War with Syria?

[Dan Druff]

I haven't seen a thread about that here yet, despite it being the dominant news story recently.

Here is a summary of the situation: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/01/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

Here is an interesting article about the US expecting more cyberattacks on media (like the one the NY Times experienced recently) if we go to war with Syria: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/tech/s...rticle_sidebar

Interesting that the tables are turned now based upon who is in office.

Many Democrats now support action against Syria (because Obama supports it), while many Republicans oppose it.

Recall that opposition to attacking Iraq mainly came from Democrats, as Bush was in office and supported it.

[cmoney]

I haven't seen a thread about that here yet, despite it being the dominant news story recently.

Here is a summary of the situation: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/01/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

Here is an interesting article about the US expecting more cyberattacks on media (like the one the NY Times experienced recently) if we go to war with Syria: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/tech/s...rticle_sidebar

Interesting that the tables are turned now based upon who is in office.

Many Democrats now support action against Syria (because Obama supports it), while many Republicans oppose it.

Recall that opposition to attacking Iraq mainly came from Democrats, as Bush was in office and supported it.

I am pretty sure when Obama drew his "red line" he never thought chemical weapons would actually be used. Now that he actually has to do something he looks like a pussy. Either do what you say you are going to do and do a meaningful attack or apologize and say you were lying. He wants to get a vote on it from congress so then he can blame Republicans when they vote to oppose it.

Both sides fighting in Syria are bad. It seems pretty apparent that the US government just wants to have each side killing on another and that way no one can really win the conflct.

Also, it seems pretty fucking absurd that Assad or any his high ranking commanders would order a chemical attack on women and child. As Putin said, Assad's forces were winning the war and it would make no sense for them to use these kind of weapons.

The rebels on the other hand have every reason to use them.

[Rick O'Shea]

Yeah but they are killing themselves

[shortbuspoker]

This one is pretty good. I've seen so many people posting this shit on Facebook that it's ridiculous. The funny part is that nobody has let the know that the Borowitz Report is a satire piece.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...objective.html

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Attempting to quell criticism of his proposal for a limited military mission in Syria, President Obama floated a more modest strategy today, saying that any U.S. action in Syria would have “no objective whatsoever.”

“Let me be clear,” he said in an interview on CNN. “Our goal will not be to effect régime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days and then leave.”

“I want to reassure our allies and the people of Syria that what we are about to undertake, if we undertake it at all, will have no purpose or goal,” he said. “This is consistent with U.S. foreign policy of the past.”

While Mr. Obama clearly hoped that his proposal of a brief and pointless intervention in Syria would reassure the international community, it immediately drew howls of protest from U.S. allies, who argued that two days was too open-ended a timeframe for such a mission.

That criticism led White House spokesman Jay Carney to brief reporters later in the day, arguing that the President was willing to scale down the U.S. mission to “twenty-four hours, thirty-six tops.”

“It may take twenty-four hours, but it could also take twelve,” Mr. Carney said.

“Maybe we get in there, take a look around, and get out right away. But however long it takes, one thing will not change: this mission will have no point. The President is resolute about that.”

[Salty_Aus]

I haven't seen a thread about that here yet, despite it being the dominant news story recently.

Here is a summary of the situation: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/01/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

Here is an interesting article about the US expecting more cyberattacks on media (like the one the NY Times experienced recently) if we go to war with Syria: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/tech/s...rticle_sidebar

Interesting that the tables are turned now based upon who is in office.

Many Democrats now support action against Syria (because Obama supports it), while many Republicans oppose it.

Recall that opposition to attacking Iraq mainly came from Democrats, as Bush was in office and supported it.

I am pretty sure when Obama drew his "red line" he never thought chemical weapons would actually be used. Now that he actually has to do something he looks like a pussy. Either do what you say you are going to do and do a meaningful attack or apologize and say you were lying. He wants to get a vote on it from congress so then he can blame Republicans when they vote to oppose it.

Both sides fighting in Syria are bad. It seems pretty apparent that the US government just wants to have each side killing on another and that way no one can really win the conflct.

Also, it seems pretty fucking absurd that Assad or any his high ranking commanders would order a chemical attack on women and child. As Putin said, Assad's forces were winning the war and it would make no sense for them to use these kind of weapons.

The rebels on the other hand have every reason to use them.

When I first heard about the gas attack my first thought was no way it was the Syrian Government.
After what happened in Iraq with chem weapons on the Kurds there is no way they would have made the same mistake.

Has been several reports in the last day, one report from a bigwig in the UN says the FSA were responsible and another from the FSA says they accidentally did it themselves while trying to move sarin gas that they got from the Saudis.

I'd say its about 95% probability it was the rebels and it was not an accident. Funny how it happened just a few days after the UN arrived yeah?

[cmoney]

I am pretty sure when Obama drew his "red line" he never thought chemical weapons would actually be used. Now that he actually has to do something he looks like a pussy. Either do what you say you are going to do and do a meaningful attack or apologize and say you were lying. He wants to get a vote on it from congress so then he can blame Republicans when they vote to oppose it.

Both sides fighting in Syria are bad. It seems pretty apparent that the US government just wants to have each side killing on another and that way no one can really win the conflct.

Also, it seems pretty fucking absurd that Assad or any his high ranking commanders would order a chemical attack on women and child. As Putin said, Assad's forces were winning the war and it would make no sense for them to use these kind of weapons.

The rebels on the other hand have every reason to use them.

When I first heard about the gas attack my first thought was no way it was the Syrian Government.
After what happened in Iraq with chem weapons on the Kurds there is no way they would have made the same mistake.

Has been several reports in the last day, one report from a bigwig in the UN says the FSA were responsible and another from the FSA says they accidentally did it themselves while trying to move sarin gas that they got from the Saudis.

I'd say its about 95% probability it was the rebels and it was not an accident. Funny how it happened just a few days after the UN arrived yeah?

It appears the mistake the Obama administration made was claiming it was Assad before having evidence to fully back it. I think now they may actually know it wasnt Assad's side but they are stuck in a shitty situation as they dont want to admit they were wrong.

Putin continues to make the US administration look foolish.

[Salty_Aus]

[hongkonger]

I haven't seen a thread about that here yet, despite it being the dominant news story recently.

Here is a summary of the situation: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/01/world/...html?hpt=hp_t1

Here is an interesting article about the US expecting more cyberattacks on media (like the one the NY Times experienced recently) if we go to war with Syria: http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/tech/s...rticle_sidebar

Interesting that the tables are turned now based upon who is in office.

Many Democrats now support action against Syria (because Obama supports it), while many Republicans oppose it.

Recall that opposition to attacking Iraq mainly came from Democrats, as Bush was in office and supported it.

You have a real point about the hypocrites and it is disgusting. This is just as illegal and fucked up as Iraq just on a smaller scale since no invasion/overthrow is planned (at least for now). It is also just as pointless and rife with unintended consequences/blowback. All it is going to do is kill mostly innocent people. Obama himself stated the point is not to oust Assad/take sides but simply to punish him for the alleged use of chemical weapons. What a pointless exercise. I don't see how anyone could have been against the war in Iraq and for bombing Syria, unless they sincerely believe Syria would be a humanitarian intervention, but in that case there are organizations with a little bit more credibility on humanitarian issues than the US (by far the world's largest wager of chemical warfare since WWII), and as far as I know none of those organizations are in favor of this stupid bombing nor does anyone believe this will improve humanitarian conditions in Syria.

I'm not fond of establishment Democrats and I had less hope for Obama than a lot of people did when he was first elected, but I did not expect him to be basically a continuation of one terrible Bush policy after another (or even escalation/expansion as with the extrajudicial drone killings of American citizens). He is an improvement over Bush at the margins of policy/less important stuff and certainly on Supreme Court nominations but that's about all I can say for him. He's weak and ineffective politically, on many issues especially domestic/economic it has been one pathetic half-measure after another, now he's going to drop bombs on yet another country. The man's a criminal but boy is he a smooth talker.

[Salty_Aus]

So what is he going to do if the UN say it was the rebels who committed a war crime?

No way he will side with the government I reckon.

Probably ignore this and still attack.

http://www.trunews.com/breaking-rebe...eapons-saudis/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ds-troops.html

[sonatine]

As a life long democrat, I can honestly say that I have no idea what in the fuck my political party is thinking here. Im trying to assume there is something going on behind the scenes that makes sense of this but seriously what the fuck could it be?

When Syria drone strikes POTUS, are we even going to have the moral position to cry foul?

[RealTalk]

this whole scenario is just such a clusterfuck and embarrassment on so many levels

[neveragain39]

this whole scenario is just such a clusterfuck and embarrassment on so many levels

You'd expect, with the CIA budget of $25 billion, Obama would know which side is responsible for using chemical weapons. This conflict is going on 3 years now.

[DirtyB]

The story I've heard is that the CIA/NSA intercepted a call from the Syrian Minister of Defense to the commander of the division that launched the gas rockets asking what the hell had just happened.

A Syrian army unit launching the gas attack without authorization from the top brass fits the evidence. It also answers the motive problem of it not making sense for Assad to order a gas attack now.

The other evidence that strongly points to the Syrian Army being responsible, and this not being a rebel false flag attack or accident, are reports of Syrian Army troops in the area putting on gas masks before the attack started.


And Todd,

If you think that launching a salvo of Tomahawk missiles is equivalent to putting 150,000 troops in a country for 10 years, then I don't know what to tell you.

[cmoney]

The story I've heard is that the CIA/NSA intercepted a call from the Syrian Minister of Defense to the commander of the missile unit that launched the gas rockets asking what the hell had just happened.

A Syrian army unit launching the gas attack without authorization from the top brass fits the evidence. It also answers the motive problem- i.e. that it doesn't make sense for Assad to order a gas attack now.

The other evidence that strongly points to the Syrian Army being responsible, and this not being a rebel false flag attack or accident, are reports of Syrian Army troops in the area putting on gas masks before the attack started.


And Todd,

If you think that launching a salvo of Tomahawk missiles is equivalent to putting 150,000 troops in a country for 10 years, then I don't know what to tell you.

This explanation makes the most sense

[sonatine]

It would not be unreasonable to suspect that the command itself or the source was a rebel/AQ provocation.

[BuSTMeANuT]

These are the animals that we are supposed to give a fuck about...

[tony bagadonuts]

When Syria drone strikes POTUS, are we even going to have the moral position to cry foul?

Elaborate on your hypothetical please. What exactly have we done in this situation to merit a comment such as this?

[Anal_Hershiser]

Whether we do or don't go into Syria isn't really the issue at this point. Even if we launch a few missiles and kill a few more brown people, I don't think even ONE American soldier will be put in Syria. It's not gonna turn into another Iraq. The issue is how incredibly indecisive and weak our president, and therefore our country, looks through all of this. I have never liked Obama. But this is the first time I am absolutely embarrassed that he is our president. He is in waaaaaay over his head. Gee, who would have thought electing a guy with almost no experience would turn out to be embarrassing? Russia, China, Iran, etc, are all licking their lips right now. "Hmmmm, if he'll waiver on this red line, maybe he'll waiver on this one as well!" The extent of it can be debated, but America is a weaker country today than it was before this absolute clusterfuck. NONE of the other world leaders respect or fear him, and why would they? The downward spiral continues.

[Anal_Hershiser]

Fucking buggy software. What is this? DD 2.1?

[Lord of the Fraud]

WAS gonna chime in with an opinion or two of my own. But being honest, I've got absolutely no idea what the fuck is going on, or what the REAL agenda actually is from ANY side in this conflict.

So I'll not bore you with my half baked theories and just shut the fuck up.



But Imagine if NATO bombs rained down on Syria and they responded with their state of the art Russian hardware and lit up Israel? Because that could easily be their first target as no real gain in targeting Turkey or Jordan (there only other realistic targets in the region)