Syria: What should the US do/not do?

BuilderPlumber

bilston wrote: »

Yep it could easily have been Al Qaeda.

The argument that the Rebels wouldn't kill hundreds of their own people just doesn't stack up. It hasn't stopped Al Qaeda killing thousands of people in Iraq, AQ would not hesitate to kill Muslim civilians from whichever side of the sectarian divide to acheive their own aims.

Anyway it looks like Britain is backing of a bit today, Cameron and Hague have obviously realised that the British people are totally against this and actually this might be one of those rare situations where the US needs Britain because of Cyprus so it will be "interesting" to see how this plays out.

True. I know that near 100% of British people don't want anything to do with this Syria war. 80% of American's don't either and you can basically count out the other 20% as 2% KKK/Tea Party fanatics leading their 18% misguided followers and Obama should not even go anywhere near placating these racists who want another war.

Al Qaeda would do anything to achieve their aims and do not care about Islam at all (they pretend to). They kill innocents of all creeds to get their way. In many ways, the KKK/Tea Party fanatics and al Qaeda deserve each other and may indeed be friends. Ironically disturbing.

Amerika

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

In many ways, the KKK/Tea Party fanatics and al Qaeda deserve each other and may indeed be friends.

As we say here in the states... Please "Get A Clue."

crockholm

Amerika wrote: »

As we say here in the states... Please "Get A Clue."

Indeed.

May I ask what the talking heads are saying stateside? The public appear to be unsupportive of military action (60 % anti,9% pro and 31%undecided/apathetic) So with this in mind,how is it being played in the media?

Thanks in advance. Go Eagles.

Amerika

crockholm wrote: »

May I ask what the talking heads are saying stateside? The public appear to be unsupportive of military action (60 % anti,9% pro and 31%undecided/apathetic) So with this in mind,how is it being played in the media?

Thanks in advance. Go Eagles.

In my opinion…

It’s somewhat ironic. The GOP (which I am) have been accused of being warmongers and guilty of rushing to off to war without conclusive evidence or clear goals. We’ve learned from our mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan and have come to the conclusion any military action in the middle east, other than protecting our main allies of Israel and Saudi Arabia, is probably a no win situation and believe they need to sort things out themselves. Now the GOP is saying don’t rush off to bomb Syria without congressional debate and approval, and we’re being called obstructionists (The GOP can’t win). But have congress make the decision, and if military action is warranted, give Obama the go ahead to make the call to proceed or not, and let him set the timetable so as to not play our hand – as was given to GWB regarding Iraq. But both sides in Syria hate us, so there is no benefit to us.

Overall we’re tired of war in the middle east and tired of the middle east in general. We have tried to help improve matters for oppressed people (regardless of what the rest of the world thinks) and tried to bring peace and stability to the region, and it just bites us in the ass every time. So let other nations take action in Syria and leave us out of it for once! What good would lobbing a couple of US cruise missiles and leaving do? Perhaps stopping further use of chemical weapons would be the main goal, but I doubt it will succeed. If Syria or Iran retaliate against Israel, we will provide a supportive role, but they can handle themselves against the two. The most we would have to worry about would be Islamic extremist groups and militant groups like Hezbollah carrying out retaliations against U.S. targets or our allies. And of course it’s a given we will be accused of war crimes by the international committee, because we are the US.

And the majority of the US media are odd ducks. They’ve negated their journalistic integrity to defend a moment in history, and pretty much support anything President Obama wants to do.

edit: here is a good read from the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/world/middleeast/us-facing-test-on-data-to-back-action-on-syria.html?_r=0

(Go NY Jets! )

clairefontaine

I read a stat in AH from killer wench 9% of Americans support military intervention.

crockholm

Amerika wrote: »

In my opinion…

It’s somewhat ironic. The GOP (which I am) have been accused of being warmongers and guilty of rushing to off to war without conclusive evidence or clear goals. We’ve learned from our mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan and have come to the conclusion any military action in the middle east, other than protecting our main allies of Israel and Saudi Arabia, is probably a no win situation and believe they need to sort things out themselves. Now the GOP is saying don’t rush off to bomb Syria without congressional debate and approval, and we’re being called obstructionists (The GOP can’t win). But have congress make the decision, and if military action is warranted, give Obama the go ahead to make the call to proceed or not, and let him set the timetable so as to not play our hand – as was given to GWB regarding Iraq. But both sides in Syria hate us, so there is no benefit to us.

Overall we’re tired of war in the middle east and tired of the middle east in general. We have tried to help improve matters for oppressed people (regardless of what the rest of the world thinks) and tried to bring peace and stability to the region, and it just bites us in the ass every time. So let other nations take action in Syria and leave us out of it for once! What good would lobbing a couple of US cruise missiles and leaving do? Perhaps stopping further use of chemical weapons would be the main goal, but I doubt it will succeed. If Syria or Iran retaliate against Israel, we will provide a supportive role, but they can handle themselves against the two. The most we would have to worry about would be Islamic extremist groups and militant groups like Hezbollah carrying out retaliations against U.S. targets or our allies. And of course it’s a given we will be accused of war crimes by the international committee, because we are the US.

And the majority of the US media are odd ducks. They’ve negated their journalistic integrity to defend a moment in history, and pretty much support anything President Obama wants to do.

edit: here is a good read from the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/world/middleeast/us-facing-test-on-data-to-back-action-on-syria.html?_r=0

(Go NY Jets! )

Politicians and the GOP aside,I just wanted to get a Stateside feel of whom in the Press is cheerleading for military intervention? Do MSNBC have John McCain in most nights to make a casus belli? On the flip side,are FOX News giving much airtime to members of ANSWER?

Being aware that President Obama gives Chris Matthews "A warm feeling going up his legs" may be different to Mr. Matthews actually supporting the presidents overtones.The same goes for many of the fervourantly pro-Obama journalists- Are they making his case for action to their audience?

(and why the need to get your seedy kicks in Jersey,when you got 2 perfectly fine teams in PA ?:D)

Amerika

crockholm wrote: »

Politicians and the GOP aside,I just wanted to get a Stateside feel of whom in the Press is cheerleading for military intervention? Do MSNBC have John McCain in most nights to make a casus belli? On the flip side,are FOX News giving much airtime to members of ANSWER?

Being aware that President Obama gives Chris Matthews "A warm feeling going up his legs" may be different to Mr. Matthews actually supporting the presidents overtones.The same goes for many of the fervourantly pro-Obama journalists- Are they making his case for action to their audience?

(and why the need to get your seedy kicks in Jersey,when you got 2 perfectly fine teams in PA ?:D)

The media is progressing cautiously as of now. I haven’t watched much of Fox News as of late, but from what I’ve seen they don’t see President Obama’s having any clear goals in the matter other than bomb and run. Even the commentators from the left on Fox News are pleading restraint until we go through more discovery, and have a clear goal. MSNBC is nothing more than a shameless cheerleader for Obama, but MSNBC has dropped about 40% in viewership since last year as their shows and personalities have gone even farther left if that’s even possible, and have become a joke. I actually watched MSNBC more than Fox News, but can’t stomach much from them anymore, although Chris Matthews remains entertaining at least. The middle of the road news outlets (which still leans left) all seem to have moved from the… we need to do something immediately, to now we must progress with caution. John McCain is taking an aggressive stance that military action should take place, but since loosing the election in 2008 he is pretty much ignored by most.

I’ve been a NY Jets fan since the Broadway Joe days. Painful loyalty is about all I can say. Can’t get a decent QB and running back anymore. Went down to see the Jets play the Eagles in pre season last year in order to see Tebow play, and they wouldn’t even put him in even though he was dead accurate in warm-ups. Philly fans are all around me, obnoxious lot the bunch (have to stay loyal to Phillies in MLB as my uncle played for them a number of years in his 20 year MLB career, and worked for them after his playing days into his 80's, but not the NFL). Pittsburgh has a somewhat good following here, but they’re over 6 hours away, and the Jets and Giants are only 1.5 hours away.

crockholm

Amerika wrote: »

The media is progressing cautiously as of now. I haven’t watched much of Fox News as of late, but from what I’ve seen they don’t see President Obama’s having any clear goals in the matter other than bomb and run. Even the commentators from the left on Fox News are pleading restraint until we go through more discovery, and have a clear goal. MSNBC is nothing more than a shameless cheerleader for Obama, but MSNBC has dropped about 40% in viewership since last year as their shows and personalities have gone even farther left if that’s even possible, and have become a joke. I actually watched MSNBC more than Fox News, but can’t stomach much from them anymore, although Chris Matthews remains entertaining at least. The middle of the road news outlets (which still leans left) all seem to have moved from the… we need to do something immediately, to now we must progress with caution. John McCain is taking an aggressive stance that military action should take place, but since loosing the election in 2008 he is pretty much ignored by most.

I’ve been a NY Jets fan since the Broadway Joe days. Painful loyalty is about all I can say. Can’t get a decent QB and running back anymore. Went down to see the Jets play the Eagles in pre season last year in order to see Tebow play, and they wouldn’t even put him in even though he was dead accurate in warm-ups. Philly fans are all around me, obnoxious lot the bunch (have to stay loyal to Phillies in MLB as my uncle played for them a number of years in his 20 year MLB career, and worked for them after his playing days into his 80's, but not the NFL). Pittsburgh has a somewhat good following here, but they’re over 6 hours away, and the Jets and Giants are only 1.5 hours away.

God,(and Jack Kemp) forgive me,but the more I read into this,the more Pat Buchannan is making sense. Even if one were to be really pedantic,one could ask,why be so arbitrary with regards chemical weapons in that war?How is that "crossing a red line" yet a car bomb,suicide bomber is just as indiscriminate in it's carnage and murder.

I was always an admirer of McCain,as a man,and,though not always,a politician too.The constant gung-ho is becoming a little unbearable though.I just don't really know what the US wants from this civil war?Cui bono ?

Just how aware are the American public of the plight of the Christians within Syria?My wife and I are going to visit friends of hers tomorrow,a couple,She a Syrian Christian and He,an Egyptian Copt.I have no doubt politics will be discussed tomorrow again,and the lady has already told me of attempts by "rebel factions" to drive her family out of their homes.
Is it not mentioned in the media Stateside about the possibility of aiding and arming Al-Quieda affiliates?

The brief,but enjoyable,stint I had living in America was spent in the Mt.Greenwood neighbourhood in Chicago's south-west,one of the Catholic high schools that served the area was Mt. Carmel,where a young Donovan McNabb got noticed as an aspiring QB. Alas,you crossed state lines,and I have no NYJ anecdotes to give you.(NYG have a player,David Diehl,offensive tight,who went to school in the neighbouring Brother Rice HS)

BuilderPlumber

Amerika wrote: »

In my opinion…

It’s somewhat ironic. The GOP (which I am) have been accused of being warmongers and guilty of rushing to off to war without conclusive evidence or clear goals. We’ve learned from our mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan and have come to the conclusion any military action in the middle east, other than protecting our main allies of Israel and Saudi Arabia, is probably a no win situation and believe they need to sort things out themselves. Now the GOP is saying don’t rush off to bomb Syria without congressional debate and approval, and we’re being called obstructionists (The GOP can’t win). But have congress make the decision, and if military action is warranted, give Obama the go ahead to make the call to proceed or not, and let him set the timetable so as to not play our hand – as was given to GWB regarding Iraq. But both sides in Syria hate us, so there is no benefit to us.

Overall we’re tired of war in the middle east and tired of the middle east in general. We have tried to help improve matters for oppressed people (regardless of what the rest of the world thinks) and tried to bring peace and stability to the region, and it just bites us in the ass every time. So let other nations take action in Syria and leave us out of it for once! What good would lobbing a couple of US cruise missiles and leaving do? Perhaps stopping further use of chemical weapons would be the main goal, but I doubt it will succeed. If Syria or Iran retaliate against Israel, we will provide a supportive role, but they can handle themselves against the two. The most we would have to worry about would be Islamic extremist groups and militant groups like Hezbollah carrying out retaliations against U.S. targets or our allies. And of course it’s a given we will be accused of war crimes by the international committee, because we are the US.

And the majority of the US media are odd ducks. They’ve negated their journalistic integrity to defend a moment in history, and pretty much support anything President Obama wants to do.

edit: here is a good read from the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/world/middleeast/us-facing-test-on-data-to-back-action-on-syria.html?_r=0

(Go NY Jets! )

Iranians are about the only people in the Middle East at present who would appreciate efforts both by their current president and America to end their 34 year oppression by Talibanistic dictators who took advantage of 1979. Khomeini? Who the hell was this poorly 80 year old? The REAL Khomeini was never known but EVERYONE in Iran had their own version of 'Khomeini' to serve their SELFISH agenda in the 1980s, 1990s and now. Long after this guy is dead, they still are coming up with what 'he' truly wanted. Fact is: Khomeini was a depressed, sick, old and eventually dying old man who was in name king of Iran but in reality a symbol. If he was asked in the 1980s, what he thought of the 1979 revolution in reality, I'm pretty sure he would have hated it and hated what his 'followers' would have done in his name. But yes he was loved by Iranians who loved him for a different message and he was used by dictators who took advantage of his depression and heart attacks.

And the funny thing too is that Khomeini's successor Ali Khamenei is not too happy either. He suffers from bipolar depression and a severe lack of confidence and is afraid of not being liked by his people. To me, this smacks of him having no power to change a situation where he too is used by others as a scapegoat for all the Talibanisation of Iran. Iran needs a brave man to stand up against the Tehran Taliban and their Revolutionary Guards and Hassan Rohani is probably it (and he is clever enough to know to move slowly to defuse and neutralise them from within).

Jonny7

Amerika wrote: »

In my opinion…

It’s somewhat ironic. The GOP (which I am) have been accused of being warmongers and guilty of rushing to off to war without conclusive evidence or clear goals. We’ve learned from our mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan and have come to the conclusion any military action in the middle east, other than protecting our main allies of Israel and Saudi Arabia, is probably a no win situation and believe they need to sort things out themselves. Now the GOP is saying don’t rush off to bomb Syria without congressional debate and approval, and we’re being called obstructionists (The GOP can’t win). But have congress make the decision, and if military action is warranted, give Obama the go ahead to make the call to proceed or not, and let him set the timetable so as to not play our hand – as was given to GWB regarding Iraq. But both sides in Syria hate us, so there is no benefit to us.

Overall we’re tired of war in the middle east and tired of the middle east in general. We have tried to help improve matters for oppressed people (regardless of what the rest of the world thinks) and tried to bring peace and stability to the region, and it just bites us in the ass every time. So let other nations take action in Syria and leave us out of it for once! What good would lobbing a couple of US cruise missiles and leaving do? Perhaps stopping further use of chemical weapons would be the main goal, but I doubt it will succeed. If Syria or Iran retaliate against Israel, we will provide a supportive role, but they can handle themselves against the two. The most we would have to worry about would be Islamic extremist groups and militant groups like Hezbollah carrying out retaliations against U.S. targets or our allies. And of course it’s a given we will be accused of war crimes by the international committee, because we are the US.

And the majority of the US media are odd ducks. They’ve negated their journalistic integrity to defend a moment in history, and pretty much support anything President Obama wants to do.

edit: here is a good read from the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/world/middleeast/us-facing-test-on-data-to-back-action-on-syria.html?_r=0

(Go NY Jets! )

Touchy-feely about violence - check
Consensus needed on foreign conflicts - check
Blaming media for their war-thirst - check

I know this will be hard for you, but, I'm afraid, you've.. you've become a democrat

It's not too late to stop it, perscribe several hours of Limbaugh, FOX, buy a gas guzzling SUV, some shotguns, an American flag and you'll be right as rain again

BuilderPlumber

crockholm wrote: »

Is it not mentioned in the media Stateside about the possibility of aiding and arming Al-Quieda affiliates?

2013 Syria looks every bit as bas as 2004 Iraq. The choice is between the current dictator and a much worse Taliban-type regime taking hold there. Could the world cope with another failed state in the heart of the Middle East on the border between Europe and Asia? ALong with Iraq, Syria seems destined to be that (other failed states like Afghanistan, Somalia and Mali are less strategically placed and can be contained as they are surrounded often by more stable states and/or are not as important). The fact that Iraq and Syria border each other means Syria's war could also impact on still fragile and violent Iraq. A lose lose situation in every regard is what Syria's war is.

Amerika

In my opinion...

crockholm wrote: »

Even if one were to be really pedantic,one could ask,why be so arbitrary with regards chemical weapons in that war?How is that "crossing a red line" yet a car bomb,suicide bomber is just as indiscriminate in it's carnage and murder.

Simply becasue President Obama proclaimed that if the Assad regime used chemical weapons, it would cross the red line he drew in the sand? He can't appear weak on national security can he?

And it does draw attention from all the scandals surrounding his administration.

I was always an admirer of McCain,as a man,and,though not always,a politician too.The constant gung-ho is becoming a little unbearable though.I just don't really know what the US wants from this civil war?Cui bono ?

I’ve heard a number of sentiments about McCain by you paralleled here.

I’d say the majority of US citizens just want us to be left out of the civil war. Most people here might not know much about the conflict, but they know both sides in the Syrian fight hate the US. Any involvement by the US would be akin to the masochistic line from the movie Animal House… "thank you sir, may I have another."

My guess is President Obama will ignore the will of the people and congress urging a cautious approach, and unillaterily issue a limited strike after the UN inspectors departure Syria on Saturday and before the UN issues a report on their findings... giving creedence to the accusations of an imperial presidency more concerned with his own legacy then what’s best for the country. He will go it alone, without support from our closest allies, citing US core national security interests as his reasoning, with a duty to protect the national security interests of the US. He expects the United Kingdom and France to be with us once we initiate actions… I guess simply because he’s Barack Obama.

Just how aware are the American public of the plight of the Christians within Syria?My wife and I are going to visit friends of hers tomorrow,a couple,She a Syrian Christian and He,an Egyptian Copt.I have no doubt politics will be discussed tomorrow again,and the lady has already told me of attempts by "rebel factions" to drive her family out of their homes.

Taboo! Sadly, I believe few here know, or even care. If you haven’t noticed there has been a successful war waged against Christian values and Christianity in general as of late here in the states. As long as Christians limit their beliefs and values to Sunday mornings, and then only within the confines of sound-proof walls of their churches, everything is copacetic. Any calls for a military action aimed to thwart Christian persecution would be countered by a swift and determined journalistic jihad by a media overwhelmingly controlled by secular progressives.

I know it sounds heartless, but I’d wager most here would prefer both sides taking arms in the Syrian civil war just kill each other off and reduce their ranks, without targeting the innocent population.

Is it not mentioned in the media Stateside about the possibility of aiding and arming Al-Quieda affiliates?

Not much from the media, but as I noted before, people realize any military action or non-action will ultimately benefit one group that hates the US.

The majority of the media will feign protest, but will eventually fall in line with whatever President Obama ultimately decides to do.

clairefontaine

So King Obama is sending Americans to fight on the same side as al queda.

Funny how there was so much outcry from the left in the run up to Iraq, and France didn't get involved. Not nothing but silence from the left and the French are going to help out king Obama.

Anyone think his peace prize should be revoked?

Amerika

clairefontaine wrote: »

So King Obama is sending Americans to fight on the same side as al queda.

Funny how there was so much outcry from the left in the run up to Iraq, and France didn't get involved. Not nothing but silence from the left and the French are going to help out king Obama.

Anyone think his peace prize should be revoked?

And if President Obama initiates military action against Syria without congressional approval, which Vice President will we see in the aftermath? The Joe Biden in the video below, or a shameless political hack who puts party ahead of the people and values?

I’m considering giving 1,000 to 1 odds on the latter.

karma_

clairefontaine wrote: »

So King Obama is sending Americans to fight on the same side as al queda.

Funny how there was so much outcry from the left in the run up to Iraq, and France didn't get involved. Not nothing but silence from the left and the French are going to help out king Obama.

Anyone think his peace prize should be revoked?

Seriously? Sure isn't François Hollande a socialist?

What you are saying is fairly stupid.

Be like Nutella

so now comes the part where all yee who said this was the opposition who did this attack need to completely debunk the US declassified portion of their Intel report on the attack.

If you can't... then admit you were wrong. That's how this works. If you can then I'm open to theories.

Here's the report.

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2013/08/world/syria-documents/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I know some won't listen to anything and put their fingers in their ears and scream 'it's all lies lies lies like Iraq' who can't seem to differentiate events but I'm sure there's one or two who can calmly dissect the US Intel report and debunk it if needs be... or otherwise admit that either

a) Assads guys did the attack and you were wrong
or
b) the US is completely and blatantly lying out its hole in this report

Be like Nutella

"..We intercepted
communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed
that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N.
inspectors obtaining evidence..."

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2013/08/world/syria-documents/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Is it reasonable to think the US is making this up from thin air and lying blatantly?

Be like Nutella

" Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred - including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, 'Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu'addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media. "

bilston

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Is it reasonable to think the US is making this up from thin air and lying blatantly?

Whether they have made it up or not is no longer the point, and that is down to Iraq and the distrust that results from that.

Funnily enough having previously been very sceptical about whether Assad was responsible I'm now more inclined to believe that his regime was behind the chemical attack mainly because it appears aircraft were involved in the attack. Of course as the post above suggests that could be a pure fabrication but if true then it's hard to come to any other conclusion other than Assad or someone in his regime was behind it.

Nevertheless I still think military action would be a very bad move even if it was proved Assad was responsible. Watching Sky News last night talk about a US and Russian naval build up in the Eastern Med was all the evidence I needed that military action in Syria is beyond stupid. The potential fallout is almost potentially unthinkable.

clairefontaine

If you were Assad, would you want to trigger US involvement?

Be like Nutella

bilston wrote: »

now more inclined to believe that his regime was behind the chemical attack mainly because it appears aircraft were involved in the attack.

"The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack"

Be like Nutella

clairefontaine wrote: »

If you were Assad, would you want to trigger US involvement?

no ... that's why this is so messed up Claire I don't get it at all.

To me it shows something is going wrong. If we assume for a second that Assads side did this then how would that possibly come about?

1. He personally ordered it not caring what would happen afterwards because he's getting desperate. Possible but unlikely.

2. He ordered a smaller chemical attack but it went badly wrong and killed more than intended. Very Possible.

3. He knew nothing at the time - One of his guys chose to do it off his own back - for instance let's say his brother - who is known to be a complete animal or somebody else in his ranks who acted without Assad's knowledge and they're playing catch up ever since. Possible but not likely.

4. Assad is not in total control of his forces and some generals are making their own decisions without caring what Assad thinks. Possible but hasn't been mentioned by commentators and global analysis yet.

5. He ordered it thinking the US wouldn't do anything - calling Obama's Red Line bluff - i.e. a miscalculation. Unlikely, but possibly what actually happened. Hence the confusion of his seemingly irrational behavior.

6. He knew about / ordered the attack knowing approx how many people it would kill/injure knowing it would cause a major decision point with the Intl community, knowing Russia and prob China had his back in the UN Sec Council and wouldn't launch an attack because the Lies of Powell and Bush in 2003 were still fresh in our minds = and still did it anyway because he needed a big push in the suburbs of Damascus and even the thought of a future chem attack might push back rebels substantially out of Damascus suburbs and therefore worth the risk. Very Possible in my mind.

It seems irrational because it is - that doesn't mean it didn't happen. How did Saddam not think there would be a response to gassing 5000 Kurdish people in one day when he did it?? was that rational??

bilston

Be like Nutella wrote: »

"The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack"

Well thats me told then, Im pretty sure I heard the opposite on the news earlier.

Be like Nutella

bilston wrote: »

Well thats me told then, Im pretty sure I heard the opposite on the news earlier.

not bein smart just quoting the report

bilston

Be like Nutella wrote: »

not bein smart just quoting the report

Fair enough. I could have sworn I heard either this morning or yesterday afternoon that aircraft were involved.

My bad then if I misheard.

clairefontaine

Be like Nutella wrote: »

no ... that's why this is so messed up Claire I don't get it at all.

To me it shows something is going wrong. If we assume for a second that Assads side did this then how would that possibly come about?

1. He personally ordered it not caring what would happen afterwards because he's getting desperate. Possible but unlikely.

2. He ordered a smaller chemical attack but it went badly wrong and killed more than intended. Very Possible.

3. He knew nothing at the time - One of his guys chose to do it off his own back - for instance let's say his brother - who is known to be a complete animal or somebody else in his ranks who acted without Assad's knowledge and they're playing catch up ever since. Possible but not likely.

4. Assad is not in total control of his forces and some generals are making their own decisions without caring what Assad thinks. Possible but hasn't been mentioned by commentators and global analysis yet.

5. He ordered it thinking the US wouldn't do anything - calling Obama's Red Line bluff - i.e. a miscalculation. Unlikely, but possibly what actually happened. Hence the confusion of his seemingly irrational behavior.

6. He knew about / ordered the attack knowing approx how many people it would kill/injure knowing it would cause a major decision point with the Intl community, knowing Russia and prob China had his back in the UN Sec Council and wouldn't launch an attack because the Lies of Powell and Bush in 2003 were still fresh in our minds = and still did it anyway because he needed a big push in the suburbs of Damascus and even the thought of a future chem attack might push back rebels substantially out of Damascus suburbs and therefore worth the risk. Very Possible in my mind.

It seems irrational because it is - that doesn't mean it didn't happen. How did Saddam not think there would be a response to gassing 5000 Kurdish people in one day when he did it?? was that rational??

Obama made a public claim chemical weapons would be his line in the sand. He can't not react now without losing face, and any political leader, and half a brained person really, would know this. So now HE has to react. It makes no sense for Assad to be behind this because it would have inevitably triggerred something he didn't want.

Aside from the who dunnit here, the US has no strategy and no objective either, no sense of consequences, and a hell of a lot of moralising to come to a decision, one they no doubt will regret, but now have to save face because Obama made his line in the sand public.

Be like Nutella

man believe me I'd be the first to bash the US (after the crap in 2003) if I smelled BS in this.

But in this I just can't get past the fact that people are focusing on Iraq lies 2003 rather than on Assad evil gas attack 2013 which killed 426 kids in their beds!!!!! That's some sick sh1t.

This MF needs controlling... and if a ltd strike does enough damage without killing civilians to curtail his future war decisions a notch then it might stop a massive huge enormous scaled up version of what happened on Aug 21st from happening in which 10 or 20,000 die in a couple hours as he bombards a rebel held neighborhood with thousands of gas shells or drops gas filled bombs from aircraft... which he could do before anybody could stop him - US or not.

He's got 1000 tons of chemical weapons at his disposal and the mindset and means to use them. If he did this, he's proven that and that is a scary thing. Doing nothing is worse than something in this instance I feel. It needs to be measured and the target set needs to be perfect but it's like they say - Evil happens when good people do nothing.

And I'm well aware that the most organized units on the rebel side are Islamists who would want a Shariah state if they could get one, but they'll never get that because they are 10-20,000 verses 22 million secularists who don't. AQ in Syria will take years to sort out, fight, catch or kill.

It's all messed up but one thing is simple - IF Assad purposefully killed 1000-1500 people with poison gas while they slept and has 1000 tons more of the sh1t to use then he needs to be forced to understand that he cannot do it again. It's important for the Syrian civilians and even more important for future generations everywhere in the world.

Be like Nutella

clairefontaine wrote: »

Obama made a public claim chemical weapons would be his line in the sand. He can't not react now without losing face, and any political leader, and half a brained person really, would know this. So now HE has to react.

I kinda agree with this - but it's not true on its own... it is true AS WELL as it is truly necessary to protect the important global norm of NO CHEMICAL WEAPONS ALLOWED.

From a partisan perspective Obama is a Democrat and everything he does is wrong Red v Blue etc etc but I have the luxury of not being within that crazy oversimplified BS sphere of American Politics so I can see this from a neutral stand point. I respect certain politicians from both parties. I don't blame any party for the mess in the US I blame a corrupt and dysfunctional imbalanced and unfair system. Back to the point - Yes Obama put himself in a corner by miscalculating whether Assad would massacre 100's of kids with poison gas as they slept in their bed. Guess what - so did the whole world. He said the Red Line thing and yes - if Assad did this - He needs to put his money where his mouth is or he doesn't just LOOK weak and lose face - HE WILL BE CONSIDERED WEAK AND WILL HAVE LOST FACE !

And that weakness will be taken advantage of by potentially Kim Jung Un and other A$$holes into the future.

The strength of America is still important to the world and will be for the foreseeable future. Striking Assad to attempt to stop him from using his chemicals on his own people on a larger scale AND to protect the convention against the use of Chemical weapons in the world into the future is worth the risks here.

Russia is not irrational at all... they are throwing some shapes but there is no chance in hell they will do anything to stop Obama carry out the strikes and to back down from doing something which is justified because we all think world war 3 is just one cruise missile away is irrational and means nobody will ever do anything.. it takes bravery to stand up and do something right... even when there's risks.

In this case you can say Obama is doing it for purely political face-saving reasons, I personally don't believe that is the entire truth but it may play a part, yes.

clairefontaine

Be like Nutella wrote: »

man believe me I'd be the first to bash the US (after the crap in 2003) if I smelled BS in this.

But in this I just can't get past the fact that people are focusing on Iraq lies 2003 rather than on Assad evil gas attack 2013 which killed 426 kids in their beds!!!!! That's some sick sh1t.

This MF needs controlling... and if a ltd strike does enough damage without killing civilians to curtail his future war decisions a notch then it might stop a massive huge enormous scaled up version of what happened on Aug 21st from happening in which 10 or 20,000 die in a couple hours as he bombards a rebel held neighborhood with thousands of gas shells or drops gas filled bombs from aircraft... which he could do before anybody could stop him - US or not.

He's got 1000 tons of chemical weapons at his disposal and the mindset and means to use them. If he did this, he's proven that and that is a scary thing. Doing nothing is worse than something in this instance I feel. It needs to be measured and the target set needs to be perfect but it's like they say - Evil happens when good people do nothing.

And I'm well aware that the most organized units on the rebel side are Islamists who would want a Shariah state if they could get one, but they'll never get that because they are 10-20,000 verses 22 million secularists who don't. AQ in Syria will take years to sort out, fight, catch or kill.

It's all messed up but one thing is simple - IF Assad purposefully killed 1000-1500 people with poison gas while they slept and has 1000 tons more of the sh1t to use then he needs to be forced to understand that he cannot do it again. It's important for the Syrian civilians and even more important for future generations everywhere in the world.

I'm sure he has them I just don't think he used them.

Evil also happens when people do stupid things with no plan or objective and make things worse.

Be like Nutella

clairefontaine wrote: »

I'm sure he has them I just don't think he used them.

Evil also happens when people do stupid things with no plan or objective and make things worse.

But now that there is an Intel report declassified to an extent which lists reason after reason for why they think Assad's side did the attack you should deal with those reasons objectively without your Obama-hating cap on just for yourself and decide whether it seems they're right or not - that's what people need to do when they 'feel' something and are faced with rational reasons why they're wrong. I'm still open to theories that the rebels did the attack I just need arguments supported by facts and evidence and rationality. I'm not havin a go I'm just saying read the report with a calm head and stop throwing darts at that Obama pic you have on your wall there ; ) and deal with the evidence and then call BS on it if you want but remember that saying that they are blatantly lying to the world in each instance of fact or evidence is really not a rational position to take. They might be bending truths or exaggerating things to the extent they can without being busted but imagine how many people would have to be party to each lie ??? and after Cheney and Wolfy in 2003?? even Powell
admits he was hoodwinked now.

just be objective and read the report and deal with each fact or supporting argument on its own. You can't call BS on the whole thing and not support your view. That's what a lot of the CT guys do. I'm all for CT's which are supported by tons of evidence.