Syria: What should the US do/not do?

clairefontaine

Be like Nutella wrote: »

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.

Ok let's say the report is true, even though it appears to be speculation based on kinda sorta evidence, what's the objective of military intervention?
What's the strategy?

InTheTrees

I just listened to Obamas press conference.

He's taking the constitutionally correct path of asking congress to debate and vote whether to authorize force.

Priceless. Now the bumbling keystone cops House republicans are going to have to make the decision and ether give Obama permission or not.

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

I just listened to Obamas press conference.

He's taking the constitutionally correct path of asking congress to debate and vote whether to authorize force.

Priceless. Now the bumbling keystone cops House republicans are going to have to make the decision and ether give Obama permission or not.

That's just for show. He'll go ahead anyway. He also made the statement he doesn't need congress approval, which is bs.

InTheTrees

clairefontaine wrote: »

That's just for show. He'll go ahead anyway. He also made the statement he doesn't need congress approval, which is bs.

So you're saying if Congress votes to deny permission to use force he'll go ahead anyway?

Dont you think that would look worse than just doing it? Why ask for the vote? Thats what bush did just went ahead.

What exactly is it that republicans want?

justforlaugh

Should Obama get his wish and do drop bombs Syria.... then what, would it solve anything? it would just make things ten times worst and the world will just see more pictures of dead Syria kids bodies but only this time it will be cause by american bombs

Be like Nutella

If there is no real military tactical reason to launch attacks right now then he has made the correct decision to wait for congress to decide but in doing so has risked them voting against it ..and so risked letting Assad essentially get away with gassing 400+ kids in their sleep which would be wrong in my view. People are war weary and hypnotized by poor quality media and have Cheney's lies too fresh in their minds to look at this objectively, especially with a backdrop of the purely imbecilic US partisan politics of late where nobody can agree with anything no matter how logical or rational it is. This is not about the Syrian civil war, nor is it about Iraq 2003 nor is it about Obama or anyone else except Assad - He carried out a chemical massacre and the international community should stand up to that and take an appropriate action - but take action of some sort which will give Assad pause for thought before he gasses 4000 next month. Because he has clearly shown his side is capable of doing that. This is about the discrete action of Assad's forces massacring 1500 people in their beds with poison gas on Aug 21st. That he did that is 90% certain at this stage OR Obama and his people are blatantly lying 100% in their Intel report and that would require so many people to be a party to it that it defies logic and reason... for most people.

Congress will shoulder the responsibility now to either punish Assad or not punish him for using chemical weapons and that will likely decide ultimately whether he will use them again on a larger scale in Syria.... the responsibility of which will lie purely with the congressmen and women who will debate and vote from Sept 9th.

clairefontaine

InTheTrees wrote: »

So you're saying if Congress votes to deny permission to use force he'll go ahead anyway?

Dont you think that would look worse than just doing it? Why ask for the vote? Thats what bush did just went ahead.

What exactly is it that republicans want?

Bush got legislative approval for military intervention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Under the patriot act, Obama does have the power to go ahead without congress approval.

I hope they don't approve it, I don't know what they will do, but given Kerry's speech my bet is this intervention will happen. It's inevitable now becaus Obama can't lose face. If he loses face as a leader, the whole country looks weak and stupid. He should have never made his line in the sand public. Big mistake.

Be like Nutella

clairefontaine wrote: »

He should have never made his line in the sand public. Big mistake.

yes it does seem so... but then again... he had to say something regarding the possible use of chemical weapons by Assad because everybody was asking what his position on it was, to say nothing or to say he wouldn't act wasn't an option either, so what should he have said? He didn't offer the Red Line comment for no reason. A US administration position was required on the subject and it had to be definitive. If he had said that IF Assad's forces used chemical weapons on its people that he would support only 'soft' action as a punishment i.e. economic sanctions then a) everybody would have said that is a weak position and b) that Russia and China would veto those economic sanctions anyway so what would be the point in that position?

What was his option then?

What was his option on the morning of Aug 22nd after he was briefed that possibly more than 1000 people had just been gassed to death in their beds?

It's all well and good saying he's wrong but what is the alternative position he should have taken the and is taking now given he is the leader of the most powerful military on earth and a signature to the anti-chemical treaty of 1998 along with 98% of the world ?

Be like Nutella

Basically here's the question..

IF Assad had obviously massacred 10,000 on Aug 21st with Sarin gas and it was definitively proven... what should Obama do... hypothetically?

clairefontaine

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Basically here's the question..

IF Assad had obviously massacred 10,000 on Aug 21st with Sarin gas and it was definitively proven... what should Obama do... hypothetically?

The problem is its mostly jihadists fighting Assad.

Do we really want to help al queda?

I think what we should do is expedite refugee civilians to get the hell out of there and then let Assad and the jihadists right it out, but we should stay pitot it.

By, we I mean the US and Europe to expedite and facilitate refugees.

clairefontaine

Congress voting no might be a shrewd way to save face come to think of it.

Be like Nutella

well no
not to any adversaries of the US like North Korea, Iran and Russia who will view Obama's inability to take action he sees fit and justified as weak especially when he made his Red Line threat.

They will see a no vote as a president not in control with no support from his people and they will view America as isolationist and afraid of military action... all of which will be wrong but that is how they will view it.

They will call the US a fake power who acts only in its own interest and has made so many mistakes and fumbles that its people are sick of having anything to do with the world anymore and just want to pull their curtains and shook the responsibility of leading the world on major issues and in major conflicts who's influence is all but finished in the world and who's word cannot be taken seriously anymore.

This will be the nail in the coffin of any hope that the greatest force will be used for the greatest good and any despot in Africa or Asia who ever felt that their actions might result in an American response will feel they can do anything and get away with it now because there is no longer any standard of humanity to adhere to if the leading light for freedom and democracy in the world doesn't feel strongly enough about the suffering of a people to take military action.

Those who would use horrible weapons to put down its people or those who would challenge their dictatorship for instance will feel they can use these weapons and take any actions and not suffer any consequences.

Massacres and genocides will be more likely carried out in the world by those who would do them if they don't think the US will do anything about it.

Ironically, Samantha Power wrote a staggeringly impressive book about all this before taking her current role.

clairefontaine

Be like Nutella wrote: »

well no
not to any adversaries of the US like North Korea, Iran and Russia who will view Obama's inability to take action he sees fit and justified as weak especially when he made his Red Line threat.

They will see a no vote as a president not in control with no support from his people and they will view America as isolationist and afraid of military action... all of which will be wrong but that is how they will view it.

They will call the US a fake power who acts only in its own interest and has made so many mistakes and fumbles that its people are sick of having anything to do with the world anymore and just want to pull their curtains and shook the responsibility of leading the world on major issues and in major conflicts who's influence is all but finished in the world and who's word cannot be taken seriously anymore.

This will be the nail in the coffin of any hope that the greatest force will be used for the greatest good and any despot in Africa or Asia who ever felt that their actions might result in an American response will feel they can do anything and get away with it now because there is no longer any standard of humanity to adhere to if the leading light for freedom and democracy in the world doesn't feel strongly enough about the suffering of a people to take military action.

Those who would use horrible weapons to put down its people or those who would challenge their dictatorship for instance will feel they can use these weapons and take any actions and not suffer any consequences.

Massacres and genocides will be more likely carried out in the world by those who would do them if they don't think the US will do anything about it.

Ironically, Samantha Power wrote a staggeringly impressive book about all this before taking her current role.

Good point and I'm sure king Obama is hammer heading this over and over again as we speak.

This was all in Kerry's speech.

This has no end, no objective, is just doing something for the sake of doing something, and there will be more victims, just by another hand in the pot.

Congress doesn't get back till September 9th. Yeah, the kids are back in school but congress is still out.

FISMA

InTheTrees wrote: »

Now the bumbling keystone cops House republicans are going to have to make the decision and ether give Obama permission or not.

Now that his emotions have yielded to reality, Obama understands that he is in a no win situation. One of his own making.

Since he cannot make himself look good, he will now make others, namely Republicans, look bad.

He is sending the dilemna to Congress in the hopes that it is not passed. Then he no longer looks bad and can demonize those that oppose him. That, along with executive orders, is really all he is capable of.

It is really the only way he can win not lose.

He's a great politician, he's just terrible at governing.

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

The problem is its mostly jihadists fighting Assad.

Do we really want to help al queda?

The largest group of rebels are the FSA, the domestic opposition, made up of mainly Syrians defected from the military, whom the US, Brits, French and Turkish are now arming. Then there is the Islamic front, bit of a grey area here, heavily sponsored by Saudi and Qatar. Finally, in the past year, we have the more extreme brigades, e.g. Al Nusra and spin-offs from Al Qaeda in Iraq coming in as part of a broader Sunni-Shia proxy war (Shia represented by Lebanese Hezbollah and the Iranian revolutionary guard)

The FSA, the Islamic front and the foreign jihadists fight a common enemy but with very different aims and goals. They fight together, literally because they have to, the Syrian army is huge and very powerful.

Most commanders and leaders within the FSA want to see a secular democracy emerge - whereas at the other end of the spectrum, the more extreme Islamists want a religious state.

So technically, offshoots of Al Qaeda find themselves on the "same side" as the US regarding Syria, much like any extremists going to Libya found themselves on the same side as the UN, NATO and so on.

Dumbing it down, you gotta be one unpopular bastard to find the US and Al Qaeda fighting against you

BuilderPlumber

clairefontaine wrote: »

Bush got legislative approval for military intervention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

Under the patriot act, Obama does have the power to go ahead without congress approval.

I hope they don't approve it, I don't know what they will do, but given Kerry's speech my bet is this intervention will happen. It's inevitable now becaus Obama can't lose face. If he loses face as a leader, the whole country looks weak and stupid. He should have never made his line in the sand public. Big mistake.

I think that they will approve it. The congress is controlled by Republicans from the Bush era and I would have a feeling that they would LOVE to get involved in Syria (and that Obama is doing this as a gesture for their support on other issues)!

BuilderPlumber

Jonny7 wrote: »

The largest group of rebels are the FSA, the domestic opposition, made up of mainly Syrians defected from the military, whom the US, Brits, French and Turkish are now arming. Then there is the Islamic front, bit of a grey area here, heavily sponsored by Saudi and Qatar. Finally, in the past year, we have the more extreme brigades, e.g. Al Nusra and spin-offs from Al Qaeda in Iraq coming in as part of a broader Sunni-Shia proxy war (Shia represented by Lebanese Hezbollah and the Iranian revolutionary guard)

The FSA, the Islamic front and the foreign jihadists fight a common enemy but with very different aims and goals. They fight together, literally because they have to, the Syrian army is huge and very powerful.

Most commanders and leaders within the FSA want to see a secular democracy emerge - whereas at the other end of the spectrum, the more extreme Islamists want a religious state.

So technically, offshoots of Al Qaeda find themselves on the "same side" as the US regarding Syria, much like any extremists going to Libya found themselves on the same side as the UN, NATO and so on.

Dumbing it down, you gotta be one unpopular bastard to find the US and Al Qaeda fighting against you

It is most important that al Qaeda never get control of Syria. The problem is, suppose the FSA won: al Qaeda would keep the war going much like in Iraq.

Be like Nutella

This is not just about 1 strike.

Assad will never under any circumstances whatsoever give up power. There is no reason to think otherwise at this point. He will not accept any possible political settlement which takes him out of power.

He will continue to use his forces to fight the mix of AQ affiliated, Islamist and more secular FSA rebels which for arguments sake are split 50/50.

The Islamist or AQ linked rebels who want an Islamist Sharia state will never succeed in doing that because the vast majority of Syrians do not want that, have never wanted that and will never accept that. It is never going to happen.

Assuming the attack was Assad's responsibility, he has to be punished for his use of chemical weapons to effect his potential future decision to use them on an even larger scale. If it was his side who used them then you must assume his side will use them again if they are not convinced otherwise. Carrying out a successful ltd strike on even the smartest target set may not ultimately result in Assad never using chemicals again but it is is worth trying in my view.

The proposed initial strike will most likely not effect Assad's future ability to continue to fight the rebel side but may take some air power options away from him which may limit his ability to cause mass casualties on the rebel side using jets. helicopters or missiles but probably not in any meaningful way seeing as the rebels have no air power to compete with any air power Assad has anyway.

The strikes will not contribute to any sort of wider strategy to end Assad's rule nor will they help the rebels much if at all APART from forcing Assad to reconsider his future use of chemical weapons upon the rebel side. He has killed at least 50,000 civilians without chemical weapons so far in the last 2 years so he is perfectly capable of killing huge numbers of civilians and rebels without using his chemical option hence even guaranteeing that Assad never uses chemicals again has no impact on his ability to fight the rebel side.

Thus, the strikes will be entirely about doing something to cause Assad to think twice about using chemical weapons in future on the basis that there is an inherent threat involved in doing the strikes which 100% commits the US to potential future military action should Assad use chemical weapons again (assuming it was his side who did it) but what form that potential future punishment takes is indeterminable at this point. There is almost no chance of the US responding with boots on the ground no matter how Assad responds to strikes and no matter whether he chooses to use chemicals again so one would have to assume that any future strikes to punish any future use of CW by Assad will take a similar form to the proposed imminent cruise strikes but on a larger scale which may actually effect Assad's ability to fight the rebel side at that point assuming that a second strike by the US would have to a be a substantially 'larger' statement to Assad, a larger punishment. At that point such a strike could conceivably have a real impact on the balance of the civil war in favor of the rebel side therefore any strikes carried out in the next few weeks will involve all of this calculation and inherent future threat of additional strikes contingent on whether Assad completely capitulates to his punishment or chooses to ignore it.

So there is no ltd strike option is the point and any strike carried out will by its very nature potentially lead to further strikes and so attempting to limit the bracket of this strike to the subject of chemical weapons and their use in the world is false because Assad's decisions will ultimately decide on whether there will be additional future strikes which the US will be 100% committed to should Assad use chem weapons again therefore congress will be deciding on a strike which may lead to future strikes which may lead to having a real impact on Assad's ability to fight the rebels side thus effecting the ultimate balance of the civil war.

In short: punishing Assad for use of CW however noble that is in principle could easily lead to degrading Assad's assets and giving the rebels a real advantage which would make the US responsible for ending Assad's rule, collapsing the political institution in Syria leaving the future power up for grabs between the FSA, Islamist and actual AQ affiliated groups. Given a choice the FSA would have most support and AQ would ultimately be marginalized which would lead to years of rooting them out which is probably inevitable now anyway but under no circumstances will AQ groups like Al Nusra come into power in Syria. They have a tiny percentage of support by the people.

I still think striking Assad for his use of chem weapons is the right thing to do in the big picture and for the future of the world because a situation where Assad kills 10,000 in one day using gas because nobody stopped him or made him think twice about it makes the very idea of international community a defunct concept. Ironically it may take the US to ignore one international institutions charter - the UN - to carry out this necessary strike and I don't think in this case there is much wrong with that because Russia's stance on Assad is not credible or morally acceptable by the world IF they are protecting a man who has carried out a chemical massacre such as the one on Aug 21st.

It is not true that Obama put himself in this situation with his red line comment and is merely playing political games to get himself out of it... that is far too simplistic and overly cynical and the world doesn't work like that outside of BS CT forums in my view. In fact he HAD to make a definitive comment about the potential use of chem weapons in Assad's case, there was no other choice and it was the right thing to do. He also had to respect democracy and his constitution and offer the debate to the house floor for consideration which he has now done even though it risks blowing back in his face and making him and the US seem weak.

The ultimate influencing element in all of this is actually Dick Cheney's lies leading up to 2003. We all know this. It has clouded our objective judgement and made the whole world nervous and cynical about any intentions by the US anywhere and to a degree this is reasonable but in this case it has gone overboard and taken our focus off Assad's chemical massacre of 1500 people. To call BS on everything the US says is not a rational position. There's a lot of unsupported CT ranting going on around the place.

I hope congress agree to a ltd strike but keep in mind that it is a commitment to the Syrian people to react to any future use of chemical weapons.

I also hope congress know that if they don't agree to the strike then they are shouldering any future chemical massacre Assad carries out. Blaming Obama saying this is his way out of taking responsibility is complete BS and just a cheap way of looking at it. You want him to let congress decide but you don't want them to take responsibility for their decision?

The US government will be to blame if Assad gasses 10,000 next month and they did nothing to make him reconsider his use of CW.

BuilderPlumber

Be like Nutella wrote: »

The Islamist or AQ linked rebels who want an Islamist Sharia state will never succeed in doing that because the vast majority of Syrians do not want that, have never wanted that and will never accept that. It is never going to happen.

Hopefully, but these guys do not respect the wishes of the people. The vast majority of Afghans, Iranians, Malians, Somalians, etc. in the past also did not want a Talibanistic state as the outcome of their revolutions but got one because the evil men took advantage of the war and chaos and the weak governments in them. They attempted to set up one in Iraq but US occupation was in their way! Syria? I don't hold hope for a post-Assad Syria and the FSA would be toppled too by the AQ, etc.

clairefontaine

Be like Nutella wrote: »

This is not just about 1 strike.

Assad will never under any circumstances whatsoever give up power. There is no reason to think otherwise at this point. He will not accept any possible political settlement which takes him out of power.

He will continue to use his forces to fight the mix of AQ affiliated, Islamist and more secular FSA rebels which for arguments sake are split 50/50.

The Islamist or AQ linked rebels who want an Islamist Sharia state will never succeed in doing that because the vast majority of Syrians do not want that, have never wanted that and will never accept that. It is never going to happen.

Assuming the attack was Assad's responsibility, he has to be punished for his use of chemical weapons to effect his potential future decision to use them on an even larger scale. If it was his side who used them then you must assume his side will use them again if they are not convinced otherwise. Carrying out a successful ltd strike on even the smartest target set may not ultimately result in Assad never using chemicals again but it is is worth trying in my view.

The proposed initial strike will most likely not effect Assad's future ability to continue to fight the rebel side but may take some air power options away from him which may limit his ability to cause mass casualties on the rebel side using jets. helicopters or missiles but probably not in any meaningful way seeing as the rebels have no air power to compete with any air power Assad has anyway.

The strikes will not contribute to any sort of wider strategy to end Assad's rule nor will they help the rebels much if at all APART from forcing Assad to reconsider his future use of chemical weapons upon the rebel side. He has killed at least 50,000 civilians without chemical weapons so far in the last 2 years so he is perfectly capable of killing huge numbers of civilians and rebels without using his chemical option hence even guaranteeing that Assad never uses chemicals again has no impact on his ability to fight the rebel side.

Thus, the strikes will be entirely about doing something to cause Assad to think twice about using chemical weapons in future on the basis that there is an inherent threat involved in doing the strikes which 100% commits the US to potential future military action should Assad use chemical weapons again (assuming it was his side who did it) but what form that potential future punishment takes is indeterminable at this point. There is almost no chance of the US responding with boots on the ground no matter how Assad responds to strikes and no matter whether he chooses to use chemicals again so one would have to assume that any future strikes to punish any future use of CW by Assad will take a similar form to the proposed imminent cruise strikes but on a larger scale which may actually effect Assad's ability to fight the rebel side at that point assuming that a second strike by the US would have to a be a substantially 'larger' statement to Assad, a larger punishment. At that point such a strike could conceivably have a real impact on the balance of the civil war in favor of the rebel side therefore any strikes carried out in the next few weeks will involve all of this calculation and inherent future threat of additional strikes contingent on whether Assad completely capitulates to his punishment or chooses to ignore it.

So there is no ltd strike option is the point and any strike carried out will by its very nature potentially lead to further strikes and so attempting to limit the bracket of this strike to the subject of chemical weapons and their use in the world is false because Assad's decisions will ultimately decide on whether there will be additional future strikes which the US will be 100% committed to should Assad use chem weapons again therefore congress will be deciding on a strike which may lead to future strikes which may lead to having a real impact on Assad's ability to fight the rebels side thus effecting the ultimate balance of the civil war.

In short: punishing Assad for use of CW however noble that is in principle could easily lead to degrading Assad's assets and giving the rebels a real advantage which would make the US responsible for ending Assad's rule, collapsing the political institution in Syria leaving the future power up for grabs between the FSA, Islamist and actual AQ affiliated groups. Given a choice the FSA would have most support and AQ would ultimately be marginalized which would lead to years of rooting them out which is probably inevitable now anyway but under no circumstances will AQ groups like Al Nusra come into power in Syria. They have a tiny percentage of support by the people.

I still think striking Assad for his use of chem weapons is the right thing to do in the big picture and for the future of the world because a situation where Assad kills 10,000 in one day using gas because nobody stopped him or made him think twice about it makes the very idea of international community a defunct concept. Ironically it may take the US to ignore one international institutions charter - the UN - to carry out this necessary strike and I don't think in this case there is much wrong with that because Russia's stance on Assad is not credible or morally acceptable by the world IF they are protecting a man who has carried out a chemical massacre such as the one on Aug 21st.

It is not true that Obama put himself in this situation with his red line comment and is merely playing political games to get himself out of it... that is far too simplistic and overly cynical and the world doesn't work like that outside of BS CT forums in my view. In fact he HAD to make a definitive comment about the potential use of chem weapons in Assad's case, there was no other choice and it was the right thing to do. He also had to respect democracy and his constitution and offer the debate to the house floor for consideration which he has now done even though it risks blowing back in his face and making him and the US seem weak.

The ultimate influencing element in all of this is actually Dick Cheney's lies leading up to 2003. We all know this. It has clouded our objective judgement and made the whole world nervous and cynical about any intentions by the US anywhere and to a degree this is reasonable but in this case it has gone overboard and taken our focus off Assad's chemical massacre of 1500 people. To call BS on everything the US says is not a rational position. There's a lot of unsupported CT ranting going on around the place.

I hope congress agree to a ltd strike but keep in mind that it is a commitment to the Syrian people to react to any future use of chemical weapons.

I also hope congress know that if they don't agree to the strike then they are shouldering any future chemical massacre Assad carries out. Blaming Obama saying this is his way out of taking responsibility is complete BS and just a cheap way of looking at it. You want him to let congress decide but you don't want them to take responsibility for their decision?

The US government will be to blame if Assad gasses 10,000 next month and they did nothing to make him reconsider his use of CW.

Right ok. Blame the US. If Assad gasses his people, that's Assads fault, no one else's. assuming he's the one doing it.

Why isn't it Ireland's fault? Why isn't it Britains falt?

I thought young guys always wanted UN approval. UN doesn't approve this.

Neither does UK parliament.

Be like Nutella

For all of you on the 'this is all lies and there should be no strikes' side - try and answer one simple hypothetical question please:

If Assad gassed 1500 people with Sarin or a similar gas and plans to do it again on a larger scale i.e. kill 5000 or 10,000 using gas then

Should anyone do anything about that?

What should they do?

Who should do it?

clairefontaine

Be like Nutella wrote: »

For all of you on the 'this is all lies and there should be no strikes' side - try and answer one simple hypothetical question please:

If Assad gassed 1500 people with Sarin or a similar gas and plans to do it again on a larger scale i.e. kill 5000 or 10,000 using gas then

Should anyone do anything about that?

What should they do?

Who should do it?

Well you a could take 3 billion out of your budget and also risk retaliation for a country that isn't a direct threat to you. Go ahead.

Be like Nutella

nobody is willing to answer the questions

esteve

The intelligence report compiled by France has estimated that approx 400 people were killed, while that of the US has estimated that some 1400 were killed. Either figure is still awful, and to die in such a manner is horrendous. There does however seem to be some difference on this figure in either report.

However, they both seem to agree that it was the Syrian government who carried out the attack, as they were the only ones 'capable of doing so'. They are not referring to any intercepted communication as of yet, but the conclusion is that it had to be Assad, as by the process of elimination, only he could have done it. So basically this means it was physically impossible for the rebels to carry out such an attack. Is this true? Im asking as I really dont know and it is the only evidence been given publicly to categorically state that Assad is responsible.

On a side note, what is the plan with any such attack on Syria? Is it to destroy their arsenal of chemical weapons? If so, would it not be a bit dangerous to simply bomb a chemical facility, the run-off into air, the contamination of water, groundwater, soil. Or is it simply to 'deter', which in itself is not very clear to exactly what that is.

Be like Nutella

esteve wrote: »

So basically this means it was physically impossible for the rebels to carry out such an attack. Is this true? Im asking as I really dont know and it is the only evidence been given publicly to categorically state that Assad is responsible.

---

On a side note, what is the plan with any such attack on Syria? Is it to destroy their arsenal of chemical weapons?

No it is not totally true, the rebels could have gotten their hands on some chemical agent and carefully set this up as a false flag attack to get the US to get involved to weaken Assad with a strike of some sort. It would have involved launching rockets from Assad controlled areas into Rebel controlled areas and would inherently involve 2 irrational considerations 1) killing possibly 1500 of your own side and 2) risking getting caught which would literally extinguish support and sympathy from the international community.

In my opinion that is highly unlikely given the arguments set out in the declassified US Intel report on the attack which asserts some facts which - are either true
or
- they are blatantly lying.... as in completely totally bullsh1ttin us on a massive scale - in some sort of conspiracy to support an attack on Syria in some convoluted plan to get involved in Syria even though nobody wants to.
Basically IF the US is telling the truth about its evidence it says it has, then Assad's side did it either with or without his knowledge or control even if it seems to us as an irrational crazy move given the UN inspectors were just setting up in Syria at the time 10 miles away from where this chemical attack happened.

You have to choose which story you believe - the US is completely lying out its ass as part of a conspiracy and some people on the rebel side gassed their own people on a massive scale
or
Assad's side with or without his knowledge fired some chemical shells into the rebel area and between 400 and 1500 people died either by Assad's direction or by one of his more vicious generals like his brother for instance or maybe a small chemical attack got out of hand and killed a lot more than was intended.

What is the plan with a strike?

The plan so far... is to fire maybe 100 cruise missiles from a few ships out in the med into Syria to hit 20 or so targets which include command and control buildings and possibly some missile sites and maybe even some airbases in order to hurt Assad's military assets in a way which on one hand makes him tighten the reigns on his generals so that nobody tries another chemical attack again and most importantly - a much larger chemical attack and on the other hand doesn't obviously destroy so much of his forces as to be clearly helping the rebel side i.e. getting TOO involved in the Syrian civil war.

This proposed strike is believed to be much too small to make any difference to anything by many in Washington and on the other side considered to be far too risky no matter how small it is because it could inflame an already chaotic and unpredictable war which is starting to effect the region as a whole and includes too many players - Russia, Iran, Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq.

I personally believe as I have said repeatedly here that there should be a strike which seriously hurts Assad's military assets in a real way which makes him seriously reconsider ever using chemical weapons again during this conflict in order to protect the worldwide convention against the use of WMD's of any sort in any conflict for any reason. Chemical weapons were used on a large scale in world war 1 which killed 100,000+ and also during the Iran Iraq war in which possibly similar numbers died over a generation. Saddam used chemical weapons to kill 5000 Kurdish people in Halabja in the space of an hour or two showing just how easy it is to massacre people with these weapons as much as some people think there is little difference between the use of chemical weapons in war and just using guns and bombs.

This attack involved apparently, 15-20 shells at most and killed up to 1500 people in the space of an hour or two. If Assad carried out this attack he now knows he can massacre another 5000 in an hour with a few dozen shells.... in a city where the gas is contained and not effected by wind as much chemical weapons are brilliantly effective. In fields or in a desert they are famously crap and can blow back in your face. Assad could use 2 hundred shells to kill 20-40,000 in every urban pocket of rebel trouble up and down his country in a matter of weeks if we in the international community just wouldn't complain about it... and he would easily do this if it meant his survival and the beating of the rebel side. This is a man who will do whatever he can get away with.

Whatever he can get away with !

This is my central point in all of this. Forget who the rebels are, forget not wanting to get bogged down in Syria like Iraq, forget everything but this one issue - Bashar Assad will kill as many people using any method available to him as long as he can get away with it and it helps him survive both physically, as in continue to be alive, and survive, as in remain in power - running Syria, continuing his families legacy - having run Syria for more than 40 years.

The man is without moral control and has killed 50,000 civilians so far. He will kill 500,000 or 1 million more if he has to.

The proposed strike is to make Assad think twice before he chooses to massacre 5000 civilians with chemical weapons in order to survive. It's simple mathematics to Assad - if they strike him hard enough in a way which doesn't kill civilians but really hurts his military abilities then he will know for 100% certain that he cannot use chemical weapons again or the US will hurt him so badly as to give the advantage to the Rebels which is the only thing that will stop him.

That's the thinking. It's not perfect and it could go badly wrong but its worth doing and worth risking if it reduces the likelihood of Bashar Assad gassing thousands of Syrian civilians the way leaders in his position have proven they are capable of before and the way his actions to date predict he is capable of doing.

The key is to view Assad as a rational actor who is moving towards desperate irrationality, a leader who wants to remain leader and to not lose his life in this conflict which seems more and more certain as the days go on. A leader in that situation who has proven he has no moral control needs to be controlled in some way by those who have the power to do so namely - the US military. US administrations have stood by and watched enormous massacres happen in front of its face when it could have acted. It wasn't the choice of the US troops in the past to ignore massacres, it was pure politics and foreign policy. I would almost guarantee if you took a vote from the 10-20,000 US Navy servicemen in the region of Syria they would tell you they are more than willing to try and stop Assad committing massive genocide using chemical weapons as is their mantra to protect freedom everywhere.

We can debate the future of the Syrian civil war and future of Syria and the political blunders of Obama or the future of the middle east as a whole and Iran and the proxy wars of Russia and the USA to death but what cannot be argued is whether Assad would use chemical weapons if he could completely get away with it. He'd use them in a heart beat to massacre thousands and most casualties by far would be simple Syrian civilians.

That is what this strike is about. The 'everybody is lying its one big conspiracy' thing is so far fetched your objective mind has to see that.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

So you're saying if Congress votes to deny permission to use force he'll go ahead anyway?

Dont you think that would look worse than just doing it? Why ask for the vote? Thats what bush did just went ahead.

Rewriting history are we?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.J.Res114:

Back to reality... I live in an area with a large contingency of emigrated (majority of Christian) Syrians. There have been a number of protests, marches and rallies here as of late which have garnered national attention. The feelings are somewhat mixed, but the majority don’t want US military action. Some here support Assad, but it seems the majority dislike him but are more worried of what will happen in the country if Assad loses and al Qaeda wins. The biggest worry is if the U.S. intervenes, from what I’ve gathered from the Syrians here, is the innocent population will be killed by US military air strikes, and Islamic extremists fighting the Syrian government will be strengthened, making life there even harder for their relatives than under Assad.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Rewriting history are we?
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:H.J.Res114:

No.

Back to reality: You missed a war.

InTheTrees

Top Republican leaders in Congress are backing Obama and urging support for him in the upcoming vote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/03/john-boehner-syria_n_3860505.html

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

No.

Back to reality: You missed a war.

.

No I didn't, but it appears you missed a vote from US Congress back in October 2002 giving GWB the approval to use military action on Iraq.

Hey, maybe the GOP should take a play from your rulebook. Congress gives the president authorization for military action on Syria, and if things go bad (like in Iraq) the GOP can simply claim they were lied to, and therefore their authorization didn’t really count (political Mulligans have been allowed since 2003, right?). Shouldn’t be too difficult as Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (Chairperson of the Democratic National Committee) has now stated there are "dozens" of countries who’ll help us in Syria… but she’s not allowed to tell us which ones. Dozens… Hmmm, who believes that? Or is it only the political party represented by a symbol of (D) that is allowed to use that ploy.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

.
No I didn't, but it appears you missed a vote from US Congress back in October 2002 giving GWB the approval to use military action on Iraq.

Yes. You. Did.

Think hard. It was a country starting with the letter "A"...