Nato all but rules out Syria no-fly zone

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

Nato has all but ruled out the possibility of establishing a no-fly zone in Syria after the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, warned that any western intervention would cause an "earthquake" that would "burn the whole region".

Despite the success of its Libya mission, which formally ends on Monday, Nato officials made it clear there was little prospect of the alliance establishing a similar no-fly zone to protect civilians and stem the mounting death toll in the eight-month Syrian uprising.

Some Syrian anti-government groups have called on the west to defend them as bloody fighting between security forces and armed protesters escalates and the country drifts towards civil war.

Tanks were reported to have shelled a historic district in the central city and opposition stronghold of Homs today. At least 20 soldiers were killed and 53 wounded on Saturday in clashes with opposition forces in the city. Rebel gunmen also ambushed a bus in the north-west province of Idlib, killing 10 security officers, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reported. One attacker also died.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/oct/30/nato-syria-no-fly-zone

[pampango]

1. Juan Cole: Why a No-Fly Zone won’t Work in Syria

http://www.juancole.com/2011/10/why-a-no-fly-zone-wont-work-in-syria.html

There are many reasons for which the protesters will not get their wish for a no-fly zone over Syria.

Most important, a no-fly zone is not a practical response to the Baath government’s repression. On Friday, troops just shot into the crowds. Unlike Qaddafi, Bashar al-Assad is not bombing his cities with jets from the air. Nor are helicopter gunships or tank units central to the coercive abilities of the Syrian state. Syrian geography is complex, and plinking tanks from the air is not an option in Syria.

There is no Arab League resolution urging intervention in Syria. There is no United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing war. In the absence of a UNSC resolution, any attack on Syria would be considered an act of aggression and could open US politicians and military men to prosecution in international courts.

Russia and China are against Western intervention, which dooms any condemnatory resolution at the UN security council. In international law since 1945, especially in the UN charter, the only grounds for going to war are self-defense or as a result of a UNSC resolution. Neither obtains in Syria and any foreign intervention would therefore be illegal, and the pilots could be tried in international courts.

It breaks my heart to say all this. The youth of Syria is being cold-bloodedly shot down by army snipers. You wish there was a way to stop it. But there isn’t. There isn’t a practical set of military tactics outsiders could deploy effectively in this situation. There is no international framework of legality for an intervention.

But it should be remembered that the political wing of the Syrian opposition in any case does not want such an intervention, and that most Syrians are determined to go it alone. They want to do what the Tunisians and Egyptians did. They should be given a chance, since that would be the best outcome possible.

[tcaudilllg]

2. Assad speaks the language of nations.

He thinks like a nation and knows how other nations will react to him. He feeds on the fear of differences of opinion, differing ideas. He holds out the fear that an "other" will take away individual freedom, while distracting from the simple fact that he has already taken away every freedom they can imagine having.

[Fool Count]

3. That makes it definitive. If Juan Cole didn't get an order to shill for it,

you can be sure that the elites decided against Syria intervention for the time being. Take it to the bank. If I were the Syrian
resistance, I would give up on armed rebellion now and get onboard with Asad's "democratic reform" ASAP.

[pampango]

4. Not a Cole fan? Neither was Bush. Cole opposed Iraq and Afghanistan and supports OWS, don't you?

If you disagree with his position on Libya/Gadaffi, that makes him a "shill" all of a sudden?

If he is a shill, no one told Bush:

"Under pressure from the White House, a CIA official asked his staff to spy on Cole, a noted history professor from Ann Arbor who writes a popular blog about the Middle East called Informed Comment, according to story in the New York Times."

"The Bush White House request that the CIA spy on me to discredit me clearly violated the American constitution, U.S. law, the CIA charter, and my civil and human rights," U-M professor Juan Cole told the Free Press. "It was criminal."'

http://www.freep.com/article/20110616/NEWS05/110616016/U-M-professor-calls-investigation-into-CIA-Bush-White-House-illegally-spying-him-?odyssey=tab

I agree with you that no one is going to intervene in Syria. No one was going to intervene in Libya until the UN authorized it. And that's true in Syria, too. Unless and until the UN authorizes any action, nothing is going to happen. Russia and China are blocking even a UN condemnation of Syria's crackdown, much less sanctions or anything harsher.

[Fool Count]

5. My disagreeing with him on Libya doesn't make him a shill, even

his agreeing with US/NATO aggression doesn't make him a shill. His shilling for this
unnecessary war based on lies does. And it does only takes one time - shilling for the Man
is not unlike prostitution in this respect. His alleged opposition to Iraq/Afghanistan
doesn't change a thing. Could have been just a ruse by his CIA handlers to build up the
asset's credibility. Or could be that he was recruited only later based precisely on that
opposition. Anyhow his anti-Iraq war stance didn't get any impact and media attention
comparable to his pro-Libya shilling. How can I be sure that he is a professional?
Because when an independently thinking intelligent person suddenly finds himself in agreement
with the power-wielding global elites, his first instinct should always be to question, doubt
and re-analyze his own thinking, not to run around all forms of media shilling for those elites,
that's how. That goes for you too.

[pampango]

6. But don't you agree with Cole and the "global elites" that there should be no intervention in Syria.

"...when an independently thinking intelligent person suddenly finds himself in agreement with the power-wielding global elites, his first instinct should always be to question, doubt and re-analyze his own thinking, not to run around all forms of media shilling for those elites ..."

Should you re-analyze your thinking on Syria and not just go along with the "shilling for those elites"? Or does your opposition to intervention in Syria just happen to coincide with those elites?

Cole's position on Libya, if he arrives at it based on his knowledge of the region and his own personal opinion, doesn't make him a shill for the "global elites" any more than someone being against intervention was necessarily a shill for Ron Paul and the John Birch Society.

[Fool Count]

7. The shills whose shilling is grounded in "own personal opinion"

are the most valuable to the global elites. Most adept of those shills have no problem
convincing themselves that it is their "knowledge" and "personal opinion", and not the
money or a written contract with CIA, which motivates them. And not, I do not agree
with Cole. Because, nowhere in his piece does he states that there should be no
intervention in Syria based on the fundamental principle of national sovereignty and
non-interference. He just concludes, with an obvious regret, that such intervention,
however righteous and desirable, is neither feasible or practical under current
conditions. So again, he is just shilling to justify before the masses the apparent
inconsistency of his global elites masters. Do you really not see a difference between
a principled anti-imperialist anti-war position and Cole's pro-elites sycophant shilling?