Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

RobitTV · 30-08-2013 10:47pm

US delivered a stunning snub to Britain, lavishing praise on its ‘oldest ally’ France as the two countries prepared to launch missile strikes on Syria as early as this weekend.

The US delivered a stunning snub to Britain yesterday, lavishing praise on its ‘oldest ally’ France as the two countries prepared to launch missile strikes on Syria as early as this weekend.

Secretary of State John Kerry paid tribute to the French for standing ready to join the US in confronting the ‘thug and murderer’ President Bashar Assad.

In a White House address last night, Mr Kerry pointedly made no mention of Britain – despite the historic ‘special relationship’ between the two nations.
Instead America was ‘confident and gratified’ it was ‘not alone’ in its will to act, he said, praising France, Australia and even Turkey for their support

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2407511/U-S-snubs-Britain--gets-cosy-French-After-Camerons-Commons-humiliation-Obama-prepares-blitz-Syria-us.html

Seaneh · 30-08-2013 10:54pm

Ah jaysus, it was only a decae ago they were burning flags in the street and renaming chips because the french wouldn't support their last bogus war.

gurramok · 30-08-2013 11:03pm

Seaneh wrote: »

Ah jaysus, it was only a decae ago they were burning flags in the street and renaming chips because the french wouldn't support their last bogus war.

The French have the moral high ground on this one. The UK(Labour MP's ironically) have made a 2013 mistake based on their 2003 Iraq mistake. One thinks they are trying to make lost ground but they have totally misjudged Syria, it ain't Iraq.

Seaneh · 30-08-2013 11:07pm

gurramok wrote: »

The French have the moral high ground on this one. The UK(Labour MP's ironically) have made a 2013 mistake based on their 2003 Iraq mistake. One thinks they are trying to make lost ground but they have totally misjudged Syria, it ain't Iraq.

No, the UK adhered to international law and the will of 85% of their population and refused to accept going to war with another country without the approval of the UN or ANY evidence from their intelligence services to prove that Assad has used chemical weapons.

gurramok · 30-08-2013 11:13pm

Seaneh wrote: »

No, the UK adhered to international law and the will of 85% of their population and refused to accept going to war with another country without the approval of the UN or ANY evidence from their intelligence services to prove that Assad has used chemical weapons.

85%?

The UK only voted because of Labours shame in Iraq which hugely influenced the vote, all Labour MP's voted against it.

Look at it this way. Labour is socialist(allegedly

) and so is the present French govt. The former voted against action while the latter wants action. Its obvious that local UK politics influenced the vote in Westminster.

Seaneh · 30-08-2013 11:30pm

What does anything you just posted have to do with anything?

gurramok · 30-08-2013 11:36pm

Seaneh wrote: »

What does anything you just posted have to do with anything?

I answered your post about the UK's vote, it explains it well.

Eggy Baby! · 30-08-2013 11:39pm

The UK only voted because of Labours shame in Iraq which hugely influenced the vote, all Labour MP's voted against it.

Maybe. But those Labour MPs were elected by the people, and as such serve as their legitimate representatives in parliament.

Cameron is just irritated that the democratic mandate is not in his favour. He mentioned today in an interview in Sky News (paraphrased) that: "We shall proceed with this (vote) in mind...." translated for non-bullsh*t speakers, that means he won't proceed at all because he has been shafted by democratic mandate.

Sand · 31-08-2013 12:17am

RobitTV wrote: »

The US delivered a stunning snub to Britain yesterday, lavishing praise on its ‘oldest ally’ France as the two countries prepared to launch missile strikes on Syria as early as this weekend.

Secretary of State John Kerry paid tribute to the French for standing ready to join the US in confronting the ‘thug and murderer’ President Bashar Assad.

In a White House address last night, Mr Kerry pointedly made no mention of Britain – despite the historic ‘special relationship’ between the two nations.
Instead America was ‘confident and gratified’ it was ‘not alone’ in its will to act, he said, praising France, Australia and even Turkey for their support

Hardly a stunning snub if Britain wasn't even mentioned - Kerry was giving a war speech, why would he mention Britain when they weren't involved in the war? The US-UK relationship is tremendously important for the UK, its not all that important for the US (your source is the Daily Wail, a UK paper). British military and political reputation with the US already took a huge hammering with their defeat in Basra and the complete mess they made of Helmand in 2006.

The reality is that the US doesn't need France or the UK if it decides to intervene via air strikes - prior to the HoC defeat the UK sent 6 Typhoons (yes, practically the entire deployable RAF) to Cyprus. Turkey is probably the most important in terms of providing local bases. France is only useful in that it demonstrates a coalition of the willing. That's it.

Eggy Baby! · 31-08-2013 2:20am

Sand wrote: »

Hardly a stunning snub if Britain wasn't even mentioned - Kerry was giving a war speech, why would he mention Britain when they weren't involved in the war? The US-UK relationship is tremendously important for the UK, its not all that important for the US (your source is the Daily Wail, a UK paper). British military and political reputation with the US already took a huge hammering with their defeat in Basra and the complete mess they made of Helmand in 2006.

The reality is that the US doesn't need France or the UK if it decides to intervene via air strikes - prior to the HoC defeat the UK sent 6 Typhoons (yes, practically the entire deployable RAF) to Cyprus. Turkey is probably the most important in terms of providing local bases. France is only useful in that it demonstrates a coalition of the willing. That's it.

The British and French aren't logistically important, but their lack of presence in the "coalition" is an embarrassment to the White House, particularly if it decides to go ahead unilaterally (not uncommon behaviour from the Americans).

31-08-2013 1:58pm

gurramok wrote: »

85%?

The UK only voted because of Labours shame in Iraq which hugely influenced the vote, all Labour MP's voted against it.

Look at it this way. Labour is socialist(allegedly ) and so is the present French govt. The former voted against action while the latter wants action. Its obvious that local UK politics influenced the vote in Westminster.

At least there was a vote

According to Article One, Section Eight of the US Constitution "Congress shall have the power," ...... "to declare war."
Yet Obama, a former professor of constitutional law off all things, doesn't think it should have the power to consent to an attack on Syria.

Against Assad, the man he bragged had mended fences with all the countries Bush alienated.... and Hillary called a GREAT REFORMER....

Typical Democrat war mongers.

Tony EH · 31-08-2013 2:36pm

RobitTV wrote: »

US delivered a stunning snub to Britain, lavishing praise on its ‘oldest ally’ France as the two countries prepared to launch missile strikes on Syria as early as this weekend.

The US delivered a stunning snub to Britain yesterday, lavishing praise on its ‘oldest ally’ France as the two countries prepared to launch missile strikes on Syria as early as this weekend.

You see...it's this kind of political grandstanding crap that quite rightfully makes people distrust America in anything she pursues.

There is NOTHING to trust in and EVERYTHING to be wary of.

I wonder what they're going call French Fries for this conflict. :rolleyes:

realweirdo · 31-08-2013 3:08pm

Assad uses CW on thousands of innocent men, women and children, but the same old people want to bring up Iraq and rabit on about it, a conflict that has next to nothing to do with the current one.

As for the UK, the Iraq War, which was the wrong war at the wrong time, has coloured the views of the British public, a public which is collectively not the most well-informed or intelligent in the first place. Ask many of them where Syria is and they would struggle, who the president of Syria is or anything like that. They could care less about the Syrian people, but when there's a danger of it interfering in their own lives, the want nothing to do with it.

The vote in the house of commons was a victory for hand wringers everywhere and dictators who want to use CW against their own people. Assad has tested the boundaries at every opportunity and keeps pushing them out. If Obama hadn't issued his red line threat, there's no question Assad would have used even greater amounts of CW. We need to be thankful to Obama for that. As for the EU, UN and Arab League, same old hand wringing and claims that something must be done, but keep going around in the same old circles and diplomatic word games while Assad kills more and more.

If we were waiting for the EU, UN or Arab League to act, we'd all be waiting for decades.

Seaneh · 31-08-2013 3:12pm

realweirdo wrote: »

Assad uses CW on thousands of innocent men, women and children

Want to back that up with some evidence while you're playing moral authority there?

realweirdo · 31-08-2013 3:13pm

gurramok wrote: »

85%?

The UK only voted because of Labours shame in Iraq which hugely influenced the vote, all Labour MP's voted against it.

Look at it this way. Labour is socialist(allegedly ) and so is the present French govt. The former voted against action while the latter wants action. Its obvious that local UK politics influenced the vote in Westminster.

Indeed, Labour have an appalling record on interventions. Their Iraq intervention was disastrous and ill conceived. Their failure to support intervention in Syria equally disastrous...the conflict in Syria is now worse than than in Iraq and is only getting worse.

The UK Labour party are just political opportunists. All they care about is getting re-elected and getting their snout in the trough.

realweirdo · 31-08-2013 3:17pm

Seaneh wrote: »

Want to back that up with some evidence while you're playing moral authority there?

I believe the US and John Kerry have provided the evidence. The main evidence is that the FSA do not have the means or command and control to carry out this attack.

People of your ilk continuely argue that the FSA are a rag tag outfit, and yet when a major operation like this is carried out, people like you also claim it may have been the FSA.

You know well it wasn't the FSA.

Every major atrocity in this conflict has been carried out by Assad including the latest napalm attack in Aleppo. I suppose next you will say the Napalm attack was staged by the FSA too.

If Assad had nothing to hide, why not allow the UN monitors in immediately and give them every possible assistance? Why for example did his forces continue to bombard the area where the CW attack took place?

realweirdo · 31-08-2013 3:22pm

As for calling Obama a war-monger this is typical anti American nonsense.

Obama pulled out of Iraq, is pulling out of Afghanistan, acted in Libya only at the very last minute and with UNSC sanction, fired off a few cruise missiles and retreated to allow the French and others carry on, and has showed complete reluctance to engage in Syria even after the death of 100,000 people.

He is the least war mongering US president in US history.

Seaneh · 31-08-2013 3:24pm

realweirdo wrote: »

I believe the US and John Kerry have provided the evidence. The main evidence is that the FSA do not have the means or command and control to carry out this attack.

People of your ilk continuely argue that the FSA are a rag tag outfit, and yet when a major operation like this is carried out, people like you also claim it may have been the FSA.

You know well it wasn't the FSA.

Every major atrocity in this conflict has been carried out by Assad including the latest napalm attack in Aleppo. I suppose next you will say the Napalm attack was staged by the FSA too.

If Assad had nothing to hide, why not allow the UN monitors in immediately and give them every possible assistance? Why for example did his forces continue to bombard the area where the CW attack took place?

all this despite the Turkish police catching Al Nusra linked militants with Sarin trying to cross the boarder and the UN inspectors stating on may that the rebels had "almost certainly" used chemical weapons earlier in the year.

Pull the other one buddy.

realweirdo · 31-08-2013 3:33pm

I am pie wrote: »

I still think they should exert pressure on their friends in the region. What is the Saudi's hand in this? Jordan? A regional alliance should be taking charge here, even if just to shut Syria down economically.

The US must sit back, give some thought to the bigger picture and how fcked the region will be in 10 to 15 years time if they topple another dictator and let the lunatics rush into the vacuum.

It's the middle east - it's been fcked as a region for at least 1000 years. You have Sunni, Shia, Jews and so on, all living side by side and who all hate each other. Saddam was a friend to the west (unfortunately) until he turned rogue and invaded Kuwait and threathened western oil supplies. I don't personally care if Assad stayed in power forever, but when he starts using CW against civilians, we all need to sit up and take notice and do something about it.

It would be great if the UN, EU or Arab League punished people who used CW but that's not really going to happen, as all these organisations are strong on useless diplomacy and hand wringing and weak on action.

When action is demanded, its usually big brother the US who has to do it as little brothers the Arab League, UN and EU always run away, Bosnia and Rwanda key examples.

realweirdo · 31-08-2013 3:43pm

Seaneh wrote: »

all this despite the Turkish police catching Al Nusra linked militants with Sarin trying to cross the boarder and the UN inspectors stating on may that the rebels had "almost certainly" used chemical weapons earlier in the year.

Pull the other one buddy.

All the evidence points to the Assad regime using CW in Damascus on a large scale - MSF also verified the use of a toxic nerve agent which led to the deaths of hundreds of people in 3 hospitals they work in alone.

The CW were delivered by rockets in the middle of a Syrian Army offensive, a delivery method the rebels do not have for chemical weapons.

While I know it would be impossible to persuade someone with a closed mind like you and to be honest I'm not to interested in persuading you as your opinion is it was an operation carried out by the FSA, in my own view the attack strongly points to it being an Assad led operation.

Rascasse · 31-08-2013 3:47pm

Seaneh wrote: »

all this despite the Turkish police catching Al Nusra linked militants with Sarin trying to cross the boarder and the UN inspectors stating on may that the rebels had "almost certainly" used chemical weapons earlier in the year.

Pull the other one buddy.

The Turks deny that they were found with Sarin, Russia Today seems to be the main site peddling that myth.

Do you have a link to the UN report, I can't find anything on Google?

Seaneh · 31-08-2013 3:47pm

I take it you've managed to miss this article from a reporter with 20 years of experience reporting from the middle east as a correspondent for The BBC, Associated Press and NPR among others.
So its not like she's some random blogger with no credibility. This is s respected journalist on the ground in Syria interviewing survivors and wittnesses.

http://youtu.be/4v18AgFUz9c

Seaneh · 31-08-2013 3:50pm

realweirdo wrote: »

All the evidence points to the Assad regime using CW in Damascus on a large scale - MSF also verified the use of a toxic nerve agent which led to the deaths of hundreds of people in 3 hospitals they work in alone.

The CW were delivered by rockets in the middle of a Syrian Army offensive, a delivery method the rebels do not have for chemical weapons.

While I know it would be impossible to persuade someone with a closed mind like you and to be honest I'm not to interested in persuading you as your opinion is it was an operation carried out by the FSA, in my own view the attack strongly points to it being an Assad led operation.

I don't think it was the FSA at all. I'm not fool enough to believe that the FSA has any semblance of control over the various factions on the ground. I believe Saudi and Qatar backed Salafi jidahists are to blame.

Seaneh · 31-08-2013 3:55pm

Rascasse wrote: »

The Turks deny that they were found with Sarin, Russia Today seems to be the main site peddling that myth.

Do you have a link to the UN report, I can't find anything on Google?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

De Ponte is pretty sure about then using chemical weapons.

realweirdo · 31-08-2013 3:58pm

Seaneh wrote: »

I don't think it was the FSA at all. I'm not fool enough to believe that the FSA has any semblance of control over the various factions on the ground. I believe Saudi and Qatar backed Salafi jidahists are to blame.

If your theory is right, and I for example was a Syrian government advisor or indeed Assad, my first reaction would be to say this potentially could be a massive propaganda coup for us. Let's stop shelling that neighbourhood. Let's get the UN investigators in their immediately. Let them carry out whatever investigation they need and so on, immediately while the evidence is fresh and let them present it to the UN. It would potentially turn everyone on the UNSC against the rebels and strengthen Assad's hand, helping him in the long run win the war.

But that's not what happened. Instead Assad prevaricated and procastinated, delayed, and stimied the efforts of the UN investigators for 5 days, blocked their efforts to get to the site and continued to massively shell the area, something he did with all prior massacres by the way in an effort to destroy evidence. Hardly the actions of a man keen to get to the bottom of the problem or find out who actually carried out the CW attack. As I said everything points to Assad's guilt, including how he tried to frustrate the UN investigators until the CW evidence had degraded or been destroyed by his shelling.

You'd imagine a man who was facing punitive action from the international community would want to show to the world once and for all that he wasn't guilty of the crime. Instead he did everything possible to try to destroy evidence and hope the UN found nothing.

Frank Lee Midere · 31-08-2013 4:00pm

Why are chemical weapons worse than other ordinances?

Seaneh · 31-08-2013 4:03pm

The UN requested access on a Saturday and were granted permission on the Sunday. This line about Assad blocking them from the area is nonsensical, even the general secretary has said as much. All the Syrian government said was that they couldn't provide fir the safety of the investigators because they didn't have control of the area. Which is perfectly rational.

Again, where is your evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons? And where is your proof they tried to obstruct investigators from visiting the site?

Seaneh · 31-08-2013 4:04pm

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Why are chemical weapons worse than other ordinances?

Because America and others have a hard-on for using white phosphorus in modern warfare.

realweirdo · 31-08-2013 4:05pm

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Why are chemical weapons worse than other ordinances?

In regards to Syria, there's not much difference. In my own opinion, MIGS dropping bombs on people in bread queues is just as bad.

However, the use of CW sets a precedent. Just because people oppose you doesn't give you the right to use CW against them.

The indescriminate shelling by Assad forces of urban areas is pretty disturbing of itself - at least NATO try to be precise in their weapons and regards Libya there was hardly any collatoral casualties of civilians.

Assad on the other hand has from day one indescriminately attacked civilians almost as collective punishment.

Frank Lee Midere · 31-08-2013 4:08pm

Seaneh wrote: »

Because America and others have a hard-on for using white phosphorus in modern warfare.

Which is worse than a nerve agent in my view. Bombs filled with ball bearings and other shrapnel magnifying components designed to tear flesh from bodies in numerous wounds are ok, firebombing of cities is ok, a nerve gas which you have a chance of surviving with a gas mask or a windy day is a war crime.

realweirdo · 31-08-2013 4:08pm

Seaneh wrote: »

The UN requested access on a Saturday and were granted permission on the Sunday. This line about Assad blocking them from the area is nonsensical, even the general secretary has said as much. All the Syrian government said was that they couldn't provide fir the safety of the investigators because they didn't have control of the area. Which is perfectly rational.

Again, where is your evidence that the Syrian government used chemical weapons? And where is your proof they tried to obstruct investigators from visiting the site?

Its not nonsense. The FSA said from day 1 they would give safe passage to the UN inspectors. The Syrian army on the otherhand continued to shell the area and then claimed innocence and said they couldn't protect the inspectors. Sometimes you get sick of the Syrian government and their lies. Some people buy the lies, but luckily a few who know better don't.

realweirdo · 31-08-2013 4:10pm

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Which is worse than a nerve agent in my view. Bombs filled with ball bearings and other shrapnel magnifying components designed to tear flesh from bodies in numerous wounds are ok, firebombing of cities is ok, a nerve gas which you have a chance of surviving with a gas mask or a windy day is a war crime.

If you are referring to barrel bombs, Assad has indescriminately used those too. As well as scuds against his own people, migs, morters, tanks, katusha rockets, and much much more. And mostly resupplied by Russia and Iran.

Rascasse · 31-08-2013 4:11pm

Seaneh wrote: »

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

De Ponte is pretty sure about then using chemical weapons.

I think she misspoke. The UN report that came out after that featured no such claim against the rebels:

137. The Government has in its possession a number of chemical weapons. The dangers extend beyond the use of the weapons by the Government itself to the control of such weapons in the event of either fractured command or of any of the affiliated forces gaining access.

138. Anti-government armed groups could gain access to and use chemical weapons. This includes nerve agents, though there is no compelling evidence that these groups possess such weapons or their requisite delivery systems.

139. Allegations were received concerning the use of chemical weapons by both parties. The majority concern their use by government forces. In four attacks – on Khan Al-Asal (Aleppo), on 19 March; Uteibah ( Damascus) on 19 March; Sheikh Maqsood neighbourhood (Aleppo) on 13 April; and Saraqib (Idlib), on 29 April – there are reasonable grounds to believe that limited quantities of toxic chemicals were used. It has not been possible, on the evidence available, to determine the precise chemical agents used, their delivery systems or the perpetrator. Other incidents also remain under investigation.

http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G13/156/20/PDF/G1315620.pdf?OpenElement

Frank Lee Midere · 31-08-2013 4:17pm

realweirdo wrote: »

If you are referring to barrel bombs, Assad has indescriminately used those too. As well as scuds against his own people, migs, morters, tanks, katusha rockets, and much much more. And mostly resupplied by Russia and Iran.

I'm talking about any explosive really. Used by Assad and the opposition jihadists.

realweirdo · 31-08-2013 4:25pm

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I'm talking about any explosive really. Used by Assad and the opposition jihadists.

Anything which limits Assad's ability to kill his own people is a good thing.

Fair enough if he wants to attack the FSA.

But attacking breadlines, school playgrounds, unarmed protesters in the streets and so on and so forth, that's a different story.

He's an unelected dictator intent on doing what it takes to remain in power.

Tony EH · 31-08-2013 6:43pm

realweirdo wrote: »

Indeed, Labour have an appalling record on interventions. Their Iraq intervention was disastrous and ill conceived. Their failure to support intervention in Syria equally disastrous...the conflict in Syria is now worse than than in Iraq and is only getting worse.

The UK Labour party are just political opportunists. All they care about is getting re-elected and getting their snout in the trough.

It wasn't just Labour party members who voted against the motion. Cameron's bid for aggression was scuppered by his own party too.

The fact is, is that there is no evidence on the table to support Dave's orders from the White house.

Frankly, it was an incredibly stupid time to have such a vote in the first place. But, I suspect that Dave came under considerable pressure from the US to get something done.

Tony EH · 31-08-2013 6:46pm

realweirdo wrote: »

I believe the US and John Kerry have provided the evidence.

Nobody has provided any evidence whatsoever, this is the issue.

Simple allegation and basic propaganda is just not enough for more level headed people, I'm afraid.

If something real and tangible can be shown to support an attack on Assad by western powers, then front it up.

Tony EH · 31-08-2013 7:01pm

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Which is worse than a nerve agent in my view. Bombs filled with ball bearings and other shrapnel magnifying components designed to tear flesh from bodies in numerous wounds are ok, firebombing of cities is ok, a nerve gas which you have a chance of surviving with a gas mask or a windy day is a war crime.

The reason chemical weapons are viewed with such worry is that it's entirely possible to produce them is large quantities with very limited facility and they can be an effective way of killing large groups of people with little weapons expenditure.

Just 5 members of Aum Shinrikyo managed to cause havoc in Tokyo in 1995, with their Sarin attack. Over 5000 people were affected in various ways, although there were no fatalities.

This highlights the relative ease with which such attacks can be carried out and how little resources you need to do it, which is why it is patently ridiculous to keep hearing warmongers bleating on about Assad being behind the attack, when there has been absolutely NOTHING shown to even remotely prove that allegation.

It's even doubly ridiculous when there are Al Qaeda operatives working alongside the rebels. A group that the US have been suspiciously quiet about since this war kicked off.

Tony EH · 31-08-2013 7:02pm

realweirdo wrote: »

Anything which limits Assad's ability to kill his own people is a good thing.

The so-called rebels are killing people as well. :rolleyes:

AlekSmart · 01-09-2013 1:17am

Tony EH wrote: »

The so-called rebels are killing people as well. :rolleyes:

Thats for sure....Wars tend to require TWO sides to be what they are,even so-called Civil one's.

I found these reports to be interesting in that they point to an alternative scenario,perhaps equally as plausible as John Kerry's line.....

http://www.infowars.com/intelligence-suggests-assad-not-behind-chemical-weapons-attack/

http://www.infowars.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack/

Ye read em and ye make yer own mind up,and,as with all Intelligence on these wars,never losing sight of the fact that,in reality,we here in Ireland actually know sweet FA about what gives in Syria ?

Eggy Baby! · 02-09-2013 3:20pm

Ron Paul penned an article on interventionism in Syria at antiwar.com- it can be seen here.

Especially noteworthy is the way he quotes "The Sociology of Imperialism":

"There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome’s allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive an interest – why, then it was the national honour that had been insulted."

A leopard never changes it's spots. This imaginary "humanitarian interventionism" is only a potemkin for selfish American realpolitik.

Steve012 · 03-09-2013 5:13pm

So now Obama (and Admin) wants regime change in Syria (which was obvious but he said last week he didn't) ..as opposed to a few scuds hitting weapon silo's ....
Now that could get hairy , Helping the rebels over through Assad "a strike would go further than simply punishing Bashar"

Jezz who would of thunk it eh ... Long live the Criminal USA.

Steve012 · 03-09-2013 9:57pm

Surprised how little attention this tread is getting, by judging what can happen, depending on next week or so's actions ..

dublinbhoy88 · 03-09-2013 10:48pm

Steve012 wrote: »

Surprised how little attention this tread is getting, by judging what can happen, depending on next week or so's actions ..

Syrians are killing Syrians so the USA will kill Syrians to stop Syrians killing Syrians,and an employed boost for the weapons industry to boot

cyberhog · 04-09-2013 6:59am

McClatchy: Obama's case for attacking Syria "riddled with inconsistencies"

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/02/201027/to-some-us-case-for-syrian-gas.html

dublinbhoy88 · 04-09-2013 7:21am

cyberhog wrote: »

McClatchy: Obama's case for attacking Syria "riddled with inconsistencies"

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/02/201027/to-some-us-case-for-syrian-gas.html

No surprise there, nothing will stand in the way of the fourth Reich

Tony EH · 04-09-2013 9:57am

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

Syrians are killing Syrians so the USA will kill Syrians to stop Syrians killing Syrians,and an employed boost for the weapons industry to boot

Some Syrians are also killing members from Al Qaeda and other Islamic Jihadist groups, which America has been patting itself on the back for killing over the last decade., or so...

...and now they want to offer support to those same groups, because of an interest that lies elsewhere.

How Orwellian.

Amerika · 04-09-2013 2:00pm

The US Congress vote should be interesting as President Obama has noted that he might initiate military action against Syria regardless of what Congress decides. Doesn’t bode well if he hopes to get a lot of GOP support when he’s telling them he doesn’t much care what they decide.

With military action in Syria unpopular with the people, no clear objectives, questions still open as to whom is responsible for the chemical weapons attacks, and talk that action will benefit those that hate the US, it appears President Obama has decided to take a chance on congressional approval so if military action turns sour, he can shift some of the blame on Congress and protect his carefully manufactured legacy-in-progress. Because of the Democratic numbers, the US Senate will most probably get behind the President, but I’m guessing Boehner will deliver just enough supportive GOP votes to require a super majority of Democrats to get the numbers needed to give the US House support to the President. It will make it tough for some of those Democrats in the 2014 election as the vote will force them to choose party over principle and the will of the people in their districts they are elected to represent.

Paleface · 04-09-2013 3:18pm

Amerika wrote: »

It will make it tough for some of those Democrats in the 2014 election as the vote will force them to choose party over principle and the will of the people in their districts they are elected to represent.

You could say the exact same for Republicans who have to go back to the people in their districts having promised to not let government spending get further out of control. Military action is expensive after all.

Amerika · 04-09-2013 3:27pm

Paleface wrote: »

You could say the exact same for Republicans who have to go back to the people in their districts having promised to not let government spending get further out of control. Military action is expensive after all.

Perhaps, but haven’t all the resources that will be utilized already been bought and paid for?

Latest - Western forces prepare for Military strikes in Syria, strike just hours away

Comments