serious effort to sell it. Given that array of factors, the idea that fear of Russia or China had a role is speculation from well beyond the fringe.

LOL... absolute nonsense (gibberish,in fact). Better you stick to agriculture, methinks.

[Dayuhan]

You need to read me my rights before you can question me like that. So in the meantime why don't you ...

Given this previous assertion:

the opportunity prevent a civil war in Syria came and went while the incompetent politicians of the West sat on their hands frozen in an abject state of indecision.

it seems quite reasonable to ask what the alleged opportunity was and when it came and went, as without those details the assertion as quoted is utterly pointless. Of course you've the right to remain pointless, if you choose to do so.

Nothing to do with Chinese interest in Syrian oil, huh? Or the Syrian ballistic missile programs?

What Syrian oil? Declining production, rising consumption, current exports at a 100k bbl/day? What's there to interest China? Of course they might be able to score a service or exploration contract or two as Syria tries to squeeze a bit more out of their dwindling reserves, but they aren't going to be big ones and the Chinese don't need Assad to get those contracts. They've shown in Iraq that they are quite capable of moving in after a US intervention and getting work.

What about the ballistic missile program would produce a Chinese response to a US intervention? A few hundred old Scuds and SS21s, no? Sure, there have been reports that Syria has tried to acquire Chinese missile tech, mostly via Iran and N. Korea, but that's hardly going to be a major point for the Chinese.

LOL... you got that wrong. In fact you have had this wrong from the beginning of this thread.

Is that meant to be a credible argument?

What do you think the Russians (or for that matter the Chinese) might do that would scare the US away from intervening... assuming on no evidence at all that the US ever had any desire or incentive to intervene? Of course if the US was dumb enough to send troops the Russians would gleefully assist the ensuing insurgency, but since sending troops was never on the table that's a moot point. What else do you think either would do? Complain? Vote against intervention at the UN? Hardly earth-shaking or unprecedented, and not much to fear.

So far we have a claim that the US could have averted a civil war but no hint of how it might have been done, and a claim that the US backed away from intervention out of fear of Russia and China but no hint of what Russia or China might have done that would make the US not want to intervene. 0 for 2 on the substance scale.

Then they are as stupid as I have thought all along. As if a collapse into anarchy and total civil war would not spill over into the Middle East and affect US interests there. Read my lips ... O... I... L.

It's far from certain that even a worst case scenario in Syria would have a major adverse effect on US interests in the region. Again, what specific adverse effects do you think the US should be worried about? Just an opportunity to go 0 for 3 on the substance scale, if you choose to do so.

US intervention was not in any way certain to prevent Syria from collapsing into anarchy and civil war, and could easily have accelerated that collapse. At least this way we're not in the middle of it.

All I hear you saying is that Syria could have been saved if only those incompetent Americans had done what you think they should have done, with no hint of what you think they should have done or how it might have saved Syria. Given the lack of substance, it's hard to take that allegation seriously.

Which are/were what exactly? If you don't mind my asking.

They are/were lacking, as stated. Lacking as in absent, missing, nonexistent. Am I supposed to make a list of attractive options that weren't there? Or of the broad range of bad options that were there? Please specify what you're asking for... or better yet, specify the option you think should have been taken.

LOL... absolute nonsense (gibberish,in fact). Better you stick to agriculture, methinks.

Easy response to points you can't answer. Not a convincing response, but easy.

[wm]

Nothing to do with Chinese interest in Syrian oil, huh? Or the Syrian ballistic missile programs?

Syrian oil production for export is a pittance, and their primary customer outside the country is the EU. According to US EIA, China is a partner with India in a joint production venture that includes the Syrians (50% interest) and the Dutch via Shell Oil (32%). So the Chinese may get about 9% of the revenues from this venture if they have a 50-50 split with India in Himalaya Energy Syria. If China is backing Syria over oil, it is more likely doing so to appease Iran, which at about 1/12 (.4 of 4.8MM bbl/day) of China's total bbl/day imports is a distant third largest source for Chinese oil imports after Saudi Arabia and Angola at about 800K BBls each/day(again according to US EIA)

And what would the Chinese do with a bunch of modified old SCUDs and SS-21s? North Korea is much closer as a source for tactical SRBM/MRBM development if the Chinese needed or wanted an outside source.

As if a collapse into anarchy and total civil war would not spill over into the Middle East and affect US interests there. Read my lips ... O... I... L.

IMHO, a concern associated with regime change or anarchy in Syria that is bigger than US/Western oil imports would by Iran's loss of its primary staging base for its crusade against Israel. I submit that Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey would not be too greatly affected by further bloodshed or, as you described it, anarchy and total civil war in Syria, nor would the rest of the smaller Persian Gulf oil-producing states. But who knows what trouble the IRGC and its surrogates like Hezbollah might kick up across the region?

BTW, Dayuhan's post hit while I was writing mine. We aren't in cahoots or channeling for each other as far as I know. What we seem to share from our locations that are almost half a world apart is a desire for facts and good arguments rather than bombastic rhetoric and eristic expositions.

[JMA]

Given this previous assertion:

it seems quite reasonable to ask what the alleged opportunity was and when it came and went, as without those details the assertion as quoted is utterly pointless. Of course you've the right to remain pointless, if you choose to do so.

You should stick matters agricultural (which I believe is your area of some 'expertise') you are way out of your intellectual depth in such matters.

Unlike you and the others in the chattering classes (around here) as I recall I am the only one in this thread who has paid out a list of my opinions and the facts as I see them. See post #383 of this thread. So feel free you review that and nit-pick there if you are able.

So while you just blabber on like a stuck record about non-intervention the bodies of Syrians pile up in the streets.

I guess it is really sad that you don't understand that intervention in say Syria does not need to be of a military nature. Also that the absence of a military option and the will to use it (if necessary) weakens the negotiating hand to the extent of neutralising it completely.

What Syrian oil? Declining production, rising consumption, current exports at a 100k bbl/day? What's there to interest China? Of course they might be able to score a service or exploration contract or two as Syria tries to squeeze a bit more out of their dwindling reserves, but they aren't going to be big ones and the Chinese don't need Assad to get those contracts. They've shown in Iraq that they are quite capable of moving in after a US intervention and getting work.

What about the ballistic missile program would produce a Chinese response to a US intervention? A few hundred old Scuds and SS21s, no? Sure, there have been reports that Syria has tried to acquire Chinese missile tech, mostly via Iran and N. Korea, but that's hardly going to be a major point for the Chinese.

More of your high-school level debating level. What others believe or state needs to be fully explained while what you believe or state is 'obviously' self evident and needs no further explanation. Who are you kidding?

Is that meant to be a credible argument?

As stated before I am the only one around here who has taken the time to express my opinion and what I see as the facts - see post #383 - so until you do likewise or better why not just zip it?

What do you think the Russians (or for that matter the Chinese) might do that would scare the US away from intervening... assuming on no evidence at all that the US ever had any desire or incentive to intervene? Of course if the US was dumb enough to send troops the Russians would gleefully assist the ensuing insurgency, but since sending troops was never on the table that's a moot point. What else do you think either would do? Complain? Vote against intervention at the UN? Hardly earth-shaking or unprecedented, and not much to fear.

You obviously have absolutely no clue about what options and pressures the US and/or Europe were able to bring to bear to peacefully resolve this situation do you?

Instead of demanding others to do so (to educate you) why not go off and educate yourself.

So far we have a claim that the US could have averted a civil war but no hint of how it might have been done, and a claim that the US backed away from intervention out of fear of Russia and China but no hint of what Russia or China might have done that would make the US not want to intervene. 0 for 2 on the substance scale.

What have you claimed so far?

Here again you fail you understand that military intervention is the last resort after all the other options have been attempted. I understand why non-military types in the US (and some in the military too) based upon previous experiences of failed military interventions are afraid that any such intervention will end up a cock-up as usual. But unless a credible military intervention possibility/threat in on the table most of the soft options will not be taken seriously.

The incompetence displayed (as Syria slides further into civil war) comes from the 'Three Stooges' - the White House, the State Department and the CIA - who once again have a major foreign policy failure to explain (to the US electorate).

It's far from certain that even a worst case scenario in Syria would have a major adverse effect on US interests in the region. Again, what specific adverse effects do you think the US should be worried about? Just an opportunity to go 0 for 3 on the substance scale, if you choose to do so.

Thats your opinion and your reply probably indicates that you have not thought of the effect the collapse of the state of Syria will have on the Middle East. I understand that after all you are merely an agricultural advisor of sorts.

US intervention was not in any way certain to prevent Syria from collapsing into anarchy and civil war, and could easily have accelerated that collapse. At least this way we're not in the middle of it.

Thats just a comment but it betrays you main thrust and that is for the US not to get involved regardless of the consequences. I have covered the most likely threat to US interests across the Middle East if Syria collapses - which it appears you failed to anticipate - and now it seems the piles of bodies in the streets are of no concern to you either.

All I hear you saying is that Syria could have been saved if only those incompetent Americans had done what you think they should have done, with no hint of what you think they should have done or how it might have saved Syria. Given the lack of substance, it's hard to take that allegation seriously.

Thats not all I have said... go read post #383 and a bunch of others earlier in this thread.

What Syria represents is the growing inability of the US to influence international affairs. I wonder how many USians realise this? The US is moving from 'influencial' to 'pathetic' on the international stage. We observed the slow decline of the Brits from controlling 'half' the world to controlling little more than the home islands... and the Falklands.

Now just to restate my opinion on possible US military intervention in Syria. My position has been clear from the start. Of all the countries the US is the one that should not get involved. The historical record of such US interventions is so appalling to the extent that any such action must not be considered. Any US involvement must be limited to logistic support only (should such a need arise).

They are/were lacking, as stated. Lacking as in absent, missing, nonexistent. Am I supposed to make a list of attractive options that weren't there? Or of the broad range of bad options that were there? Please specify what you're asking for... or better yet, specify the option you think should have been taken.

I made a list in post #383 to explain my position on Syria... why can't you? I appreciate you run the risk of exposing yourself.

Easy response to points you can't answer. Not a convincing response, but easy.

No, no, I am the only one who as explained his reading of the Syrian situation in some detail (see post #383). I understand that it is easier to nit-pick other peoples comments and opinions than it is to open yours up to public comment and scrutiny.

I would suggest that until you have done the same you should zip it.

[JMA]

Syrian oil production for export is a pittance, and their primary customer outside the country is the EU. According to US EIA, China is a partner with India in a joint production venture that includes the Syrians (50% interest) and the Dutch via Shell Oil (32%). So the Chinese may get about 9% of the revenues from this venture if they have a 50-50 split with India in Himalaya Energy Syria. If China is backing Syria over oil, it is more likely doing so to appease Iran, which at about 1/12 (.4 of 4.8MM bbl/day) of China's total bbl/day imports is a distant third largest source for Chinese oil imports after Saudi Arabia and Angola at about 800K BBls each/day(again according to US EIA)

And what would the Chinese do with a bunch of modified old SCUDs and SS-21s? North Korea is much closer as a source for tactical SRBM/MRBM development if the Chinese needed or wanted an outside source.

Ok... so you obviously don't understand.

I suggest that you study how China approaches foreign relations and how and by what means it enters into and establishes relationships with countries. Also it would be valuable for you to come to understand that unlike with the US - who seek instant gratification - China is quite happy to plan over a 100 year time frame. Yes I appreciate that all this is beyond the understanding of the average western mind but I do suggest you give it a shot.

IMHO, a concern associated with regime change or anarchy in Syria that is bigger than US/Western oil imports would by Iran's loss of its primary staging base for its crusade against Israel. I submit that Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey would not be too greatly affected by further bloodshed or, as you described it, anarchy and total civil war in Syria, nor would the rest of the smaller Persian Gulf oil-producing states. But who knows what trouble the IRGC and its surrogates like Hezbollah might kick up across the region?

You are entitled to speculate as is anyone. Now why don't you attempt to put something down like I did in post #383? A little more than a single 'who knows'?

OK so you have stated that you disagree that there would be a knock on effect across the region should the Syrian state "collapse into anarchy and total civil war". We shall see.

BTW, Dayuhan's post hit while I was writing mine. We aren't in cahoots or channeling for each other as far as I know. What we seem to share from our locations that are almost half a world apart is a desire for facts and good arguments rather than bombastic rhetoric and eristic expositions.

Great!

Well then why not set the example by doing just that rather than sitting off to one side and sniping at other peoples comments?

Use my simple attempt as in post #383 as an example if you wish.

But really its not going to happen is it? Not your style or his. Both seem better suited resorting merely to criticism of others.

Hey, I may be wrong with you. Maybe you can guide me to a post of yours somewhere around here where you have actually gone out on a limb and expressed an opinion (as opposed to merely to comment on what others have said or a 'me too' response). Surprise me.

[davidbfpo]

This is JMA's Post 383, dated 03-10-2012 which he refers to and brought forward for ease:

Opinion: The killings of opposition groups – men, women and children – by the minority Syrian regime must stop.

Opinion: I realise that Syria is a complex and unique problem.

Fact: The old Middle East Sunni/Shia is one major issue then there is that of Russia having Mediterranean ‘warm water’ port facilities there.

Fact: Then we have Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey who stand to get scolded if Syria burns.

Fact: I accept that any talk of military intervention by the US and maybe the EU will be interpreted by Russia and others as a pretext for regime change.

Fact: Regime change in Syria will most likely mean the end of access to Syrian port facilities for the Russians.

Fact: A new Sunni Arab government in Syria will change the balance in the Middle East significantly.

Fact: There are many vested interests in maintaining the status quo in Syria.

Fact: The insurrection in Syria has been bubbling for more than a year with increased intensity over the recent months.

Opinion: The longer the insurrection lasts and the more violent it becomes the more difficult it will be to impose a peaceful settlement in Syria.

Fact: When challenged with an insurrection has one of two choices – act or abdicate.

(Negotiation is the soft route to abdication but few regimes willingly relinquish power and tend to try to hold on too long until overthrown or forced to surrender.)

Opinion: The Alawite minority will try to cling to power until a negotiated settlement is no longer possible.

Opinion: I am told that there is a saying among the (15% minority) Alawites and that is, “we either hand individually or we hang together”. I believe they have chosen the latter.

Opinion: If the Alawites lose power they will become a persecuted minority (and also on the receiving end of some serious payback). Will they submit to democratic elections willingly? No.

Opinion: The Alawites should therefore be removed from power by the quickest means as this will end the current killing and also reduce future payback effected on the Alawites.

Fact: There are clearly efforts being made to bring economic (sanctions) and diplomatic pressure to bear on the Syrian regime to end the carnage. Safe in the arms of Mother Russia the Syrian regime is unmoved.

Opinion: The more weapons that find their way into the hands of the opposition groups the more difficult it will be to bring an effective cease fire into effect. Hence my opinion that opposition groups should not be armed and the urgent need to bring the Assad regime to heel.

What are the possibilities that Russia will change its position?

Opinion: Not much… until the writing is on the wall for the Assad regime and then some.

So where to apply the pressure?

Opinion: On Assad’s inner circle and the military units involved in the mass atrocities.

Who should do this?

Opinion: Anyone other than the US … or US assets placed under direct French or Brit military command.

Anyone other than the US able to do this?

Opinion: No. Military intervention is therefore unlikely as the Germans and the Dutch have already surrendered (no doubt with more to follow).

Why should the US not lead the intervention?

Opinion: Because (based on their track record) they will cock it up.

Where to from here?

Opinion: wait and see.

[JMA]

Not as an election cheap-shot but I wonder how many USians actually see the obvious:

Barack Obama is proving an embarrassing amateur in confronting the Russian bear

[AdamG]

Here we go again, same old stuff again...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/wo...-analysis.html

[JMA]

Here we go again, same old stuff again...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/wo...-analysis.html

Same old stuff but the essential point seems lost on some of the smart guys around here.

In such circumstances - as are found in Syria right now - the best plan is to 'kill the snake' by a blow to its head.

One explosion - like what happened - has almost achieved that.

Instead the smart guys - aka idiots - have allowed the rebels to be armed to the extent a viscous civil war with ongoing t*t-for-tat butchery is now inevitable because they don't have the smarts to comprehend the simple solution.

[wm]

Ok... so you obviously don't understand.

I suggest that you study how China approaches foreign relations and how and by what means it enters into and establishes relationships with countries. Also it would be valuable for you to come to understand that unlike with the US - who seek instant gratification - China is quite happy to plan over a 100 year time frame. Yes I appreciate that all this is beyond the understanding of the average western mind but I do suggest you give it a shot.

You are entitled to speculate as is anyone. Now why don't you attempt to put something down like I did in post #383? A little more than a single 'who knows'?

OK so you have stated that you disagree that there would be a knock on effect across the region should the Syrian state "collapse into anarchy and total civil war". We shall see.

Great!

Well then why not set the example by doing just that rather than sitting off to one side and sniping at other peoples comments?

Use my simple attempt as in post #383 as an example if you wish.

But really its not going to happen is it? Not your style or his. Both seem better suited resorting merely to criticism of others.

Hey, I may be wrong with you. Maybe you can guide me to a post of yours somewhere around here where you have actually gone out on a limb and expressed an opinion (as opposed to merely to comment on what others have said or a 'me too' response). Surprise me.

Thanks for the series of ad hominem attacks. Your "you just don't understand" is a standard riposte that was not unexpected.
What China plans to do in 100 years is really not all that germane to the issue at hand. A century is a long time. The Soviet Union only lasted about 3/4 of one. The current Chinese dynasty has only been around about 2/3 of one and is already unraveling. But you want a position not a critique of yours. So here you go.
My crystal ball indicates that in 2112, the China we now know and love will be no more. It will have dissolved into a group of disparate regions that may or may not be confederated. Some pieces of the current country will no longer be part of it. The provinces of Xinjiang, Xizang (Tibet), and Inner Mongolia are the most likely candiudates, but a separate southern confederation of at least Guangdong and Guangxi seems possible too.
However' this has little to do with the issue of what to do about Syria, except to point out that the appeal to Chinese future plans is a non sequitur.
Here's an opinion about Syria: Syria deserves the same attention that Biafra and Bangladesh got last century and the Sudan has been getting. The world can express its moral indignation but should let the locals sort it out for themselves. What are a few hundred or thousand more dead in a country that allows itself to be a base for bad actors against other nations anyway? No skin off most other countries' noses, except some EU countries that may lose a little imported oil. In fact, the chaos may give Lebanon and Israel a little breathing space from Iranian-sponsored attacks. An intervention to conduct regime change is unlikely to end the killing, as the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan show so poignantly.

I ask you to compare the above to the "position" in your vaunted post #383. That Post reminds me of the zuzuvelas that were so distracting during the last World Cup. First you opine (without support) that the killling must stop in Syria, but your final, and contradictory, position is "Wait and See." I'm not sure how this constitutes espressing an opinion other than your middle unsupported view that the US will cock up an intervention so it should not lead one or empower the French or British to do so.

In reponse to your request to show you places where I've taken a stand/expressed an opinion (or gone out on a limb as you call it) maybe you could look at the posts made on the "what we support and defend" thread found here and here for what I consider to be recent examples of such. I suspect you are right though: those posts are not really expressing an opinion or taking a risky position (as your "going out on a limb" comment suggests ); just sniping at Carl and Bob's World.

[JMA]

Thanks for the series of ad hominem attacks. Your "you just don't understand" is a standard riposte that was not unexpected.

That's better than someone who puts "Tilting at Windmills, belling cats, and pointing out logical inconsistencies" in his "About Me" on SWC should expect. I mean the incredible arrogance of it all. A pity everyone else is so imperfect that you have to help by putting them right.

What China plans to do in 100 years is really not all that germane to the issue at hand. A century is a long time. The Soviet Union only lasted about 3/4 of one. The current Chinese dynasty has only been around about 2/3 of one and is already unraveling. But you want a position not a critique of yours. So here you go.
My crystal ball indicates that in 2112, the China we now know and love will be no more. It will have dissolved into a group of disparate regions that may or may not be confederated. Some pieces of the current country will no longer be part of it. The provinces of Xinjiang, Xizang (Tibet), and Inner Mongolia are the most likely candiudates, but a separate southern confederation of at least Guangdong and Guangxi seems possible too.

That is a personal opinion or a self evident fact? I note you provide no supporting evidence which you and your mate demand when ever someone else makes such a prediction. Strange that.

However' this has little to do with the issue of what to do about Syria, except to point out that the appeal to Chinese future plans is a non sequitur.

Not quite, what it all means (if you were smart enough to understand) is that the Chinese have a different approach to developing relationships with countries than has been the traditional method of the past.

Here's an opinion about Syria: Syria deserves the same attention that Biafra and Bangladesh got last century and the Sudan has been getting.

Yes that is merely your personal opinion... for what is worth.

The world can express its moral indignation but should let the locals sort it out for themselves. What are a few hundred or thousand more dead in a country that allows itself to be a base for bad actors against other nations anyway? No skin off most other countries' noses, except some EU countries that may lose a little imported oil.

Yea, I know, just a bunch savage "rag-heads". Let them butcher each other, who cares, right?

In fact, the chaos may give Lebanon and Israel a little breathing space from Iranian-sponsored attacks. An intervention to conduct regime change is unlikely to end the killing, as the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan show so poignantly.

And that too is merely your opinion, (for what that's worth).

Do I detect an intellectual deficit here? One would suppose that the US would learn from its past mistakes on method but it should not rule out the possible use of force/military action/whatever to remove Assad and his criminal thugs from power. Note: I have stated repeatedly that the US should not get involved in any military action in Syria for reasons of a now predictable pattern of failure. [QUOTE]

I ask you to compare the above to the "position" in your vaunted post #383.

Same problem, just a few personal opinions from you... worthless.

That Post reminds me of the zuzuvelas that were so distracting during the last World Cup.

How childish is that... LOL

First you opine (without support) that the killling must stop in Syria, but your final, and contradictory, position is "Wait and See."

Your IQ?

That list of mine contained a mix of facts and opinion - clearly marked as such.

What is so difficult to understand that IMHO I state that the killing should stop... then as I am powerless to do anything about it all I can do is "wait and see". You can't really be this dim, can you?

In fact on that list some of the items I listed as merely opinion a year or so ago I can now safely say are now facts.

I'm not sure how this constitutes espressing an opinion other than your middle unsupported view that the US will cock up an intervention so it should not lead one or empower the French or British to do so.

History speaks for itself. Provide a list of interventions carried out by the US which have not turned out to be a cock-up. Let history be the judge. Predictable failure is a very good reason to avoid such interventions.

In reponse to your request to show you places where I've taken a stand/expressed an opinion (or gone out on a limb as you call it) maybe you could look at the posts made on the "what we support and defend" thread found here and here for what I consider to be recent examples of such. I suspect you are right though: those posts are not really expressing an opinion or taking a risky position (as your "going out on a limb" comment suggests ); just sniping at Carl and Bob's World.

Exactly... and in addition and more true to form are the following two posts where you do nothing but take cheap-shots at AmericanPride's posts.

post 1

post 2

You and your mate are certainly two peas in a pod.

[carl]

Where violence is so common, as it was in Syria prior to the protests, using the tactic shows IMHO how far some will go for their cause. Sad to say, I expected its use there earlier. After all Syrians were fed on a TV diet of suicide bombings locally in Israel, Lebanon and adjacent Iraq for years, so some of the contrary factors were less influential.

David, I meant to tell you I thought this a very insightful comment, especially the part about mass media propagandizing lowering the threshold of acceptable behavior.

[Ken White]

Else the thread will be locked after offensive posts are deleted.

Ken White