|Numbers| Posted August 25, 2013 Report Share Posted August 25, 2013 If none of this does not sound familiar to anyone, we have a problem. IF Russia or others get involved this could escalate a lot higher than anyone would ever want. http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/middle-east/9084402/Syria-gas-attack-US-sends-warship The US Navy has sent an extra missile warship to the Mediterranean as President Barack Obama considered his options for a possible military strike on Syria in response to a gas attack that has killed hundreds. Syria hasd sought to avert blame by saying its soldiers had found chemical weapons in rebel tunnels. A senior UN official arrived in Damascus to seek access for inspectors to the site of last Wednesday's attack, in which opposition accounts say between 500 and well over 1000 civilians were killed by gas fired by pro-government forces. In the most authoritative account so far, the medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) said three hospitals near Damascus had reported 355 deaths in the space of three hours out of about 3600 admissions with nerve gas-type symptoms. MILITARY OPTIONS Among the military options under consideration are missile strikes on Syrian units believed to be responsible for chemical attacks or on Assad's air force and ballistic missile sites, US officials said. Such strikes could be launched from U.S. ships or from combat aircraft capable of firing missiles from outside Syrian airspace, thereby avoiding Syrian air defences. Major world powers - including Russia, Assad's main ally which has long blocked UN-sponsored intervention against him - have urged the Syrian leader to cooperate with U.N. chemical weapons inspectors already in Damascus to pursue earlier allegations. Syria accuses rebels of staging the attack to provoke intervention. State television said soldiers had found chemical weapons on Saturday in tunnels that had been used by rebels. A presenter said five blue and green plastic storage drums shown in video footage, along with rusty mortar bombs, grenades, domestic gas canisters and vials labelled "atropine", a nerve gas antidote, were proof that rebels had used chemical weapons. Separately, the state news agency SANA said soldiers had "suffered from cases of suffocation" when rebels used poison gas "as a last resort" after government forces made "big gains" against them in the Damascus suburb of Jobar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted August 25, 2013 Report Share Posted August 25, 2013 Russia has warships there themselves and have already "warned" the US that an attack on Syria could lead to nuclear war. Syria doesn't have nukes. Russia/China on one side......US on the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted August 25, 2013 Report Share Posted August 25, 2013 I'm not in favor of an attack at his point but if we can provide undisputable proof that the Assad regime has been using chemical weapons on the rebels, then I'd be in favor of limited strikes to deprive the regime of that capability going forward...to level the playing field, as it were. If we present said proof to the rest of the UN Security council (China, Russia, France, etc) I don't think the Russians or Chinese would have any inclination to attack us in retaliation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted August 25, 2013 Report Share Posted August 25, 2013 I'm not in favor of an attack at his point but if we can provide undisputable proof that the Assad regime has been using chemical weapons on the rebels, then I'd be in favor of limited strikes to deprive the regime of that capability going forward...to level the playing field, as it were. If we present said proof to the rest of the UN Security council (China, Russia, France, etc) I don't think the Russians or Chinese would have any inclination to attack us in retaliation. Any indisputable proof you see will have been made up. A UN team has already stated that the rebels have more than likely been using chemical weapons, the smoking gun isn't there but everything else is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-GoBengals- Posted August 25, 2013 Report Share Posted August 25, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Bunghole| Posted August 25, 2013 Report Share Posted August 25, 2013 Any indisputable proof you see will have been made up. A UN team has already stated that the rebels have more than likely been using chemical weapons, the smoking gun isn't there but everything else is. Yeah right, like that's ever happened before. Our government is honest and trustworthy now that Obama is in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted August 26, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2013 Not sure of the meaning that you are trying to convey. I am not trying to act all high and mighty but I do want answers before the government starts putting our troops in harms way as part of their international policy. The real question is, have we as a part of a group of countries tried ALL other means of discussion before jumping right into military aid and military personnel ? Another set of dilemmas / questions might be; 1. How many innocents in Syria have to die before someone / anyone steps in and does something to prevent further loss of life ? 2. This conflict has no clear cut good and bad side. Both appear to have their share of evils behind them. 3. What is the ultimate goal if we do get involved ? regime change ? 4. Can we afford to be involved in another conflict when we are already cutting back on benefits to military members to support the current defense budget. 5. What is the potential blowback from another conflict in the middle east ? 6. etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted August 26, 2013 Report Share Posted August 26, 2013 I want actual real evidence of WMDs, not George Bush drummed up stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted August 26, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 26, 2013 I want actual real evidence of WMDs, not George Bush drummed up stuff. I think that it will be impossible to blame Bush on this one, his own Intel staff signed off on the last one ( bipartisan staff ). ...and yes he could have stopped the last one from proceeding any further but didn't and chose to believe his staff and the half truths that were being fed to them. What would be real evidence for you ( enough to go to war over ) ? The medical evidence of WMD usage ? The actual weapons themselves ? A Syrian insider who says they're there ? It is my opinion that they will find all three pieces of evidence. Who is the holder of the WMD might be a better question and what happens if both sides hold WMDs ? I don't see a clear cut good or bad side. One side with Hezbollah and the other with Al Qaeda. One with Russia and China and Iran... Just another mess that we should keep our military out of and the pressure for talks up. Note: It is an arguable point that Bush had failed to sort through the faulty Intel he was given and in some cases he ignored the Intel provided that showed otherwise. Not so sure that this president will be any different because military movement has been going on well before the additional ship was sent to the Med. Well before talks and sanctions had a chance to take effect. ...and well before any evidence of WMD showed up. We'll just have to see how well or bad he handles this matter but for now, I don't see any good coming out of this at all. He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it. Martin Luther King, Jr. I think that people want peace so much that one of these days government had better get out of their way and let them have it. Dwight D. Eisenhower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted August 26, 2013 Report Share Posted August 26, 2013 The other problem here is that there is SO MUCH more to this situation than we know.....do you trust the corporate media to tell you the facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted August 26, 2013 Report Share Posted August 26, 2013 http://rt.com/news/assad-interview-syria-chemical-989/ Accusations that Syria used chemical weapon 'against logic' - Assad Syrian leader Bashar Assad has stressed that the claims of his government using chemical weapons made by Western countries are “an insult to common sense” and “nonsense,” in an interview to Russia’s Izvestia newspaper. "The statements made by the politicians in the USA and in other Western countries represent an insult to common sense and neglect of the public opinion of citizens in those countries. It’s nonsense: first, they bring charges, and then they collect evidence. And it’s one of the most powerful countries that does it – the US. They accused us on Wednesday, and in only two days the American leadership announces they started to collect the evidence.… They accuse our army of using chemical weapons in the area that’s reportedly controlled by the terrorists. In fact, there is no precise front line between the army and the insurgents in that area. And how can a government use chemical weapons – or any other weapons of mass destruction – in the area where government troops are concentrated? This is against elementary logic." The Syrian leader also indicated that not only the accusations stopped making sense, but the whole Western "peacemaking" plan in Syria has run amok: the Us and its allies have attempted to launch the mission, but failed to convince Russia and China to vote for it. "They have failed to convince their peoples and the rest of the world that the policy, which they carry out in the Middle East, is smart and effective. Moreover, it appears that the situation here is different compared to the one in Egypt and Tunisia." "One and the same plot of the Arabic revolutions is no longer convincing. They may launch any kind of war but they don’t know how long it would last and how much of a territory it would cover. They have realized that their plot has gone out of control." The main cause of the continuing conflict, the Syrian leader pointed out, is the influx of tens of thousands of foreign insurgents that arrive in Syria every month and kill innocent people. What’s more, the terrorists are provided with money and weapons from abroad. And, according to Assad, world leaders don’t understand the dangers that terrorism may entail – despite past experience.“Nowadays there are many politicians, although very few leaders, among the heads of states. The point is that they don’t know history and don’t learn its lessons. Some of them forget even the recent past. Have they learnt the lessons of past 50 years? Have they even glanced through the documents of their predecessors who failed in all wars they started since Vietnam? Have they realized those wars brought about nothing but havoc and instability in the Middle East and in other regions? To those politicians I would like to explain that terrorism isn’t a bargaining chip to pull out and use anytime one wants, and then put back. Terrorism, as a scorpion, can bite anytime. You can’t be for the terrorism in Syria and against it in Mali.” However, Russia’s aid helps to improve at least the economic situation in the conflict-torn country, Assad indicated, not revealing any particular details though. “I want to say that all contracts that have been concluded with Russia are being fulfilled. And no crisis or pressure from the US, Europe and the Gulf states interfered with the deliveries. Russia provides for Syria the things that are necessary for its protection, and the protection of its people. And the things Russia delivers to Syria according to our military contracts will undeniably lead to the improvement of the Syrian economy.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sois Posted August 26, 2013 Report Share Posted August 26, 2013 if they have oil we can take, then go to war else no war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-GoBengals- Posted August 26, 2013 Report Share Posted August 26, 2013 The other problem here is that there is SO MUCH more to this situation than we know.....do you trust the corporate media to tell you the facts? they trust the corporate media like the trust the bengals homer preseason announcers about football evaluations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_B Posted August 26, 2013 Report Share Posted August 26, 2013 they trust the corporate media like the trust the bengals homer preseason announcers about football evaluations well then i can name you a few guys ready to go to war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Go Skins Posted August 27, 2013 Report Share Posted August 27, 2013 #BREAKING: U.S. officials say American missile strikes against Syria could come 'as early as Thursday,' NBC News reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted August 27, 2013 Report Share Posted August 27, 2013 #BREAKING: U.S. officials say American missile strikes against Syria could come 'as early as Thursday,' NBC News reports. That would be a travesty. Doctor up fake evidence against a country and start bombing them........wait, I've seen this movie before. Is this what the US has become? And for sure there will be people saying.....bu bu but we're HELPING them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted August 27, 2013 Report Share Posted August 27, 2013 http://rt.com/op-edge/syria-gas-attack-chemical-propaganda-796/ Syria gas attack story has whiff of Saudi war propaganda William Engdahl is an award-winning geopolitical analyst and strategic risk consultant whose internationally best-selling books have been translated into thirteen foreign languages. Get short URL Published time: August 21, 2013 15:12 A man, affected by what activists say is nerve gas, breathes through an oxygen mask in the Damascus suburbs of Jesreen August 21, 2013. (Reuters / Ammar Dar) Share on tumblr Trends Syria unrest Tags Arms, Clashes, Conflict, Human rights, Syria The reports of massive chemical attacks in Syria might become the “red line” for the US for active military intervention. But even rudimentary analysis of the story shows it is too early to believe its credibility. The Middle Eastern newspaper, Al Arabiya, reports that “At least 1,300 people have been killed in a nerve gas attack on Syria’s Ghouta region, leading opposition figure George Sabra said on Wednesday…” The paper went on to claim that the Government of President Bashar al Assad was responsible for the attacks. If confirmed it could be the “red line” that US President Obama previously stated would tip the US into active military intervention in Syria, using No Fly Zones and active military steps to depose Assad. That in turn could erupt into a conflagration across the Middle East and a Super Power confrontation with Russia and China and Iran on one side, and the USA, UK, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar on the opposite side. Not a happy prospect for world peace at all. Therefore the story is worth analyzing carefully. When we do, several things jump out as suspicious. First the newspaper breaking the story was Al Arabiya, initially saying that at least 500 people have been killed, according to activists. From there it got picked up by major international media. Making the story more fishy by the minute were reports from different media of the alleged number of dead that changed by the minute - 635 then to 800 by USA Today and 1,300 by Rupert Murdoch’s SkyNews. A handout image released by the Syrian opposition's Shaam News Network shows bodies of children and adults laying on the ground as Syrian rebels claim they were killed in a toxic gas attack by pro-government forces in eastern Ghouta, on the outskirts of Damascus on August 21, 2013. (AFP Photo) Al Arabiya, the origin of the story, is not a neutral in the Syrian conflict. It was set up in 2002 by the Saudi Royal Family in Dubai. It is majority-owned by the Saudi broadcaster, Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC). Saudi Arabia is a major financial backer of the attempt to topple Syria’s government. That is a matter of record. So on first glance Saudi-owned media reporting such an inflammatory anti-Assad allegation might be taken with a dose of salt. When we examine the printed content of their story, it gets more suspicious still. First they cite “activists at the Syrian Revolutionary Command Council said regime fighter planes were flying over the area after the bombardment, accusing the forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad of using chemical agents.” This is doubtful on many levels. First we can imagine that anti-government (unnamed) “activists” fighting Assad’s forces would not be exactly neutral. The story gets even murkier. Further in the text of the article we read that the “Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said dozens of people were killed, including children, in fierce bombardment.” Now the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) has been the source of every news report negative against the Syrian Assad government since the war began in 2011. More curious about the humanitarian-sounding SOHR is the fact, as uncovered by investigative journalists, that it consists of a sole Syrian refugee who has lived in London for the past 13 years named Rami Abdul Rahman, a Syrian Sunni muslim who owns a clothing shop and is running a Twitter page from his home. Partly owing to a very friendly profile story on the BBC, he gained mainstream media credibility. He is anything but unbiased. The other aspect of the suspicious reports is the “convenient” fact they coincide with the arrival two days earlier of an official UN weapons inspection team, allowed by the government, to investigate allegations of chemical weapons use in the Syrian war. It begs the most obvious question: What conceivably would Bashar al Assad stand to gain from using banned chemical weapons just at the time he has agreed to let a UN chemical weapons team into Syria? An image grab taken from a video uploaded on YouTube by the Local Committee of Arbeen on August 21, 2013 allegedly shows Syrians covering a mass grave containing bodies of victims that Syrian rebels claim were killed in a toxic gas attack by pro-government forces in eastern Ghouta and Zamalka, on the outskirts of Damascus. (AFP Photo) They initially were called to investigate evidence of any chemical weapons used in a March 19 attack in Khan al-Assad and in two other locations. In May, Carla Del Ponte, a member of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said that testimony gathered from casualties and medical staff in Syria indicated that the nerve agent sarin was used by rebel fighters. They found no evidence of use by Government forces. That proved highly embarrassing to the faction of war hawks in the Pentagon and State Department, agitating for Obama to escalate direct military intervention including a no-fly zone, de facto an act of war against Assad’s regime. In 2012 Obama declared that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian President would cross a “red line” and change US calculations on whether or not it should intervene in the conflict. Finally, the region reported to be the site of the poison gas attack by Assad forces, Eastern Ghouta, was re-secured from the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra jihadist terrorists, by Government troops in May as part of a major series of rollback victories against the insurgent forces and is not currently a scene of any major resistance to Assad forces. Pending confirmation by genuinely independent judges of the latest allegations of Al Arabiya, we are well-advised to leave the reports in the category of war propaganda, in league with others such as the Gulf of Tonkin in 1964. That incident, we might recall, was faked by the Pentagon to railroad Congress into giving President Lyndon B. Johnson authority to “assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by communist aggression." The resolution became Johnson's legal justification for deploying US forces and the onset of open war against North Vietnam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted August 27, 2013 Report Share Posted August 27, 2013 http://rt.com/op-edge/us-syria-chemical-weapons-intervention-854/ US, UK looking for pretext to escalate intervention in Syria Get short URL Published time: August 22, 2013 15:02 A handout image released by the Syrian opposition's Shaam News Network shows Syrians mourning in front of bodies wrapped in shrouds ahead of funerals following what Syrian rebels claim to be a toxic gas attack by pro-government forces in eastern Ghouta, on the outskirts of Damascus on August 21, 2013. (AFP Photo/Shaam News Network) Share on tumblr Tags Arms, Conflict, Military, Opposition, Syria, UK, USA, Violence, War Recent chemical attacks in Syria are nothing but a staged provocation, as the opposition forces want to disrupt any negotiations and trigger foreign intervention, and western forces are part of it, Brian Becker, Director at Answer Coalition, told RT. RT: Syrian government forces apparently have the upper hand in the fighting - so why would they resort to chemical weapons? Brian Becker: The United States and Britain are trying to find some provocation, some pretext to escalate their own intervention in Syria. It is completely ludicrous that the Syrian government would use chemical weapons at the very moment when the UN is launching its investigation about the chemical weapons and since the Syrian government has its advantage. But none of that matters. What really matters is the intention of the White House and their friends in London in terms of escalating their intervention. I think we will see at the UN Security Council and in the days to come what their intentions really are. RT: Why won't the Syrian authorities allow the UN inspectors - who are already in the country - to visit the site? BB: I think the Assad government will want to do that, they will feel quite confident that unless the inspectors themselves are agents to foreign power trying to carry out the staged provocations and confirm it, they would prefer to have an objective group come in and say ‘yes, if there were chemical weapons they came from rebel held areas’ which some of the evidence points to. If the Syrian government feels that this inspection team is nothing more than an extension of the provocation, then of course the Assad government will have to take that into account. Lebanese and Syrian civilians hold signs and Syria's former independence flag which has been adopted by the rebels forces fighting against Syrian pro-government forces as they take part in a candle lit vigil in front of the offices of the United Nations headquarters in Beirut, in solidarity with Syrian civilians who were killed in attacks in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21, 2013. (AFP Photo) RT: The UN Security Council is holding an emergency meeting on events in Syria - will that help? BB: The Security Council in itself is not the venue in which the basic decisions will be taken about Syria because you have a Security Council that is polarized. You have Russia which is taking a position that there should not be a foreign intervention, there should not be a foreign fueled civil war going on in Syria. They are trying to restrain the western powers. At the same time in the US there is a debate, there is chorus of people who demand opposition and then there are those who are afraid that the unintended consequences of an intervention could be quite great. I think what will happen depends more on what happens in the Washington establishment in terms of its pre elections for an escalating intervention. I don’t think it will be the UN. RT: The US President said the use of chemical weapons in Syria would become a red line. How do you think the West will react to these allegations? BB: The red line is a false rhetorical construct. Obama created it; they can use it or pull back from it at their will. One thing we must be at [on] a look out for is whether the United States seeing the crisis in Egypt would like to change the subject and focus instead public attention on Syria. The United States is managing a very big crisis in the Middle East. It is holding on to the Egyptian military, it is funding the Egyptian military but in a very unsettled situation. Will the US try to gain the upper hand again in the Middle East by a military intervention? Up until now sectors of the Obama administration have been afraid of that but there are others who are demanding, arguing that the US should show its power and do so by intervening in Syria. That will be the big test in the coming days. The US government and the British government working in concert are not neutral observers or objective observers of the situation. They are the funders, those sending the military weapons to the armed forces in Syria fighting the Assad government and I believe they are working in cahoots or in concert with them to carry out staged provocations like these staged provocations designed to pinpoint or demonize the Assad government as using weapons of mass destruction. History will demonstrate, and I hope it will demonstrate soon, that it is just that, a staged provocation, but the British and the Americans are part of it. A handout image released by the Syrian opposition's Shaam News Network shows bodies laid out on the ground in a makeshift morgue as Syrian rebels claim they were killed in a toxic gas attack by pro-government forces in eastern Ghouta, on the outskirts of Damascus on August 21, 2013. (AFP Photo/Shaam News Network) Syrian opposition can’t win without Western intervention RT: If this is a staged provocation who’s also interested in it? BB: The big goal of those who carry out the staged provocations is to disrupt any negotiations that could lead to a positive outcome to the existing Syrian government meaning that the forces of the civil war had not succeeded in lagging the Assad government, which is their only goal. What they are trying to do is to draw in the Western powers and say to the Western powers ‘no negotiations, negotiations are not the way, there must be an escalated intervention’. No fly zone and that of course would mean the beginning of bombing of Syria. They know that without western intervention, without escalated foreign intervention there is no possible way that they will succeed on the Syrian battlefield. They don’t have the popular support and they don’t have the military wear to defeat the Syrian government. RT: Why have they not succeeded yet? BB: A number of reasons. One is that [the] Russian position so far has been steadfast, the Syrian Russian relationship is strong. The Syrian air defenses are strong, the popular base of support of [the] Syrian government is substantial and the United States government is managing other crisis right now. The crisis in Egypt, the crisis elsewhere in the Middle Eat. They don’t know if there are unintended consequences of a full scale invasion will [sic] be something that will put the Middle East, the most important resource where 2/3 of the world’s oil is, put it out of control of the Western powers which is the fundamental priority of the US foreign policy strategy for the past half century. It is a dangerous game and there is a big debate in Washington about advisability. All sectors of the US establishment want Assad to be toppled but some are hesitant that a direct intervention will lead to a greater catastrophe not only for the people in the Middle East but it will blow back into the United States own interest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted August 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2013 Not surprising that this will escalate to the proportions as before. Take into account that the following list includes the current Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Former Secretary of State, and Former member of Select Committee on Intelligence just to name a few. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237#position Grouped By Vote Position for the Iraq War YEAs ---77 Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT)Biden (D-DE) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Campbell (R-CO) Cantwell (D-WA) Carnahan (D-MO) Carper (D-DE) Cleland (D-GA)Clinton (D-NY) Cochran (R-MS) Collins (R-ME) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Edwards (D-NC) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY)Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Gramm (R-TX) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH)Hagel (R-NE) Harkin (D-IA) Hatch (R-UT) Helms (R-NC) Hollings (D-SC) Hutchinson (R-AR) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD)Kerry (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lieberman (D-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Murkowski (R-AK) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA)Schumer (D-NY) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-NH) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Thomas (R-WY) Thompson (R-TN) Thurmond (R-SC) Torricelli (D-NJ) Voinovich (R-OH) Warner (R-VA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted August 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2013 Has the Security Council, Congress, NATO, or the Arab League authorized war on Syria ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khatmandude Posted August 27, 2013 Report Share Posted August 27, 2013 Has the Security Council, Congress, NATO, or the Arab League authorized war on Syria ? Not that I'm aware of. Don't think that's ever stopped anyone though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
|Numbers| Posted August 27, 2013 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2013 Not that I'm aware of. Don't think that's ever stopped anyone though.... They haven't. Kept running across mention of Kosovo as a precedent for Syrian involvement. Not totally sure why, may be something with NATO. Turkey doesn't want to offend Russia because of their energy imports from Russia. Jordan is building up US forces at one of their bases to include Bombers, Fighters, Soldiers, Tanks, etc... NATO will never approve without China, Russia. France is deploying to Cyprus ? (not sure of this report). One of my doctor's is actually an immigrant from Syria. I asked her about it and she said that most of their family left to come to the States quite a few years ago. However, she has a couple uncles still there. When asked what does she feel about it she stated something similar to what I heard our resident Korean and Japanese posters say when North Korea was acting up. "It gets to be routine." I hope that I never live in an environment where the loss of life or living under constant threat is trivialized as routine ....or do I already live in that environment where the loss of our youths on the streets is chalked up as a statistic and practically considered a routine event ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bengalrick Posted August 28, 2013 Report Share Posted August 28, 2013 http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/does-obama-know-hes-fighting-on-alqaidas-side-8786680.html Does Obama know he’s fighting on al-Qa’ida’s side? ‘All for one and one for all’ should be the battle cry if the West goes to war against Assad’s Syrian regime If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida. Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad. The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords. This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities. Maybe the Americans should ask al-Qa’ida for intelligence help – after all, this is the group with “boots on the ground”, something the Americans have no interest in doing. And maybe al-Qa’ida could offer some target information facilities to the country which usually claims that the supporters of al-Qa’ida, rather than the Syrians, are the most wanted men in the world. There will be some ironies, of course. While the Americans drone al-Qa’ida to death in Yemen and Pakistan – along, of course, with the usual flock of civilians – they will be giving them, with the help of Messrs Cameron, Hollande and the other Little General-politicians, material assistance in Syria by hitting al-Qa’ida’s enemies. Indeed, you can bet your bottom dollar that the one target the Americans will not strike in Syria will be al-Qa’ida or the Nusra front.And our own Prime Minister will applaud whatever the Americans do, thus allying himself with al-Qa’ida, whose London bombings may have slipped his mind. Perhaps – since there is no institutional memory left among modern governments – Cameron has forgotten how similar are the sentiments being uttered by Obama and himself to those uttered by Bush and Blair a decade ago, the same bland assurances, uttered with such self-confidence but without quite enough evidence to make it stick. In Iraq, we went to war on the basis of lies originally uttered by fakers and conmen. Now it’s war by YouTube. This doesn’t mean that the terrible images of the gassed and dying Syrian civilians are false. It does mean that any evidence to the contrary is going to have to be suppressed. For example, no-one is going to be interested in persistent reports in Beirut that three Hezbollah members – fighting alongside government troops in Damascus – were apparently struck down by the same gas on the same day, supposedly in tunnels. They are now said to be undergoing treatment in a Beirut hospital. So if Syrian government forces used gas, how come Hezbollah men might have been stricken too? Blowback? And while we’re talking about institutional memory, hands up which of our jolly statesmen know what happened last time the Americans took on the Syrian government army? I bet they can’t remember. Well it happened in Lebanon when the US Air Force decided to bomb Syrian missiles in the Bekaa Valley on 4 December 1983. I recall this very well because I was here in Lebanon. An American A-6 fighter bomber was hit by a Syrian Strela missile – Russian made, naturally – and crash-landed in the Bekaa; its pilot, Mark Lange, was killed, its co-pilot, Robert Goodman, taken prisoner and freighted off to jail in Damascus. Jesse Jackson had to travel to Syria to get him back after almost a month amid many clichés about “ending the cycle of violence”. Another American plane – this time an A-7 – was also hit by Syrian fire but the pilot managed to eject over the Mediterranean where he was plucked from the water by a Lebanese fishing boat. His plane was also destroyed. Sure, we are told that it will be a short strike on Syria, in and out, a couple of days. That’s what Obama likes to think. But think Iran. Think Hezbollah. I rather suspect – if Obama does go ahead – that this one will run and run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BengalBacker Posted August 28, 2013 Report Share Posted August 28, 2013 Regardless of what we do, or don't do, I fear this isn't going to end well. When the whole shithouse starts going up in flames, there are no good answers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T-Dub Posted August 28, 2013 Report Share Posted August 28, 2013 1. How many innocents in Syria have to die before someone / anyone steps in and does something to prevent further loss of life ? My question is, why does that always mean us? I'm not overly fond of this "Team America World Police" foreign policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.