War with Syria

[rushmc 23]

winsor

***I have to admit
Watching the Obama supporters twist with this is a something to see


And now it appears Obama will not get congressional approval to attack. If this holds, will he overstep his powers again?


So everyone knows, I think IF we bomb them, it should be BOTH sides because it appears BOTH sides have used CW's.
This I could support.

But is it shameful watching Obama and his admin handle this one. And sad

According to this, it is the opposition who has the most solid track record for using CWs.

The Syrian Gov't has little to gain and much to lose by verifiably using CWs, but the opposition is largely immune from international outrage. What do they have to lose? If it turns out to be an opposition group that is responsible, which one in particular is it?

Given the internecine squabbles between the various factions aligned against the Syrian Gov't, killing some of their competition and having the blame fall on the Gov't is a definite win/win situation for most any of them. With the credulous morons in Washington evaluating the situation and deciding upon the basis of what they think they know, a better use of CWs could not be made.

Deception is cheaper and more effective than brute force, which is a lesson we have yet to learn.


BSBD,

Winsor

+1

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

***We've gotten 100x or 1000x (what is several?) better at detecting this in just the past 10 years? That's amazing!! Or a dramatic exaggeration.

How much human intelligence did we have in Afghanistan and Iraq prior to 9/11? If you said zero, you're probably pretty close.

How many spy drones did we have?

How much telecommunications interception capability did we have?

Dramatic, yes. Exaggeration, I don't think so.

You pulled "orders of magnitude out of thin air." You have nothing that can substantiate it, but it sounded great when you wrote it. But it means if we had a single person before, we need to have at least 1000 now. Let's try holding ourselves to a higher standard.

How do you know how much intelligence we had prior to 9/11? Are you guessing zero, or do you have access to real information? The fact that we were at war with Iraq for the decade before and continuing to track their potential WMD activity tells me that we had as much intelligence as we could get. It wouldn't have changed after 9/11.

Syria was really not relevant to 9/11, but we have always been interested in Israel's neighboring enemies, particularly Syria since Egypt made peace in the late 70s.

--
This blind faith in the Administration reminds me that Bush and Powell repeatedly referred to Hussein's gassing of the Kurds as they drummed up the war machine in 2002. Though if they were really that concerned about it, they wouldn't have waited until after 9/11 to make such a big deal about it, right? Yet it shows a pretty clear partisan bias by many here. Bush = bad, Obama = good. (McCain remains crazy)

[shropshire 0]

A view by Robert Fisk of the Independent newspaper ... http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/iran-not-syria-is-the-wests-real-target-8789506.html

Quote

Iran is Israel’s enemy. Iran is therefore, naturally, America’s enemy. So fire the missiles at Iran’s only Arab ally.

There is nothing pleasant about the regime in Damascus. Nor do these comments let the regime off the hook when it comes to mass gassing. But I am old enough to remember that when Iraq – then America’s ally – used gas against the Kurds of Hallabjah in 1988, we did not assault Baghdad. Indeed, that attack would have to wait until 2003, when Saddam no longer had any gas or any of the other weapons we had nightmares over.

And I also happen to remember that the CIA put it about in 1988 that Iran was responsible for the Hallabjah gassings, a palpable lie that focused on America’s enemy whom Saddam was then fighting on our behalf. And thousands – not hundreds – died in Hallabjah. But there you go. Different days, different standards.

Quote

But hold on. Didn’t Iraq – when it was “our” ally against Iran – also use gas on the Iranian army? It did. I saw the Ypres-like wounded of this foul attack by Saddam – US officers, I should add, toured the battlefield later and reported back to Washington – and we didn’t care a tinker’s curse about it. Thousands of Iranian soldiers in the 1980-88 war were poisoned to death by this vile weapon.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[quade 4]

To what level of precision and how many decimal places shall I calculate your level of pedantry?

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

quade

To what level of precision and how many decimal places shall I calculate your level of pedantry?

if you could do it within two orders of magnitude, that would be great. And a big improvement for you.

(or you could just own up to making up facts faster than Reagan ever did)

[DanG 1]

Quote

But I am old enough to remember that when Iraq – then America’s ally – used gas against the Kurds of Hallabjah in 1988, we did not assault Baghdad. Indeed, that attack would have to wait until 2003, when Saddam no longer had any gas or any of the other weapons we had nightmares over.

If memory serves, we had a little war with Iraq more than a decade before that.

- Dan G

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

If memory serves, we had a little war with Iraq more than a decade before that.

Yes 1991 to be precise. The Gulf War. But that war wasn't about Chemical Weapons though there was apprehension that they would be used against the coalition forces as well as against civilians in countries such as Israel. So while yes shropshire was negligent for failing to mention the Gulf War, they were correct about America not retaliating when the Chemical Weapons were first used against the Kurds.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[normiss 800]

Retaliate?
We sold them to them.
Then told them where to aim them.

[CanuckInUSA 0]

normiss

Retaliate?
We sold them to them.
Then told them where to aim them.

I don't think the American people are bad. But your government is rotten to the core. It does not matter who is in office, Donkey or Elephant. They are both bad.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Gravitymaster 0]

Looks like the Russians have done their own investigation.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#.Uij-l4zD_IU

Quote

BERLIN — Russia says a deadly March sarin attack in an Aleppo suburb was carried out by Syrian rebels, not forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, and it has delivered a 100-page report laying out its evidence to the United Nations.

A statement posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry website late Wednesday said the report included detailed scientific analysis of samples that Russian technicians collected at the site of the alleged attack, Khan al Asal in northern Syria. The attack killed 26 people.

A U.N. spokesman, Farhan Haq, confirmed that Russia delivered the report in July.

The report itself was not released. But the statement drew a pointed comparison between what it said was the scientific detail of the report and the far shorter intelligence summaries that the United States, Britain and France have released to justify their assertion that the Syrian government launched chemical weapons against Damascus suburbs on Aug. 21.

[kelpdiver 2]

Gravitymaster

Looks like the Russians have done their own investigation.

A hidden detail is that they executed the first 7 lead investigators, much like Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre.

[Gravitymaster 0]

kelpdiver

***Looks like the Russians have done their own investigation.

A hidden detail is that they executed the first 7 lead investigators, much like Nixon's Saturday Night Massacre.Oh, that Putin. Life of the Party, he is.

[billvon 2,991]

>We will all be waiting for your criticism of the Democrats in Congress and Obama to
>reach the same level as it did with the Republicans and Bush. So far, I don't think it has.

No, it hasn't. But if we do invade I will complain just as much as I did at the beginning of the Iraq war.

[ryoder 1,590]

Stephen Colbert's translation of Obama's request for Congressional Authorization:

"We don't know what we want to do, we won't do much, and it doesn't matter when we do it;
Who's with me?"

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Gravitymaster 0]

billvon

>We will all be waiting for your criticism of the Democrats in Congress and Obama to
>reach the same level as it did with the Republicans and Bush. So far, I don't think it has.

No, it hasn't. But if we do invade I will complain just as much as I did at the beginning of the Iraq war.

I'd recommend not waiting until we invade. You might be surprised if O' turns this into a war with Iran. I can see that happening if Iran begins supporting the rebels.

[ryoder 1,590]

I keep forgetting;
Which side is the "good guys" again?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[quade 4]

ryoder

I keep forgetting;
Which side is the "good guys" again?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html

Just because it's a Kobayashi Maru situation, doesn't mean you just fucking give up.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Opie 0]

Interesting McCain town hall meeting. Does he really want to hear from his constituents? Doesn't sound like it to me.

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_phoenix_metro/central_phoenix/john-mccain-plans-arizona-town-halls-to-discuss-syria

-

[rushmc 23]

Gravitymaster

***>We will all be waiting for your criticism of the Democrats in Congress and Obama to
>reach the same level as it did with the Republicans and Bush. So far, I don't think it has.

No, it hasn't. But if we do invade I will complain just as much as I did at the beginning of the Iraq war.

I'd recommend not waiting until we invade. You might be surprised if O' turns this into a war with Iran. I can see that happening if Iran begins supporting the rebels.

At least a war with Iran makes some sense!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[winsor 236]

quade

***I keep forgetting;
Which side is the "good guys" again?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html

Just because it's a Kobayashi Maru situation, doesn't mean you just fucking give up.

Wrong, as usual.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Had the Syrian Gov't used WMDs, it would have made sense to go whole hog and truly devastate their opponents. A very local use that had nil for tactical or strategic advantage is pointless, particularly in light of the potential for international backlash.

And it's also quite possible (though I'm not willing to say probable) that Assad used gas figuring that people would say exactly what you have, thereby gaining enough international hesitancy to give him cover to use gas on a limited tactical level, thus to "safely" send a message to his opponents: "This is what I can and will do to you if you don't back down. If I go down, this is what will happen to all your families before I take my last breath." I think he's well into scorched-earth mentality by now.

(Hey, here's a fun fact: What did Bashar Assad and George Habash have in common? Both are/were doctors of medicine.)

That having been said, I'm still only about 80% convinced that it was Syrian govt actors. That's partly based on an incompleteness of independently verified evidence, partly on the history of past Presidents (plural) bamboozling the American people and Congress to gain approval for military action, and partly because I think the current Administration is of no different mentality or modus operandi.

Even (potentially) without the loss of a single American life, I've grown utterly sick to death at bleeding the American treasury to the tune of trillions of dollars to project military power overseas, when it does nothing to advance American security or interests (other than to perpetuate the motion of the military-industrial complex). As for humanitarian interests, Yes, they matter a great deal to me - I'm a bleeding heart, remember? - but I'm not willing to have American assets foot the lion's share of the cost while the rest of the world is content to let us go it alone. The world's policeman has to be a true coalition, and not just America.

On this basis, I've decided that my vote is NO.

[rushmc 23]

Andy9o8

Quote

Had the Syrian Gov't used WMDs, it would have made sense to go whole hog and truly devastate their opponents. A very local use that had nil for tactical or strategic advantage is pointless, particularly in light of the potential for international backlash.

And it's also quite possible (though I'm not willing to say probable) that Assad used gas figuring that people would say exactly what you have, thereby gaining enough international hesitancy to give him cover to use gas on a limited tactical level, thus to "safely" send a message to his opponents: "This is what I can and will do to you if you don't back down. If I go down, this is what will happen to all your families before I take my last breath." I think he's well into scorched-earth mentality by now.

(Hey, here's a fun fact: What did Bashar Assad and George Habash have in common? Both are/were doctors of medicine.)

That having been said, I'm still only about 80% convinced that it was Syrian govt actors. That's partly based on an incompleteness of independently verified evidence, partly on the history of past Presidents (plural) bamboozling the American people and Congress to gain approval for military action, and partly because I think the current Administration is of no different mentality or modus operandi.

Even (potentially) without the loss of a single American life, I've grown utterly sick to death at bleeding the American treasury to the tune of trillions of dollars to project military power overseas, when it does nothing to advance American security or interests (other than to perpetuate the motion of the military-industrial complex). As for humanitarian interests, Yes, they matter a great deal to me - I'm a bleeding heart, remember? - but I'm not willing to have American assets foot the lion's share of the cost while the rest of the world is content to let us go it alone. The world's policeman has to be a true coalition, and not just America.

On this basis, I've decided that my vote is NO.

I think this whole thing is a political trap

Therfore, I think all the Republicans should vote present and let Obama and the Dems make the choice

That said, I think that this president, or any president should be given the power when asked. Then the President owns it. Just as the left says Bush owns Iraq

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ryoder 1,590]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/06/us-syria-crisis-usa-iran-idUSBRE98504120130906

For years I've been reading all the books written by ex-CIA agent Robert Baer. He has been asserting for years, that Iran has been conducting a proxy war with the US since 1979. So it is predictable this would happen if the US attacks a proxy.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[normiss 800]

In the hopes that most of you are seeing the POTUS' speech....

This is weak!
He's not being very convincing.
He refuses to say whether or not he will order strikes if it's shot down in DC. Only that "these types of decisions are always unpopular".
He's telling us we don't know what's "right" in his mind.
Anyone else troubled with the way he uses "we" and "I"?


He looks weak, confused, and bumbling.

[quade 4]

winsor

******I keep forgetting;
Which side is the "good guys" again?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html

Just because it's a Kobayashi Maru situation, doesn't mean you just fucking give up.
Wrong, as usual.

Thanks for your "brilliant" insight on what should be done during a crisis.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver