Syria

[sircaffey]

You don't actually believe the military when they say minimal collateral damage, do you? I mean its such a well known bold-faced lie I'm surprised the press report isn't in green.

 

 

If Assad has one lick of brains he'll hide his good s*** in the middle of cities, naturally the rebels will do the same. The American military is lot known for giving a rats ass about civilians that are being used as human shields in those situations. Not that they should have to, you'd figure if we go out bombing we'd have reasons that compel us beyond making us feel good or enforcing international law by breaking it that would make those casualities acceptable.

 

In this situation, yes there will be minimal collateral damage. This isn't like recent military objectives where humans were the targets, living in civilian areas. Assad can hide his small weaponry, that's not the target. The objective isn't to take away his chemical weaponry. It's to hinder his ability to use it in the future, and he can't hide the larger equipment needed to fire such weaponry (i.e. planes, air fields, launch equipment, etc.). Those are the targets, and hitting those will result in minimal collateral damage, absolutely.

[Quin]

Israel isn't our ally by the way, they've been causing more problems than they solve for a long time now.

 

Except they are.

[Balta1701]

In this situation, yes there will be minimal collateral damage. This isn't like recent military objectives where humans were the targets, living in civilian areas. Assad can hide his small weaponry, that's not the target. The objective isn't to take away his chemical weaponry. It's to hinder his ability to use it in the future, and he can't hide the larger equipment needed to fire such weaponry (i.e. planes, air fields, launch equipment, etc.). Those are the targets, and hitting those will result in minimal collateral damage, absolutely.

Air fields can be repaired in hours. Airplanes can't be replaced but this attack wasn't launched from airplanes. It was supposedly launched in an urban area by small rockets.

[EvilMonkey]

Rep. Alan Grayson:

Those are the first sane, sensible things I have ever heard come from him mouth. I am just surprised that he didn't find a way to make it Bush's fault. But give him time......

[sircaffey]

Air fields can be repaired in hours. Airplanes can't be replaced but this attack wasn't launched from airplanes. It was supposedly launched in an urban area by small rockets.

Yes, but there's more to the strike than just punishing Assad. You can't stop small chemical rockets. It's to help ensure that the next one Assad launches isn't of greater size. Once there's a willingness to use such weapons, one must worry about how large he's willing to go. It's a threat to the US' and our allies' securities when you have a nut who has shown the willingness to use chemical weapons, who is capable of delivering the next one on a much larger scale. It's about prevention in this case.

[Balta1701]

Yes, but there's more to the strike than just punishing Assad. You can't stop small chemical rockets. It's to help ensure that the next one Assad launches isn't of greater size. Once there's a willingness to use such weapons, one must worry about how large he's willing to go. It's a threat to the US' and our allies' securities when you have a nut who has shown the willingness to use chemical weapons, who is capable of delivering the next one on a much larger scale. It's about prevention in this case.

And if he's already winning the war and the U.S. is unwilling to commit enough to change that fact, and the chemical weapons deployments have made a difference in the war, and the Russians and Iranians have pledged to replace anything the U.S. destroys, it pretty much does the opposite.

[sircaffey]

And if he's already winning the war and the U.S. is unwilling to commit enough to change that fact, and the chemical weapons deployments have made a difference in the war, and the Russians and Iranians have pledged to replace anything the U.S. destroys, it pretty much does the opposite.

Does the opposite of what?

[Balta1701]

Does the opposite of what?

If it makes Iran and Russia support the government more and accomplishes tasks on the battlefield it shows that the us is so isolated even gassing civilians isn't enough to get people to trust them. It pretty well shows that chemical waepons are fine to use. Unless the us is willing to overthrow Assad themselves.

[sircaffey]

If it makes Iran and Russia support the government more and accomplishes tasks on the battlefield it shows that the us is so isolated even gassing civilians isn't enough to get people to trust them. It pretty well shows that chemical waepons are fine to use. Unless the us is willing to overthrow Assad themselves.

Because Iran isn't backing the US, it shows the US is isolated? Iran? Did you really expect them to support the US? 10 or 11 countries just signed a joint statement at the G20 calling for a strong international response. The US is certainly not isolated in their desire for action.

[Texsox]

Those are the first sane, sensible things I have ever heard come from him mouth. I am just surprised that he didn't find a way to make it Bush's fault. But give him time......

Still trying to keep Bush's name in the news? I like the technique of complaining about something that isn't happening in hopes that people will think it is. Nicely played sir or shall we say Mission Accomplished!

[Balta1701]

Because Iran isn't backing the US, it shows the US is isolated? Iran? Did you really expect them to support the US? 10 or 11 countries just signed a joint statement at the G20 calling for a strong international response. The US is certainly not isolated in their desire for action.

Seriously? The U.S. not only can't even get a pretense of a U.N. Resolution making their desire to bomb syria anything other than an illegal war crime, they couldn't even get the United Kingdom along for the ride this time.

 

If the U.S. goes forwards with this aerial murder campaign, by comparison it'll make the Iraq war look like it had strong international support. We don't even need to forget about Poland this time!

[EvilMonkey]

Still trying to keep Bush's name in the news? I like the technique of complaining about something that isn't happening in hopes that people will think it is. Nicely played sir or shall we say Mission Accomplished!

Tex, when i get off this netbook, I will find you at least 2 links where urrent admin offials and Dem politicians have said that events in Syria are a result of Bush era policies and his fault.

[Balta1701]

Reuters making a strong point/case that the Administration currently cannot prove that Assad gave the order for this chemical attack to happen.

Yesterday

With the United States threatening to attack Syria, U.S. and allied intelligence services are still trying to work out who ordered the poison gas attack on rebel-held neighborhoods near Damascus.

 

No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward.

 

While U.S. officials say Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons strike even if he did not directly order it, they have not been able to fully describe a chain of command for the August 21 attack in the Ghouta area east of the Syrian capital.

 

It is one of the biggest gaps in U.S. understanding of the incident, even as Congress debates whether to launch limited strikes on Assad's forces in retaliation.

Today

Syrian government forces may have carried out a chemical weapons attack close to Damascus without the personal permission of President Bashar al-Assad, Germany's Bild am Sonntag paper reported on Sunday, citing German intelligence.

 

Syrian brigade and division commanders had been asking the Presidential Palace to allow them to use chemical weapons for the last four-and-a-half months, according to radio messages intercepted by German spies, but permission had always been denied, the paper said.

 

This could mean Assad may not have personally approved the attack close to Damascus on August 21 in which more than 1,400 are estimated to have been killed, intelligence officers suggested.

 

Germany's foreign intelligence agency (BND) could not be reached for comment.

 

Bild said the radio traffic was intercepted by a German naval reconnaissance vessel, the Oker, sailing close to the Syrian coast.

[Texsox]

Tex, when i get off this netbook, I will find you at least 2 links where urrent admin offials and Dem politicians have said that events in Syria are a result of Bush era policies and his fault.

 

And of course they are wrong because everything was completed and the world restarts when a new US President is elected. The GOP position is once a new President is elected, everything starts new. That just doesn't reflect reality. World issues, especially in that region, go back years, decades, even centuries. Solutions have to take in the history. Suggesting that we not learn from history, not look past the start of a current presidency, is dangerous. It doesn't matter who the President is. Just like the next president will be tasked with carrying on what every President since Washington has started. The only guy who didn't have to worry about that was Washington and he talked about what had happened under the Articles of Confederation.

[EvilMonkey]

Still trying to keep Bush's name in the news? I like the technique of complaining about something that isn't happening in hopes that people will think it is. Nicely played sir or shall we say Mission Accomplished!

So I was complaining about something that isn't happening?

 

http://www.examiner.com/article/james-carv...t-for-war-syria

 

On Wednesday, James Carville blamed the former president for the fact that many Americans do not support Obama's proposed military strike on Syria during an appearance on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor."

 

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/20...yria-War-Threat

 

Once again the neocons are expecting our country to be the police officer of the world. You know, I’d would rather have a president put his foot in his mouth than a boot on the ground where it doesn’t belong and will get us in trouble for a long, long time.

 

 

“We have evidence that there has been the use of chemical weapons inside Syria. But, I don’t make decisions based on ‘perceived.’ And, I can’t organize coalitions around ‘perceived.’ We tried that in the past, by the way, and it didn’t work out well.” - Obama

 

The amount of talk shows claiming that is huge. I also saw a link of Susan Rice claiming the same thing but can't find it anymore.

[Texsox]

So did the world stop when Bush left office and started over? Or perhaps the world continued on, just like it will continue after Obama leaves office.

[southsider2k5]

So did the world stop when Bush left office and started over? Or perhaps the world continued on, just like it will continue after Obama leaves office.

 

Bad things only happened between 2001 and 2009.

[Balta1701]

So today, Secretary Kerry made what appears to be an offhand remark about how the only way Syria could avoid reprisals is if they give up their chemical weapons.

 

Russia and Syria both immediately pounced on that as a serious proposal they would be willing to consider.

 

But thankfully the U.S. has clearly exhausted all diplomatic options and more death is the only solution, of course.

[Soxbadger]

So if the Syria destroys their weapons and the US doesnt attack your mad, and if the US attacks your mad?

 

 

[Balta1701]

So if the Syria destroys their weapons and the US doesnt attack your mad, and if the US attacks your mad?

It's a great example of the kind of diplomacy we should be trying and aren't. Worldwide, I might add, not just here.

[Soxbadger]

How arent we trying it?

 

The article seemed to clearly suggest that if Syria would sign the CWC (chemical weapons convention) that it could be enough...

 

But lets be honest, at any time Syria could have become a party to the CWC, they just have shown no desire to, until of course the US threatened military warfare.

 

But I guess well discount that threat as part of the diplomatic process.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

How arent we trying it?

 

The article seemed to clearly suggest that if Syria would sign the ICC that it could be enough...

 

But lets be honest, at any time Syria could have become a party to the ICC, they just have shown no desire to, until of course the US threatened military warfare.

 

But I guess well discount that threat as part of the diplomatic process.

You do realize that among the countries refusing to be a party to the ICC is a country known as "The United States of America", correct?

[Soxbadger]

I guess I used the wrong 3 letters, thought I pulled it from the article but guess not.

 

The US is part of the CWC, which is the chemical weapons convention. Syria is 1 of 7 countries not a part of it.

Edited September 9, 2013 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

I guess I used the wrong 3 letters, thought I pulled it from the article but guess not.

 

The US is part of the CWC, which is the chemical weapons convention. Syria is 1 of 7 countries not a part o f it.

And I believe they've stated they will join it when Israel joins the Nonproliferation Treaty.

 

Which really kinda makes sense.

[southsider2k5]

Our war hungry President just got blind sided by Putin. Impressive.