Or, how 'bout the classic that's always true regardless?

Vladimir Putin 'doesn't exclude' backing military force on Syria if evidence proves 'beyond doubt'

Source: The Independent

Vladimir Putin 'doesn't exclude' backing military force on Syria if evidence proves 'beyond doubt' Assad used chemical weapons

Steve Anderson Wednesday 04 September 2013



Russia's President Vladimir Putin has said he would not rule out endorsing military action in Syria if it could be proven that Bashar al-Assad's regime had used chemical weapons against its citizens.

Though he "doesn't exclude" the possibility of backing force, he said that action should only be taken once evidence has been submitted to the UN Security Council and that, at present, he felt it was "ludicrous" that the government of President Assad would use chemical weapons at a time when it was holding sway against the rebels.

Speaking in an interview with the Associated Press, he said: "From our viewpoint, it seems absolutely absurd that the armed forces, the regular armed forces, which are on the offensive today and in some areas have encircled the so-called rebels and are finishing them off, that in these conditions they would start using forbidden chemical weapons while realizing quite well that it could serve as a pretext for applying sanctions against them, including the use of force.

"If there are data that the chemical weapons have been used, and used specifically by the regular army, this evidence should be submitted to the UN Security Council," he added. "And it ought to be convincing. It shouldn't be based on some rumors and information obtained by special services through some kind of eavesdropping, some conversations and things like that."

...

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/vladimir-putin-doesnt-exclude-backing-military-force-on-syria-if-evidence-proves-beyond-doubt-assad-used-chemical-weapons-8797219.html

Russia "doesn't exclude" the possibility of supporting a UN resolution against Syria

Apparently Putin may be setting the stage for a way to relent on the UN sanctions, if the evidence is indisputable. UN approval could possibly change the whole situation for us if we ultimately end up going into Syria.

It was completely different,

For starters, the vast majority of Libyans wanted the Gaddafi regime ENDED, and begged us, and begged us continually for help. Next, the world community was almost entirely behind us and/or with us in intervening. And third, the UN was solidly endorsing our action too, as was the Arab League. We weren't out in front ahead of everyone by ourselves, we were being pulled in by everyone after they were already resolved that we should act.

But the first difference, the Libyan public, was the most important. Because without that unambiguous desire from them for our help, I don't think the world community and the UN would have been on board with us either.

I question whether there is a sufficient majority of Syrians who clearly and without reservation, WANT our help as desperately as the Libyans did. I'm not saying the situation is not as desperate, of course it is. But I don't see that same desperate desire for our help that was so clearly unmistakable from the Libyans.

See the story of this man, Mo Nabbous,...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Nabbous

...whose internet stories caught the attention of many of us, and whose friends made this film montage in his memory, of clips from news stories that he made to bring Libya to our attention. Sadly, Mo died just hours before Libya won its independence.

Report to NATO: 70% of Syrians support Assad

This is a big reason why I think we should stay out of Syria. (For those who can't or don't want to go to the link below, the percentage of the public opposed to Assad is estimated at about 10% right now.)

http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/

So we are outraged by these chemical attacks and mass killings, but apparently the Syrian public is not.

Even among that 10% opposition, some of them said that if the US attacks Assad, they too will actually switch sides, and fight on his side against us, because they will see it as defending their country under outside attack. (Wish I had saved the link to that statement but I didn't; it was in a linked article somewhere here on DU this past weekend.) I realize not all opposition may be feel that way, but I don't doubt that it's a real view among some.

When I saw that, it was a crystallizing moment to me, I thought "forget this, no way". We are far too hated there to get involved directly, and we should stay out of it. Syria is not Libya, and it is not the same as another nation might be some other time. I also didn't know until recently, because very little is being mentioned about it in the news, that the Saudis and Jordan and Dubai are assisting the rebels. If anything, we should be helping them in their efforts, and not acting directly ourselves. This is something that those in the local area should do, and it seems as if they are trying to.

Also, where is the pressure on Russia and China, Syria's friends, to do something to discourage Assad? For those who believe "looking bad" is a big thing, why don't we put a focus on making Russia look bad for doing nothing about this?

I agree that 100,000 dead and this use of chemical weapons warrants intervention, but not under these circumstances. There is no way that we should go into a situation in which we immediately become the enemy the moment we take action to help. This fight has to be won first by the Syrian people being outraged at Assad themselves, and next by sympathetic neighboring states.

There are indirect things we could do, and I think we should. But this is not our battle. Anyway that's one person's take on it.