Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds' [Archive] - Page 2

Ducimus

08-28-13, 01:25 PM

Dave and Barry have a half a testicle between them.

My motive behind my opposition of any action, by my county at least, is my war wearyness.

I lost in the last wars, for zero gain to the common people.

We did not liberate Iraq Or Afghanistan, they hate us even more now. We are occupiers, barely tolerated.(by gunpoint)

What makes any of the warhawks think this is any different, unless you got alot of oil stock...

I am starting to wonder if the conspiracy theorists have it right. If your bored, here's a 14 minute video made a year ago that play's connect the dots in a dramatic fashion, and perhaps morbidly entertaining to watch.

The Road to World War 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP7L8bw5QF4)

I passively linked to this video few pages ago, but since im bored i'll point it out directly. I have to give the author of this video some credit. Even if watching this with the metaphorical grain of salt (or the entire damn salt shaker), he seems plays connect the dots quite well. What I note is that it was made a year ago and seems to be somewhat accurate on current events. That said, it's still conspiracy theory. Even if it's not, there's not much to be done at this point except sit back and watch events unfold and hope for the best.

mapuc

08-28-13, 01:29 PM

eddie

08-28-13, 01:44 PM

I would ask the Israeli's how they get around this so called dangerous SAM defense the Syrians are supposed to have!:)

Oberon

08-28-13, 01:53 PM

If the allied have to send fighters and bombers into Syria, do you think that the Syrian air force could be threat?

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

and not to forget their air defense

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

Expect that most of the air defense and their air force may be heavy damaged after the tomahawk campaign.

But there after...

If I was Assad I would let the west bomb my old air force (MIG 21 and MIG 23) my modern air force I would hide very very deep under ground.

After this tomahawk campaign I would take every plane I have left from my old air force fleet and some of the new fighters load them with long range ASM(IF they have some) and AA-missiles

I'll do the same with my air defense. Activate it when the Allied fighters and bombers comes.

Markus

Airforce is debatable, depends on how much of it is usable. Saddam had some good jets, but he decided to bury them all, presumably to avoid detection and destruction...but it also seems he forgot to dig them up again until after it was too late.
Air defence is fairly potent, the mobile SAMs will be harder to take out with TLAMs than the static launchers, but if they leave their radars on too long then a HARM will do the job.
That's not to say that it'd be a cakewalk, there's risk, there's always risk, if they put people over Syrian airspace then people may die, that is war after all, but there's only so much you can do with cruise missiles.

Mittelwaechter

08-28-13, 01:56 PM

Oberon

08-28-13, 01:56 PM

I would ask the Israeli's how they get around this so called dangerous SAM defense the Syrians are supposed to have!:)

http://jonthemoody.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/jew-jitsu-415x354.jpg

August

08-28-13, 01:59 PM

That's not to say that it'd be a cakewalk, there's risk, there's always risk, if they put people over Syrian airspace then people may die, that is war after all, but there's only so much you can do with cruise missiles.

:yep:, and only so much you can do from the air in general.

mapuc

08-28-13, 02:55 PM

When reading my friends posting on FB and reading the news I understand that there are a great fear that it could spread the war to the whole middle east and maybe a war between Russia and the west. I guess they got this fear by reading some of the international news

To those people I say do not fear

Yes some politician/militarian from Iran may say so and so and some other from that area may so this and that- That's typical middle east rhetoric

This is what's going to happen when such an attack have been made

Some pro Assad groups may send some mortar and rockets into Israel we can expect an increase of rockets and mortar from Palestine areas

Russia and China is calling their ambassador home for consultation-they will however be back after a few days or so

That's what going to happen

Iran would not be that mad and jeopardize their enrichment of uranium, by attacking Israel. Israel is just waiting for an excuse to attack Iran.

The iranian leader would of course speak with big words and calling for a crusade against Israel.

That's the most plausible outcome.

Markus

Madox58

08-28-13, 03:53 PM

:yep:, and only so much you can do from the air in general.

What's the old saying?
You don't own the ground until you put boots on it.
:yep:

Mittelwaechter

08-28-13, 04:00 PM

“The terrorists are trying to push the Christians out of this area,” said Isan Bahri, the 44-year-old owner of a mechanical shop in the Kasaa district of eastern Damascus that the rebels have been trying to capture. “They are not shooting at the army, they are intentionally aiming for civilians.”

http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/christians-other-minorities-in-syria-fear-ethnic-cleansing-1.236246

Jimbuna

08-28-13, 04:09 PM

Oh but we did...the details got mixed up that's all :O:

Meant to add this link in the above post:

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

Ducimus

08-28-13, 05:16 PM

Well, foxnews isn't exactly encouraging.

US prepares to bypass UN on Syria response (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/28/state-department-prepares-to-bypass-un-on-syria-response/)

The State Department made clear Wednesday that the Obama administration plans to bypass the United Nations Security Council as it prepares for a possible strike on Syria, after having failed to win support from Russia.

In blunt terms, department spokeswoman Marie Harf said last-ditch efforts to win support for an anti-Assad resolution at the U.N. were unsuccessful, and the U.S. would proceed anyway.

"We see no avenue forward given continued Russian opposition to any meaningful council action on Syria," she said. "Therefore, the United States will continue its consultations and will take appropriate actions to respond in the days ahead."

Tchocky

08-28-13, 05:24 PM

Been reading up on this a lot today and I still can't come to a decision.

Most convincing so far has been the "do-nothing" course as advised by Yglesias (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2013/08/barack_obama_shouldn_t_bomb_syria_the_good_option_ is_to_do_nothing.html)
(bold is mine)

I was in a meeting recently in Washington with a whole bunch of important people, when I heard a chilling phrase: Obama had “no good options” in Syria. It’s become a cliché. Aaron David Miller in a CNN commentary said there were “no good options” for dealing with the situation. Michael Tomasky of the Daily Beast wonders if bombing Syria is America’s “best bad option.” This is how Washington talks itself into a war that has little public support and scant basis in facts or logic. It’s completely unclear how much military strikes will weaken Bashar al-Assad’s regime and also completely unclear to what extent a weaker Syrian regime serves American or humanitarian interests. Military engagement has potentially large downsides and essentially no upsides. But we can brush that all under the table with the thought that there are no good options, which makes it OK to endorse some shoddy ones.

Except, in this case, it’s total nonsense. Obama has an excellent option. It’s called “don’t bomb Syria.” Don’t fire cruise missiles at Syria either

From the other side I read a very interesting piece in the NYT about how the right thing to do may be completely illegal - and how the US should proceed regardless

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/opinion/bomb-syria-even-if-it-is-illegal.html?ref=opinion

But if the White House takes international law seriously — as the State Department does — it cannot try to have it both ways. It must either argue that an “illegal but legitimate” intervention is better than doing nothing, or assert that international law has changed — strategies that I call “constructive noncompliance.” In the case of Syria, I vote for the latter.

Some nice untangling of the legal issues at stake.

As said before, still haven't quite made up my mind yet.

Ducimus

08-28-13, 05:34 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

Platapus

08-28-13, 05:44 PM

http://jonthemoody.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/jew-jitsu-415x354.jpg

All that time and effort to get the model to pose just right, only to blow the punch line. :haha:

Meshuggeneh is Yiddish for a crazy lady

Meshuggener is Yiddish for a crazy man

The correct word for this poster would be Meshuggah It means crazy.

Who ever first made this poster is a Nebish. :D

Oberon

08-28-13, 06:03 PM

http://jonthemoody.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/jew-jitsu-415x354.jpg

The correct word for this poster would be Meshuggah It means crazy.

Who ever first made this poster is a Nebish. :D

I wondered the same thing, but it was a better punch line than most of them. Although this one was pretty good:

http://cdn.motinetwork.net/motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/1003/jew-jitsu-ninja-star-of-david-demotivational-poster-1267600613.jpg

In other news, the UK government has revised its timetable to allow UN weapons inspectors to report on their findings and the UNSC to examine them. So tomorrows vote in parliament will not be an action to arms, but more a 'Well, should we do something?' which will be followed at a later date by a vote of 'Shall we bomb them?'
Looks like Labour might well have learnt from its time in power about one thing at least. :03:

Time will tell if the US does a LEEEEEEEEEEEROY JEEEEEEEEENKIIIIIIIIIIIIIINS again though.

Platapus

08-28-13, 06:08 PM

So the headlines are now saying that the US has decided that Syria has used chemical weapons... Let me guess, its a slam dunk. :/\\!!

Guess President Obama will get us involved in another ME conflict. Be kinda hard to blame this one on Bush. :nope:

I wonder if President Obama will bother going through the War Powers Act this time? And I wonder if the congress will hold the president accountable for following the WPA?

Smart money is betting no on both. :/\\!!:/\\!!:/\\!!

But the Syrian poor huddled masses yearning to breath free are yearning and breathing on oil reserves, so our duty is clear. We must take action!

This time we won't make the same mistakes that we did in the Invasion of Iraq NO!

This time we will get the oil contracts in writing before liberating the masses. :yep:

So Mr. President, other than oil, is there anything in Syria that is worth a single American life?

Tchocky

08-28-13, 06:15 PM

As far as I know there's not that much oil at all in Syria and almost all of what it does produce goes to Europe.

Oil being fungible and everything - applying that rationale to warfare doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Bubblehead1980

08-28-13, 06:39 PM

I've been hearing that one since the day it happened. They didn't impeach Clinton for lying or for sex. They impeached Clinton for the crime of being a Democrat. It was a Right-Wing witchhunt from the start, and they used whatever they could get on him, much the same as the Oliver North trial was a Left-Wing witchhunt attempting to hang something on Reagan. It was political game-playing and nothing more.

You seem to have no clue what you are talking about here. Perhaps Tailgunner Joe was right, perhaps not. The horror of the McCarthy era wasn't that there may or may not have been Communist infiltration in our government. Everybody was spying on everybody. The horror was that McCarthy conducted his own terrorist campaign with "lists" that didn't exist, and accused anybody and everybody with even the slightest hint of socialist tendencies of being a Commie Spy. The blacklists were a blight on a free society and ruined a lot of good people's lives. Joe McCarthy was one of the most vile, evil people ever to get himself insinuated into the United States government.

No, Clinton blatantly lied, all he had to do was said he had a personal failure but he lied, remember his famous "I did not have sexual relations" bit? Plus, he perjured himself. witch hunt? No. did it warrant impeachment? eh maybe, nothing near what obama has done though.

I do have an idea of what I am talking about. I did not say McCarthy was a great guy but it turns out his basis for his campaign was correct, there was then a communist/left wing radical cancer spreading in our government and other parts of society.McCarthy's personal issues and overzealousness ruined him and made what was a legitimate effort to weed out political vermin and a danger to our country.Unfortunately, since he failed people have convinced themselves there are no real communist radicals who present a danger, just americans with different views, plus they took the name "progressive" over and waited a few decades, patiently growning. What we have in the government, academia and entertainment today is the result of this cancer not being treated but going undetected long enough to metastasize , now there may be going back.

McCarthy was a flawed man who did so bad things, but he was right, history has vindicated him in that regards, even bad people can be correct on things.

Platapus

08-28-13, 06:40 PM

As far as I know there's not that much oil at all in Syria and almost all of what it does produce goes to Europe.

About 400,000 barrels per day. Not a huge amount, but marketable. :yep:

Tchocky

08-28-13, 06:47 PM

Huh, thought it was less :)

In any case - going to war for oil doesn't make any sort of sense. Wars are expensive, messy, and blunt. The increased ME tension chucks an instability premium into the market (fungible!), wiping out any benefits you might get from the war (murky at best!).

Platapus

08-28-13, 06:49 PM

I agree. I was being facetious/cynical about the oil being our motivation.

Skybird

08-28-13, 06:50 PM

No, Clinton blatantly lied, all he had to do was said he had a personal failure but he lied, remember his famous "I did not have sexual relations" bit?

Oh dear, there must be a reason why in Europe America has the reputation of being an extremely prudish country. Drowning another country in blood is okay, getting own soldiers killed in wars lied over is forgivable as well - but if some stupid female singer causes a nipplegate or a politician is too ashamed for having his sex life on page one of the newspaper as if he would simply turn to the camera and show is best piece to the photographers - that is a scandal that promises to become one of the biggest stains on the historys of the shiny white nation.

A Clintonian lie about a sexual embarassement that was a very minor one and in the first affected only three people: him, his wife, his secretary, and Bushian lies leading to war and thousands of US soldiers killed, and billions of dollars sunk in pointlessly claimed lies again; or Nixonian lies like before and after Watergate - I think that are lies from two totally different space-time-continuums.

What Clinton did, one could laugh about. You cannot say that about Bush's and Nixon's "missteps".

Marlon Brando's philosophizing in Apocalypse Now on my mind...

Tchocky

08-28-13, 06:50 PM

I agree. I was being facetious/cynical about the oil being our motivation.

Silly me :D

Sailor Steve

08-28-13, 07:10 PM

No, Clinton blatantly lied, all he had to do was said he had a personal failure but he lied, remember his famous "I did not have sexual relations" bit?
Yes, he lied about getting laid. That was a moral mistake. Why is that anyone else's business? The very fact that he was questioned under oath about that is proof that it was indeed a witch-hunt. "We can't nail him for doing anything illegal, so lets attack his morals." What a joke. The Republicans made themselves look particularly stupid with that one.

did it warrant impeachment? eh maybe, nothing near what obama has done though.
Specifics, please. All your accusations mean nothing if there is no actual evidence. If there was actual evidence you can be sure there would be people in congress trying it.

I do have an idea of what I am talking about.
Who are you trying to convince? Me, or yourself? Show facts. Anything else is idle boasting.

I did not say McCarthy was a great guy but it turns out his basis for his campaign was correct, there was then a communist/left wing radical cancer spreading in our government and other parts of society.McCarthy's personal issues and overzealousness ruined him and made what was a legitimate effort to weed out political vermin and a danger to our country.
What cancer? Again, evidence is required. McCarthy threw broad accusations around, but he never once showed an actual incident that he could prove. Not one. The same happended with the "Lavender Scare", when McCarthy said he had lists of homosexuals within the government. At the very worst Joe McCarthy was a monster. At the very least he was a jackass.

Unfortunately, since he failed people have convinced themselves there are no real communist radicals who present a danger, just americans with different views, plus they took the name "progressive" over and waited a few decades, patiently growning.
He couldn't prove his accusations. Now you claim they were true. Do you have proof?

What we have in the government, academia and entertainment today is the result of this cancer not being treated but going undetected long enough to metastasize , now there may be going back.
While I agree with some of your summations, your use of sensationalist rhetoric puts you in the same class as him. He failed because he could not prove even one of his claims. He wasn't talking about wrong-minded people taking the wrong path, he was talking about actual subversion. You really don't want to take his side of things.

McCarthy was a flawed man who did so bad things, but he was right, history has vindicated him in that regards, even bad people can be correct on things.
How exactly has history vindicated him? He was a sensation-monger then and nothing has changed.

Tchocky

08-28-13, 07:12 PM

You're forgetting the Communist takeover of the State Department in the early sixties.

There's that portrait of Lenin in Foggy Bottom if you don't believe me.

Sailor Steve

08-28-13, 07:46 PM

You're forgetting the Communist takeover of the State Department in the early sixties.

There's that portrait of Lenin in Foggy Bottom if you don't believe me.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a325/SailorSteve/Firesign_zps2e323c7a.jpg (http://s14.photobucket.com/user/SailorSteve/media/Firesign_zps2e323c7a.jpg.html)

mookiemookie

08-28-13, 08:18 PM

More money down the drain. This is ridiculous.

Little did we know we were getting Bush 2, Electric Boogaloo.

Oberon

08-28-13, 08:43 PM

I am starting to wonder if the conspiracy theorists have it right. If your bored, here's a 14 minute video made a year ago that play's connect the dots in a dramatic fashion, and perhaps morbidly entertaining to watch.

The Road to World War 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP7L8bw5QF4)

I passively linked to this video few pages ago, but since im bored i'll point it out directly. I have to give the author of this video some credit. Even if watching this with the metaphorical grain of salt (or the entire damn salt shaker), he seems plays connect the dots quite well. What I note is that it was made a year ago and seems to be somewhat accurate on current events. That said, it's still conspiracy theory. Even if it's not, there's not much to be done at this point except sit back and watch events unfold and hope for the best.

:hmmm: I haven't finished watching the video yet, but it's plausible. Still a conspiracy theory, like you say, but a very well researched and presented one. I take it with a pinch of salt, as I do all conspiracy theories, and, like you say, even if it isn't one then there's not a great deal us little people can do.
In my opinion we are seeing the end of the American empire, it may culminate in a big war or it may come peacefully, but it is definitely coming. The 20th century was Americas century, the US had the prime spot from the early 1900s onwards, entering WWI at the closing stages so that the manpower bleed in the meatgrinder wasn't servere enough to cause economic problems in peacetime, and managing to get through all of WWII with scarcely a single bomb dropped on the industrial heartland, meanwhile Europe and Japan were both smashed into pieces through conflict and industrial centers turned into ruins. This has given the US a big advantage and it has taken it and run with it, but since the fall of Rome an Empire can scant last more than a century and we are seeing the transition take place. Before America, it was Britain that held that spot, from the early 1800s through to the end, we defeated the French, humbled other European powers and went all colonial on most of Southern Africa, and then we hit the brick wall that was World War One, and that was the end of our Empire. Before us, I would say that France held the spot, but then lost it in the bloody revolution of the late 1700s, and before France, I would have to say it was the Dutch, the 1600s are traditionally known as the Dutch Golden Age, and before them, probably the Holy Roman Empire, before the Thirty Years war blunted them. Before the HRE it was the Italians, and before them it was likely somewhere in Eastern Asia or South-Eastern Asia while Europe lingered in the Dark ages. At some point in between you have the Byzantines as a candidate, but we all know what happened to them.

Sad to say that most downfalls of Empires do occur around a drastic event, one can hope, if this should be the end of Americas century, that the drastic event was 9/11 and that there will be no more events of mass casualties, but I do fear that this will not be the case.
In terms of who the 21st century belongs to...hard to say, probably either South America, China or the Middle East. The next decade or two will tell.

Packlife

08-28-13, 08:57 PM

First to the guy talking about Obama using drones on US citizens, yup your right he did but that US citizen wasn't little susy playin hopscotch, the "citizen" was a man who denounced America an picked up the Al-Qaeda flag an went from making rhetoric videos then moved up to planning attacks. A traitor is a traitor then again maybe we should of invaded that country so we could give a traitor due process.

An sympathy for Bush?? Sure but only for 9/11 but Iraq was a total farce, Colin Powel was told by Georges people oh yeah its solid intel dont worry we got ya back, 10 years later no WMD, if anybody should of been impeached it was Bush for Iraq an sending the economy on a 1 way trip to hell.

Now replying to Skybird. Saying that the Free Syrian Army is more on our side is not an assumption, it's well known they're probably 1 of the only allies we'd have. An your assumption that most of the Syrian people want a more Sharia law style extremist country is kind of correct but not fully, there just happends to be more of those groups mostly due to groups like Al-Qaeda coming in an influencing it. Many of the Syrian ppl who support Assad only support him because they're scared of the extremists, even one of the FSA commanders said that would be the primary concern should Assad fully fall of extremists taking over.

And I'm not underestimating their
air defense I simply went off what a Syrian official told 1 off CNN's reporters that their defenses are not as great as they once were, an that official even said they wouldn't be able to put up a strong resistance to US air power if an when it does come. The Serb's might of been able to pull something like that off, but it's a little harder to build multiple fake airfields full of fake jets etc since Assad's troops have their hands full w/ the rebels.

An yeah the rebels are using the propaganda machine well, but this is what caught my attention, the rebels show the videos of gas victims, Assad has not why hasn't he if its the rebels who are doing all the gassing?? The only type of propaganda Assad has tried to use tying rebels to the gas attacks was a video on the state sponsored news showing a room w/ a couple mortar rounds that looked like normal mortar rounds a bucket w/ some white powder in it an that was about it, I just think it's weird that Assad hasn't released any videos like the rebels. No I don't have illusions about the Syrian rebels, the ones on our side are the few an the ones on the extremist are the many, I've never said otherwise.

An no their style of democracy isnt like ours, but then again no other democratic country is like our's either but we didnt come out of our revolution the democracy we are today, hell took something like 10 years before all 13 colonies would sign an ratify the constitution.

An for Muslim's whose religion plays a huge part in their lives you can bet it will play a part in their democracies an there's nothing wrong w/ that. Now the fact that there are more extremists then "good" guys proves the point in my previous post, we can stand by an do nothing an Al-Qaeda will have a new home to plan attacks on the US an they'll have plenty of chemical weapons to do it. But Obama doesn't want to tip the scales so that's mostly a mute point I guess.

But I think most of these arguments get away from the main point an why were even considering/about to strike Assad. I believe he is the 1 who used chemical weapons, if it was the other way around I think it would be him putting out video's of dead soldiers etc the lack of him doing this when it's been reported that he loves propaganda hint's he is guilty, plus it's not just a coincidence that right after some rebels tried to take him out a week or so ago more gas attacks followed. You can look at his progression from arresting, to beating, to shooting, to shelling an bombing into a full out military operations against his own people is it so much a leap that he would use his chemical weapons against them he's used almost everything else. At the base of this is that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime has been for just about 100 years, an I don't think its right to just stand by an let him do it, not to mention it makes us look weak to Iran, if we do nothing why would Iran have any reason to take us serious about not allowing them to build nukes. Like somebody said earlier this Syrian civil war is also a proxy war between Israel an the US vs Iran.

Packlife

08-28-13, 09:02 PM

Who in their right mind would move the UN headquarters to Russia?? Russia is not a diplomatic government they have a longggggggggg list of human rights violations, ppl over here were upset by water boarding, water boarding is childs play in comparison to what the Ruskies do to ppl. During their war w/ Chechnya it came out that a few apartment bombings were not carried out by Chechen rebels but by the group the replaced the KGB. An Russia has not been diplomatic about Syria, they make money off Syria that's why they'll vote no every time in the UN if a yes means they lose money, regardless of the situation.

Feuer Frei!

08-29-13, 06:59 AM

Not much happening until after Saturday it seems:

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon says he will receive a report on Saturday from weapons inspectors investigating an apparent Syrian chemical attack.

SOURCE (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23880060)

29 August 2013 Last updated at 11:38 GMT

Oberon

08-29-13, 07:12 AM

Not much happening until after Saturday it seems

We hope.

The BBCs Jeremy Bowen is in Damascus and is tweeting away:

https://twitter.com/BowenBBC

There is a level of anxiety in Damascus ahead of the likely strikes, the black market is thriving and military facilities are being evacuated.

Onkel Neal

08-29-13, 07:16 AM

Yes, he lied about getting laid. That was a moral mistake. Why is that anyone else's business? The very fact that he was questioned under oath about that is proof that it was indeed a witch-hunt. "We can't nail him for doing anything illegal, so lets attack his morals." What a joke.

If I remember right, the questioning under oath was related to a sexual harassment case.

Feuer Frei!

08-29-13, 08:00 AM

We hope.

The BBCs Jeremy Bowen is in Damascus and is tweeting away:

https://twitter.com/BowenBBC

There is a level of anxiety in Damascus ahead of the likely strikes, the black market is thriving and military facilities are being evacuated.

A dead give-away will be when they start pulling out the weapons inspectors.
You can bet your bottom dollar that a start is imminent.

mapuc

08-29-13, 08:15 AM

I guess you all have heard about the Russian sending two warship to the Mediterranean(or I have missed that when reading the posting after I turned of my computer)

My guess is that they are there to put a pressure on Obama to not do what he has been talking about

Here's a scenario(very unlikely)

Obama gives the green light(that's very much likely) and the American warship and their two Subs send several cruise missile(Tomahawk) toward their targets

They( The American) follow these missile on Radar. Before they reach land, they can see several missile being fired from this Russian missile ship(higly unlikely) they can see that those missile is on their way to intercept......

I have only those two scenarios

1- Just to be there as pointed above
2- Be there to protect Syria from those missiles

Markus

Feuer Frei!

08-29-13, 08:23 AM

Confirmed now, weapons inspectors to pull out Saturday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23878942
29 August 2013 Last updated at 09:44 GMT

Saturday could well be Rock'n Roll time then.

As for Russia moving some ships there, Russia is unlikely to be drawn into direct military confrontation with the West.

Oberon

08-29-13, 08:30 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IEwBrJzhlg

BossMark

08-29-13, 08:35 AM

In a letter to the British Parliament Syria has invited British MP's to visit Syria at the weekend, clearly a move designed to confuse the American targeting systems.

Sailor Steve

08-29-13, 09:01 AM

If I remember right, the questioning under oath was related to a sexual harassment case.
Yes it was. And yes, when questioned about the Paula Jones proposition Clinton said under oath that he had not had "relations" with Monica Lewinski. The Republicans decided that this was good enough to impeach the President, and got the votes to get the trial started. The fact remains that they were looking for any excuse to play politics and this was the best they could find.

Again I cite Oliver North as an example of the Democrats playing the same game. It is a game they play, and nothing more. If the president should be removed for that sort of thing then we have to start with Jefferson and move to Buchanan, Cleveland, Eisenhower and Kennedy.

andritsos

08-29-13, 09:15 AM

right now you can watch cameron debating live on bbcnews about the intervention....

i rarely watch such things, but i have the impression he doesnt give space for others to talk and rushing and rushing

Betonov

08-29-13, 09:19 AM

August

08-29-13, 09:33 AM

If the president should be removed for that sort of thing then we have to start with Jefferson and move to Buchanan, Cleveland, Eisenhower and Kennedy.

Did any of these presidents commit perjury?

Tribesman

08-29-13, 10:18 AM

Who in their right mind would move the UN headquarters to Russia??
Well Packlife, that post is easily explained.
The UN is a Jewish plot, it is in NY which is part of a Jewish plot, NY is in the US which is part of the global Jewish plot.
Moscow is not of this globe so doesn't have the global Jewish plot and the UN will magicly become not a Jewish plot if it is moved.
So to answer, the right mind in this case is what passes for a mind on the extreme far right. It is thoughts given from the devout swallowers of the Proktos writings about of the elders of zion

Jimbuna

08-29-13, 10:40 AM

Not surprised by the UN mandate which is only to try and decide if chemical weapons have been used but not looking to lay the blame on either side.

UN chemical weapons experts are in Syria investigating the attacks.
They are due to finish their work on Friday and give their preliminary findings to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon at the weekend.

Their mandate does not involve apportioning blame for the attacks, which took place in eastern Damascus on 21 August and left at least 355 dead.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23884313

Oberon

08-29-13, 10:56 AM

Some good arguments for and against being made in the Commons, some very frank statements being put forward. Honestly I expect that both French and American governments are watching the debate with interest to see which way the UK will go. I imagine they'd both be ready to act without UK assistance but both would be much happier with us on board for that added legitimacy.

Jimbuna

08-29-13, 11:03 AM

I agree about the 'added legitimacy' but our contribution would probably be the smallest of the three unless additional attack squadrons are sent to Akrotiri.

Oberon

08-29-13, 11:14 AM

I agree about the 'added legitimacy' but our contribution would probably be the smallest of the three unless additional attack squadrons are sent to Akrotiri.

Well, we've got a few TLAMs to throw out from subs, probably about two in the region.

Got to admit Galloway is making a good argument at the moment. :hmmm:

eddie

08-29-13, 11:45 AM

Yes, it doesn't sound like your PM is having an easy go of it right now.

"We have got to learn the lessons of Iraq because people remember the mistakes that were made in Iraq and I am not willing to make those mistakes again," said Labour's current leader Ed Miliband"

http://news.msn.com/world/ghosts-of-iraq-war-force-uk-to-delay-syria-strike

And it finally seems that our Congress is getting off their collective arses and finally questioning the reasons for this strike. God help us if Congress actually wakes up,lol

Oberon

08-29-13, 11:49 AM

I think Congress will be watching this debate too and having a good think about the case for war. Russia, meanwhile, has called the UNSC together, after they and China shot down the UKs proposal yesterday (no real surprises there).

And meanwhile in the Golan Heights:

http://i.imgur.com/jXrj8NJ.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/t5zt8cQ.jpg

BossMark

08-29-13, 11:51 AM

Yes, it doesn't sound like your PM is having an easy go of it right now.
l
Yes and he will be throwing his teddy out soon :har:

Tribesman

08-29-13, 12:14 PM

I wonder if the Irish government will have enough sense to cancel this weeks new deployment of the IDF to Syria?

Oberon

08-29-13, 12:21 PM

I wonder if the Irish government will have enough sense to cancel this weeks new deployment of the IDF to Syria?

Tricky situation, on one hand if they don't and it all kicks off then Irish soldiers are going to be pretty directly in harms way, but if they do then they run the risk of looking like they are shirking their responsibilities to the UN peacekeeping forces. Especially if the US, et all, going around the UN rather than through it.

eddie

08-29-13, 12:39 PM

Syria prepares it martyrs! Whatever the heck that means,lol But they say that if NATO planes bomb Syria, they have pilots who will ram the enemy aircraft in suicide attacks.

Good luck with that,lol

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171419

Oberon

08-29-13, 12:44 PM

That didn't work so well for the Japs and I doubt it will for the Syrians either.

Alex

08-29-13, 12:51 PM

Well Packlife, that post is easily explained.
The UN is a Jewish plot, it is in NY which is part of a Jewish plot, NY is in the US which is part of the global Jewish plot.
Moscow is not of this globe so doesn't have the global Jewish plot and the UN will magicly become not a Jewish plot if it is moved.
So to answer, the right mind in this case is what passes for a mind on the extreme far right. It is thoughts given from the devout swallowers of the Proktos writings about of the elders of zion
Once again still very happy at making it look ridiculous and all, how old is that guy...

Can we talk about an Israeli implication when it comes to the last developments of the Syria matter ?

I'd say of course we can, cause if we start thinking about what happens there, there are 2 determinations ongoing there : the Occident, dominated by speculative banking power, goes to war to hide some economic crisis its system is ultimately responsible for, and secondly, I mean the second beneficiary for that strategy of chaos, in addition to the international comprador bankers, can't be anything else than the state of Israel that is finally embracing that logic supposed to destroy all its opponents in the area, dividing up all Arab countries still resisting its domination there, in order to get itself assigned to the particular role of cowboy in the area in that global conflict, annexing more territory supposedly for safety and defence purposes.

That is why the only coherent project we can see in all that ****, finally is the salvation through chaos of the global banking power, and the Great Israel project, and if you really think about the current world order... Those 2 projects just are one and only.

Oberon

08-29-13, 12:54 PM

So, what is this...some sort of inverse Godwins law? :hmmm: Niwdogs law? :yep:

Betonov

08-29-13, 12:55 PM

A world under Jews ??

Sounds great, they're good at running stuff.

mapuc

08-29-13, 12:56 PM

It's very important to understand that we are getting lots of information and disinformation regarding the crisis in Syria

About an hour ago I saw on the danish news a short video of a Russian warship

It looked a lot like the slava class

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

I'm not sure if it was this ship they showed* on the video and I don't know, if it is one of these two they are sending to Mediterranean

*Those tubes(guess it's ASM) was in same position as the warship above.

Markus

Dowly

08-29-13, 01:04 PM

Once again still very happy at making it look ridiculous and all, how old is that guy...

Can we talk about an Israeli implication when it comes to the last developments of the Syria matter ?

I'd say of course we can, cause if we start thinking about what happens there, there are 2 determinations ongoing there : the Occident, dominated by speculative banking power, goes to war to hide some economic crisis its system is ultimately responsible for, and secondly, I mean the second beneficiary for that strategy of chaos, in addition to the international comprador bankers, can't be anything else than the state of Israel that is finally embracing that logic supposed to destroy all its opponents in the area, dividing up all Arab countries still resisting its domination there, in order to get itself assigned to the particular role of cowboy in the area in that global conflict, annexing more territory supposedly for safety and defence purposes.

That is why the only coherent project we can see in all that ****, finally is the salvation through chaos of the global banking power, and the Great Israel project, and if you really think about the current world order... Those 2 projects just are one and only.

http://i.imgur.com/CfUPert.jpg

It's very important to understand that we are getting lots of information and disinformation regarding the crisis in Syria

About an hour ago I saw on the danish news a short video of a Russian warship

It looked a lot like the slava class

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

I'm not sure if it was this ship they showed* on the video and I don't know, if it is one of these two they are sending to Mediterranean

*Those tubes(guess it's ASM) was in same position as the warship above.

Markus

Russia's foreign minister said yesterday or the day before that they are not going
to go to war with anyone over Syria.

August

08-29-13, 01:09 PM

http://home.comcast.net/~rdsterling/pwpimages/indiannajonesihatenazis.jpg?PHPSESSID=99e719f19574 849672ccad14abeef220

Oberon

08-29-13, 01:20 PM

I doubt Russia or China would do anything militarily...buuuuut...

It was doubted that China would intervene in North Korea until they did

It was doubted that the death of an Archduke would start World War One, until it did.

So I can't say anything with much certainty, but rationally, it would not make sense for either of them to do so...but equally, rationally, it would not make sense for us to launch military attacks on Syria, nor for Assad to have used the chemical weapons in the first place. So rational thinking is not necessarily in popular demand amongst the powerful at this time. :hmmm:

mapuc

08-29-13, 01:21 PM

Russia's foreign minister said yesterday or the day before that they are not going
to go to war with anyone over Syria.

I confess that I got a bit nervous when I heard the news about these two warship.

You have to understand that Syria is to Russia, what Israel is to USA

Let us hope that's the case that they are just there as told.

Markus

eddie

08-29-13, 01:26 PM

Ducimus

08-29-13, 01:28 PM

You know, as we sit here, on the precipice of another god damn war, I suddenly find great humor in this:

http://themetaq.com/images/uploads/articles/barack_obama_posters_believe_in.jpg

Really? This has to be the biggest damn joke of the year, if not the decade. On the global stage, it doesn't really seem like much has changed at all does it? What's even funnier is this asshat got the Nobel peace prize for not being Bush. :har: I wonder what the liberal progressives think of their chosen one now. :rotfl2: Oh wait, he went after them crazy backwords rednecks and wackodoo NRA physco's and their gunzzzz!!! So he's probably still aces with them. :shifty:

vienna

08-29-13, 01:28 PM

Tribesman

08-29-13, 01:44 PM

Tricky situation, on one hand if they don't and it all kicks off then Irish soldiers are going to be pretty directly in harms way, but if they do then they run the risk of looking like they are shirking their responsibilities to the UN peacekeeping forces. Especially if the US, et all, going around the UN rather than through it.

Considering that other countries have already pulled out their forces because of attacks on the UN forces I don't think the "shirking responsibilities" would carry any weight.

Once again still very happy at making it look ridiculous and all
That's the beauty of it Alex, neo-Nazis are always fun to show as ridiculous, and so easy too.

Oberon

08-29-13, 02:07 PM

Considering that other countries have already pulled out their forces because of attacks on the UN forces I don't think the "shirking responsibilities" would carry any weight.

They have? Oh, that's fair enough then, probably wouldn't be a bad idea for the Irish gov to go with the flow on that one then. Which...because it's a sensible idea means we must apply government backwards logic to it, and therefore it's likely that the deployment will still go ahead. :doh:

Oberon

08-29-13, 02:10 PM

Like I said before Oberon, I'm completely against this strike. But, if they are stupid enough to carry it out, I hope they take out a bunch of the Iranian Guards who are serving over there. Sending them back to the Ayatollah in pine boxes wouldn't bother me at all.

Lets just hope they don't go through with this!

I wouldn't shed any tears, but it might just give the Ayatollah an excuse to do something stupid, and the last thing that we need is an expansion of any military action. Although some think it inevitable, this from a economist in the House of Lords:
"We are going to intervene sooner or later," he tells peers, "because this war is going last for much longer than we think. It is not just a Syrian civil war. This is part of a 40-year crisis of the Muslim Middle East... It's not just a Shia-Sunni war, this is sort of a rehearsal, like the Spanish civil war, of the bigger conflagration which is about to come".

Sailor Steve

08-29-13, 02:18 PM

On the Oliver North reference:

1. North was indicted on several charges, including perjury in sworn testimony before Congress;
North was approached by a Congressional Committe and asked questions, which he answered. North then agreed to appear before congress on the condition that he would be granted immunity.

2. North openly and boastfully admitted his perjury;
In Congress, under oath, North boastfully admitted that he had lied to the Committee. He was not under oath when he answered the Committee's questions.

3. North was tried by a properly conducted Federal court and conviceted on three counts including the perjury charge;
North's convictions:

1. Accepting an illegal gratuity.

2, Aiding and abetting in the obstruction of a congressional inquiry.

3. Ordering the destruction of documents via his secretary, Fawn Hall.

No, he was not convicted on the perjury charge.

4. North's conviction was overturned, not because he was "not guilty" or innocent, but because of a technicality of law and not evidence or testimony
His conviction was overturned by a Court of Appeals because the testimony against him was possibly tainted by the prosecution witnesses' exposure to the immunity trial.

5. The overturning of the conviction was due to the efforts of that well-known "far-right extremist" organization, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
The ACLU supplied lawyers and did research. Is there something wrong with that?

I would also wish to point out Oliver North committed perjury while wearing his full uniform as a Marine Corps. officer, something very much frowned upon by fellow officers who felt he brought shame and dishonor to the Corps.
And I would point out that Oliver North did not commit perjury. He was tried but not convicted, so legally he is indeed "not guilty".

Tribesman

08-29-13, 02:30 PM

They have?
Oberon
Do you recall the "surrender monkeys" topic where MH was insisting that nothing much was really happening in the DMZ?

Oberon

08-29-13, 03:09 PM

Oberon
Do you recall the "surrender monkeys" topic where MH was insisting that nothing much was really happening in the DMZ?

Vaguely. I do remember posting in it too, but can't remember what I said or why.

Jimbuna

08-29-13, 03:17 PM

An email I received today from....pretty obvious really (the name is at the bottom) but imho makes a lot of sense:

Jim
Like everyone, I have been horrified by the pictures of men, women and children gasping for breath in Syria. In Parliament just now, I laid out my plan for how Britain should respond.
My position is clear: any action that our country supports must be legal, legitimate and effective. Our country must not make the same mistakes that happened ten years ago.
Our desperate desire to help stop this suffering in Syria must not lead us to rushed or wrong decisions.
You can see my full roadmap for action in Syria by watching my speech to Parliament: (wlmailhtml:{90F01E3F-8474-426D-BA92-39173476888B}mid://00000011/!x-usc:http://action.labour.org.uk/page/m/6e8af1eb/52fd9cbb/6e5d1387/298f2b7/2006879445/VEsH/)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQVGNGD9VOQ

If we are to ask yet more of the most exceptional of our country's men and women -- those in our forces -- it must be on the basis of a decision that has complete moral authority.
Here are the five steps we must take before coming to such a decision:
1) We must let the UN weapons inspectors do their work and report to the UN Security Council;
2) There must be compelling and internationally-recognised evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attacks;
3) The UN Security Council should debate and vote on the weapons inspectors' findings and other evidence. This is the highest forum of the world's most important multilateral body and we must take it seriously;
4) There should be a clear legal basis in international law for taking military action to protect the Syrian people;
5) Any military action must be time limited, it must have precise and achievable objectives and it must have regard for the consequences of the future impact on the region.
I will use the full force of my position as leader of the Labour Party to ensure that Britain works fully with international institutions when we respond to outrages like those we have seen in Syria.
We must work together for a world in which there is peace and security for all people, and we must also acknowledge that stability will not and cannot be achieved by military means alone.
I will keep you updated on developments from Parliament,

Ed

Mr Quatro

08-29-13, 03:17 PM

If Obama is a fence sitter as proven by his past actions and Iran is bluffing that they will strike back at Israel (if Syria is attacked) and if President Obama does what he says he will do, which is just fire a warning shot across Syria's bow ...

then what is to stop Iran from funding an air attack by missiles from who knows where, that will be blow to smithereens' by the dome in Israel's defense network and if these missiles contain harmful ingredients it will spread the harmful agent everywhere the debris fall. :o

Leaving a solid message to leave Russian/Iranian assets alone :yep:

mapuc

08-29-13, 03:18 PM

Could it be that we take the news as the God given truth and act thereby ? Just like we did in the North Korea crisis

Could it be that in a few weeks from now it's back to business as usual and nothing has happened?

Markus

vienna

08-29-13, 03:19 PM

1. North was given immunity on the basis of his willingness to tell the truth; this willingness to testify truthfully is the basis of any immunity deal, so technically he violated his agreement and could have been prosecuted for that alone;

2. The "aiding and abetting" charge did cover his perjury since his actions (perjury) did aid and abett. Also consider the well known legal concept that perjury is very difficult to prove in a court of law, particularly in front of a jury. The law may not get you specifically on perjury, but in can use your perjury as a facet of a greater crime. Of course, North could have done a "Reagan" and just plain said he "forgot" all about what happened. Instead he went out of his way, flaunting the truth and other evidence to place obtacles to the investigation and prosecution of possible guilty parties and derail his conviction;

3. The overturn of the conviction, as you noted, was due to the legal technicality, not testimony or evidence that in any way exonerated him of his crimes for which he was convicted in a proper court of law. The overturn was in now way a vindication of his innocence or a finding of not guilty. The evidence was the evidence, a verdict was reached, and nothing in the overturn frees him of guilt;

4. There is nothing wrong with the participation of the ACLU. I just find it interesting those on the far right who vilify and denigrate the ACLU as an "extreme" left organization seem to have no qualms when they aid their less than ethical or honest "poster boys". To defend the rights of those who need defending is the purpose of the ACLU and they have labored long and well to maintain their integrity, even when those whose political or social philosophies are thwarted seek to shout them down. I don't always agree with some of the ACLU's cases, but I respect their consistency of purpose;

5. North escaped futher prosectution or even a retrial not because there was no evidence to support the charges, but because he, along several other Iran-Contra figures, were given Presidential pardons by G. H. W. Bush on December 24, 1992 as one of Bush's final acts as President. This, like the Ford pardon of Nixon, stopped any further legal action against North. The pardon neither decalred him "not guilty" or "innocent": it only rendered him "untouchable" (like Nixon) to the long arm of the law;

6. Evading conviction on a "technicality" is not the absolute proof of innocence or lack of guilt: it is rather like a guy who get royally soused in a bar, leaves, gets into his car and is stopped, arrested and convicted for DUI and then has his conviction overturned on a "technicality". Overturning the verdict does not mean he did not drive while drunk, it does not mean he is not responsible for his hazardous actions, and it does not mean he is morally or ethically "pure". All it usually means is he got legal counsel smart enough to find the "loophole" through which the worm could squirm;

North was, is, and always will be a "skater" who, threough smarm, guile, prevarication, and duplicity has skated through life, much like others such as O. J. Simpson (also not guilty?).

<O>

vienna

08-29-13, 03:27 PM

If we are to ask yet more of the most exceptional of our country's men and women -- those in our forces -- it must be on the basis of a decision that has complete moral authority.
Here are the five steps we must take before coming to such a decision:
1) We must let the UN weapons inspectors do their work and report to the UN Security Council;
2) There must be compelling and internationally-recognised evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attacks;
3) The UN Security Council should debate and vote on the weapons inspectors' findings and other evidence. This is the highest forum of the world's most important multilateral body and we must take it seriously;
4) There should be a clear legal basis in international law for taking military action to protect the Syrian people;
5) Any military action must be time limited, it must have precise and achievable objectives and it must have regard for the consequences of the future impact on the region.
I will use the full force of my position as leader of the Labour Party to ensure that Britain works fully with international institutions when we respond to outrages like those we have seen in Syria.
We must work together for a world in which there is peace and security for all people, and we must also acknowledge that stability will not and cannot be achieved by military means alone.

Agreed. But i fear there are those who have not learned the lessons of the Iraq war who hold great sway politically and, in terms of the oil interests, financially, whose weight carries more than reasoned consideration. It is awfully hard to be heard over those who thump their chests (particularly those whose chests will not be in the path of a bullet) and beat the drums of war. Iraq should be a lesson in "fool me once..." ...

<O>

Tribesman

08-29-13, 03:29 PM

Vaguely. I do remember posting in it too, but can't remember what I said or why.

No worries, the only point I was making was that news of countries pulling their troops out of the area had been posted on this forum.

eddie

08-29-13, 03:33 PM

Assad's Scuds are on the move! Maybe we should tell them the exact time of the attack!!!!

http://news.msn.com/world/syrian-army-moves-scud-missiles-to-avoid-strike

Tribesman

08-29-13, 03:34 PM

An email I received today from....pretty obvious really (the name is at the bottom) but imho makes a lot of sense:

I see the response from No.10 to Milliband is on par with all that "you love saddam" nonsense that was trotted out last time when people made rational objections to rushing into war:nope:

Jimbuna

08-29-13, 03:35 PM

Politicians.....don't you just love em? :03:

Ducimus

08-29-13, 03:51 PM

Well, here's something that can be taken as good news:

Foxnews headline:
Obama Takes Syria Case to Congress (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/29/syria-strike-push-hits-hurdles/)

President Obama and his top advisers were taking their case for intervention in Syria to Congress Thursday afternoon, holding a series of briefings as lawmakers increasingly voiced skepticism toward any military strike.

The president on Thursday afternoon personally briefed House Speaker John Boehner, who a day earlier wrote to the president urging him to provide a "clear, unambiguous explanation" on how military action would serve U.S. interests.

Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck reiterated those questions after the call. "Only the president can answer these questions, and it is clear that further dialogue and consultation with Congress, as well as communication with the American public, will be needed," he said.

Also, since it's obviously as important as potentially being in another war, here's the CNN headline:
Feds loosen up on weed (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/holder-marijuana-laws/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)

Mr Quatro

08-29-13, 03:52 PM

Timeline: = 6 days till G20 meeting in Saint Petersburg, Russia September 5th-6th

Timeline: = 2 days left till UN inspection team departs Syria with results to follow first week of September

Timeline: = President Obama speaking of "we just want to send a clear message of our disapproval" with a "shot across the bow so to speak"

Timeline: = President Obama talking to certain members of congress about what to do, is right now as we speak :yep:

even Rumsfeld has learned from his mistakes:

http://www.newser.com/story/173393/rumsfeld-obama-is-rushing-to-war.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=united&utm_campaign=rss_top (http://www.newser.com/story/173393/rumsfeld-obama-is-rushing-to-war.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=united&utm_campaign=rss_top)

vienna

08-29-13, 04:01 PM

Actually, by going to Congress, Obama is making a shrewd move. If Congress approves an attack, and the attack goes sideways, Obama won't bear the full brunt of the "I told you so" that will follow. He also takes out of the hands of the GOP a possible waepon/criticism the GOP could use in the 2014 mid-term elections. The GOP leadership demands for inclusion will make them complicit in any attack(s) and they will have a hard time pointing fingers at the Dems and Obama when their fingers are pointing back at themselves...

<O>

andritsos

08-29-13, 05:05 PM

''
British MPs have voted to reject possible military action against the Assad regime in Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.
A government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.
Prime Minster David Cameron said it was clear Parliament does not want action and "the government will act accordingly" '' ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23892783

Packlife

08-29-13, 05:08 PM

Some think that the UN report is going to say whether or not Assad's ppl are responsible for the attacks, but those ppl would be wrong Gen Ban Ki Moon said their objective in Syria is to determine whether or not chemical weapons were used but not to say who used them, would probably be kinda hard to do by just digging in the dirt. But really that report is just a formality the UN going through the motions everybody agrees that the gas attacks occurred, I believe even Russia an China have agreed they happened. But that report will be where the UN's part end's sure they might have a security council vote but it's pretty much a forgone conclusion that Russia an China will vote no/use their veto's.That's actually a big gripe I have w/ the UN that 1 or 2 countries can defeat the majority.
I see the British PM lost the vote today, he'll be back he didn't lose by much plus I see that Iraq is the biggest reason why some don't want to hit Syria. It's one thing to learn from past mistakes an do what you can not to repeat them, but its a complete other to let those past mistakes cripple you to the point you become useless.

Tribesman

08-29-13, 05:42 PM

Also, since it's obviously as important as potentially being in another war, here's the CNN headline:
Feds loosen up on weed (http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/politics/holder-marijuana-laws/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
That's strange, as the front page on the site has more than 2 dozen articles on Syria, perhaps in your objectivity you missed them all.
Perhaps it just the wrong edition I looked at as that's the international edition.
So US edition. Its.....Syria:yep:
Did you look in the wrong section perhaps? world yep Syria, politics Syria again, opinion Syria, technology, Syria, photography Syria, business syria, trends Syria.

Damn that sneaky CNN they really keep Syria out of the news don't they:har:

Ducimus

08-29-13, 05:45 PM

Oberon

08-29-13, 06:00 PM

Some faith in the House of Commons has been restored...but only some...

August

08-29-13, 07:08 PM

“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation”

-Barack Obama 2007

nikimcbee

08-29-13, 07:12 PM

In the spirit of gallows humor, anyone want to start taking bets on when our government does something incredibly stupid with a cruise missile? Pulling a date out of my ass, i'll guess sometime tomorrow, but definitely before the labor day weekend. Beer, BBQ, and stupidity on TV all in one go.

So what's the bet?

nikimcbee

08-29-13, 07:14 PM

So when do we organize a "no blood for Syrian oil" rally? Should I start printing signs now?

Packlife

08-29-13, 07:19 PM

Now I've heard it all. Congresswoman Barbara Lee (D) California just said in a tv interview that, she believes that there is no military solution to the problem in Syria an that it would end up in not being able to start some kind of talks an negotiations (I'm assuming she means talks/negotiations between Assad an the Rebels). Now I'm a democrat but I DO not support what she's says, I'd like to know where she bought what she's smoking cuz I want some. First Assad is not going to sit down an negotiate w/ the rebels this guy is a half crazy dictator, in his mind it's his way w/ him in power or be damned an death to all who appose him. He's already proven that fully w/ how fast he escalated towards what started out as protesters now rebels. But the congresswoman says that using chemical weapons are bad an punishment is needed, well if a military strike holds no value in her eyes then what does she suggest??? Maybe putting Assad in the time out corner an not giving him any milk an cookies during snack time, or maybe she wants the President to go on tv an say "Mr.Assad your a bad dictator an you should be ashamed of yourself", it must be nice to be delusional.

Feld Grau

08-29-13, 07:24 PM

Alex

08-29-13, 07:37 PM

http://i.imgur.com/CfUPert.jpg
If you like, dude. :up:
Please can you remind us of who's taking care of a part of the wounded members of the FSA, at least ?

That's the beauty of it Alex, neo-Nazis are always fun to show as ridiculous, and so easy too.
I know not all people living in the united states of America can be considered familiar with Spanish language, yet quite a bit definitely are. For those who are, just watch this one (http://youtu.be/cDX4ijyGpRg). For those who're not, just read that little text below.

« And let's watch out when it comes to the beginning of a great war in Syria, would be the beginning of the end of the Zionist domination on Palestinian people. Watch out !
Because the Arab People are going to defend themselves.
What did they do against Palestine something like 60 years ago ? A UN resolution got the Palestinians thrown out of THEIR soil, and there's no way to find any solution for Palestinian people to live on their soil. And recently, like 10 years ago, what did they do when it comes to Iraq and Iraqi People ? They created a lie, how many times did they do that ? There was like weapons of mass destruction, and the whole world just swallowed that. Because every channel news : CNN, NBC, ABC, BBC, etc. just bombed the whole world with their psychological war and made all people believe something like there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and so justified themselves for causing the death of 1 million people.
1 million ! Who's paying for dead Arab people in Iraq ?
They did the same in Libya. They started saying that Khadafi bombed the Green Place, and the Telesur journalist came there 24 hours later, showing that it was a lie. But the UN resolution was approved already. And they devastated Libya through 20.000 aerial raids, ravaging the country. And the oil wells in Libya that you can find in the Eastern part of the country, where the insurrection started, Benghazi... Who's gained control on that ? Transnationals from North-America, and certain are Europeans.

And now it goes the same way in Syria. Syria is withstanding pressure and will resist some more.
From the place I am, I'm launching an appeal, from the Tachira land, from the Venezuelan Andes, to Arab people who're living on our Venezuelan Land, to Syrian people who're living on our soil, to Palestinian people who're living on our soil, to Lebanese people who're living on our soil, and to Arab people in general, when I'm talking about our soil, I'm talking about Venezuela, South America, Central America, Carribean, and to our Arab brothers throughout the world, to Islamic people : Let's do whatever is necessary to prevent a military attack on Syria, war against Syria, destruction of Syria, the dividing up of Syria, nothing justifies a military attack against Syria ! »

I'd like it if someone at the top where I live could say such a thing.

@ Tribesman : Shhhh, take a deep breath dude... We're all evil dumb neo-nazi antisemites, I tell you !

:roll:

Tchocky

08-29-13, 07:41 PM

Too many one-sided posts and the good ship GT may capsize.

Oberon

08-29-13, 08:13 PM

http://www.shipmentoffail.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/shipment_of_fail.jpg

eddie

08-29-13, 08:27 PM

:agree:

Tribesman

08-30-13, 02:05 AM

know not all people living in the united states of America can be considered familiar with Spanish language, yet quite a bit definitely are. For those who are, just watch this one (http://youtu.be/cDX4ijyGpRg). For those who're not, just read that little text below.

Wow what a collection. sorel, le pen, bloc identitaire.
what was it about neo Nazis again?
Too easy:har:

kraznyi_oktjabr

08-30-13, 03:01 AM

First Assad is not going to sit down an negotiate w/ the rebels this guy is a half crazy dictator, in his mind it's his way w/ him in power or be damned an death to all who appose him. He's already proven that fully w/ how fast he escalated towards what started out as protesters now rebels.Al-Assad is not just "half crazy dictator". For decades al-Assad's Alawite minority has received preferential treatment. When you combine this with already existing animosity between Sunnis and Shias - of which latter Alawites are - al-Assad goverment collapse would expose his own people into retribution. Therefore from al-Assad's point of view this is fight for survival of his people. For him defeat is not an option and he will most likely use all and any means necessary to stay in power.

So most of which al-Assad will be ready to negotiate is execution method for rebel leadership. Would you prefer hanging, beheading or cruxification?

Packlife

08-30-13, 06:21 AM

Dowly

08-30-13, 06:24 AM

If you like, dude. :up:
Please can you remind us of who's taking care of a part of the wounded members of the FSA, at least ?

Israel has been treating wounded Syrians.

So?

Mittelwaechter

08-30-13, 06:39 AM

The end of Kerry’s statement on Chemical Weapons in Syria:

"President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people," Kerry said. "Nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/27/world/middleeast/text-of-kerrys-statement-on-chemical-weapons-in-syria.html?_r=0

Well, what about the US forces use of CWs in Fallujah, Iraq?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah,_The_Hidden_Massacre
(+ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/22/usa.iraq1 -- to cover the complete story of George Monbiot in The Guardian)

watch here: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10907.htm
(RAI News - Italian documentary, in English)

WARNING
The video contains images that depict the reality and horror of war. It should only be viewed by a mature audience.

So, shouldn't there be accountability for the US? How long do we want to accept this double standard?
The US military used CWs - proven! - and no one is to be blamed.
But Syrian citizans are to be punished for the use of CWs - totally unproven to be used by their military but way more likely used by the terrorizing aggressors?

Tchocky

08-30-13, 06:45 AM

Dowly

08-30-13, 06:48 AM

Well, what about the US forces use of CWs in Fallujah, Iraq?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallujah,_The_Hidden_Massacre

From the same wiki article:

Critics of the film point out that white phosphorus is not considered a "chemical weapon" under the Chemical Weapons Convention[...]

Packlife

08-30-13, 07:07 AM

What is it then you propose oh Wise Citizen?

Well if I was advising Obama on how to go about this with the result he wants which is to punish Assad w/ out crippling or toppling his regime since Obama doesnt want to do that. 1. Give up any hope's of a peaceful resolution, as kraznyi_oktjabr said in his post Assad is a Alawite Muslim which some Sunni's an Shia's don't even consider them to be true Muslim's. So in Assad's mind he is in a fight to the death for him an his Alawite ppl. 2. Cripple his ability to use his chemical weapon's, by taking out his jets, airfields, and any artillery batteries that are not located in places where the chance of killing innocents is a high probability. 3. Take out the command an control centers that are used in to coordinate these chemical attacks. 4. Carve out a section of northern or southern Syria for a no fly zone so civilians have a safe haven without having to run to other countries.
I bet your probably on the side of sitting back an watching more children an women be gassed an slaughtered an letting Syria more than likely fall into the hands of the extremists an Syria turn into a new Afghanistan except this is a Afghanistan fully equipped with chemical weapons. An those weapons will probably fall into the hands of Hezbollah an used against Israel an possibly on a US base in the middle east or possibly even here in the US. Let's also look at other affects of doing nothing. Doing nothing not only tell's Assad to go ahead an gas away, but it also tell's Iran an N. Korea to go ahead an keep on working to build their own nukes because our word means nothing anymore.

Skybird

08-30-13, 07:21 AM

Maybe it was high time that somebody reminded of these facts:

LINK: CIA files prove that they helped Saddam when he gassed Iran (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he _gassed_iran)

(...) U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent. (...) U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein's government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture. "The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn't have to. We already knew," he told Foreign Policy. According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government.
(...)
The Reagan administration decided that it was better to let the attacks continue if they might turn the tide of the war. And even if they were discovered, the CIA wagered that international outrage and condemnation would be muted.

In the documents, the CIA said that Iran might not discover persuasive evidence of the weapons' use -- even though the agency possessed it. Also, the agency noted that the Soviet Union had previously used chemical agents in Afghanistan and suffered few repercussions.

And so on and on.

Damn that hypocrisy and hysteria today. Its all double standards. Some of you are angry again at me for seeing things coldblooded, and realistically, and calling things by their real names. But history already has proven my cool and calculated approach right. That may not be nice, nor sentimental. But it is as real as it gets. Those nations who today moralize about chemicals used in Syria (the US, Russia) - in no way are morally qualified to cast any moral verdicts here. The Russians have used chemicals themselves, the US assisted others to use them, and have dropped the second a-bomb on a civilian city (which is evidence that they still would have dropped the first even if they would have known what it meant). So, where is the moral authenticity here regarding WMDs?

I also remind of the war 1991, when the US-led alliance was victorious all over the battlefield after four days of ground combat, and the road to Baghdad ti displace Saddam was wide open, and American, British and Arab forces where in full forward movement, and then by political order were brought to a sudden, suprising, unexpected, abrupt full halt and freezing-in-place, to protect Saddam. Later, we read reports about Us soldiers feeling ashamed and kind of betrayed for being ordered to sit on the fencelines and just watch when Saddam cracked down on the US-initiated Shia uprise and killed them by the tens of thousands: fighters, civilians, women, children, without discrimination. Bush senior later said the city fighting would have been costly to US forces. But the thunderrun 2003 , under much less ideal conditions, worked nice and there was a Bagdhad that on paper was much better defended in 2003. And quite some city fighting errupted later in several cities. Militarily, the US won these ground confrontations. And still, the US managed to turn it all into a major strategic defeat.

The simple truth is neither America nor Russia have any problem with chemical weapons being used, as long as the right guy uses them. And both also have no problem with assisting and committing massacres against civilian populations. Both nations have no moral authority whatever to lecture others about the morality of this or that kind of warfare, weapon usage, or mass murder, because both nations are hidden under a big heap of guilt themselves.

Sense of reality, guys. Sense of reality.

Considering how well-informed the US were about the Iraqi chemical weapons, they surely knew, as has been claimed by independent researchers so often and by Iraq itself as well, that these stockpiled weapons and their production means have been dismantled in the mid- to end-90s, after the sanction rules that followed the not-too-seriously-meant war 1991. Still Bush claimed that they all were vthere, and that one knew were they were. We know by now how it all ended.

And that raises some questions on the vaölidity of the evidence for Syria's guilt in today's chemical strikes. Is that evidence and knowledge as solid and profound than the evidence they claimed to have 2003? Yesterday, Cameron suffered his biggest political defeat. On TV they showed a comparison of proceedings and steps that were tried by the British in producing evidence and forming a (questionable) legal basis for intervention in preparation of the war 2003, and by Cameron's government today.

It was a 1:1 copy of steps, an almost identical reproduction.

That is no evidence for it all being faked, I know. But it is a legitimit reminder of why to not blindly believe mere claims this time.

Maybe it gets proven for sure that it was all done by Assad's order. Okay. Is this a reason to help the opposition, then? The often hailed FSA by manpower currently has a small advantage over Islamic groups of more radical kind, AQ, and foreign jihadists. But the latter have more finanjcial support, they have better and more weapons, and we observe sine a longer time now a personnel drain at the FSA, a moving of fighters from them to the more radical groups. The FSA'S once dominant position, is close to end. On weapons and money, the radicals already are superior.

Tribesman

08-30-13, 07:48 AM

But history already has proven my cool and calculated approach right.
Really ?
I thought the last two major nations that took your approach and rejected silly inconveniences like the laws of war because they got in the way of victory suffered complete and total defeat.:hmmm:
I think most of their leadership which shared your views got strung up like the scum they were too.

Insanity isn't cool and calculated, its just insanity.

AVGWarhawk

08-30-13, 08:02 AM

Insanity isn't cool and calculated, its just insanity.

Not necessarily.

Mittelwaechter

08-30-13, 08:19 AM

White phosphorus isn't a chemical weapon. It's an incendiary weapon.

This might seem like an irrelevant distinction but it's really not. Terminology and strict definition is very important.

Using incendiary weapons close to civilians is not even remotely akin to using nerve gas directly on civilians. Don't try to make it the same.

Water is refreshing and healthy. So why bother about waterboarding?

Did you read this? http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/nov/22/usa.iraq1

Wait wait, exactly who are the aggressors here?

Good question. Our media says it is the Syrian administration and military.
But following the Libyan sheme it is some "civil foreigner" who wants to destabilize Syria and install a puppet administration dancing to Western and Saudi interests on their way to Iran. Those foreigners are supported with weapons, intelligence, training and maybe even with some sort of false flag operations.

Tribesman

08-30-13, 08:20 AM

Not necessarily.
How so?
If the calculations are off by reason of insanity they are not calculated.
He described breiviks manifesto as rational and calculated, it was all just insanity though despite the lengthy calculations the nut had put into it.

BossMark

08-30-13, 10:18 AM

In light of the UK parliament deciding to take no action against Syria the French have decided on their best course of action and have immediately surrendered to the Syrian Regime.

Oberon

08-30-13, 10:29 AM

In light of the UK parliament deciding to take no action against Syria the French have decided on their best course of action and have immediately surrendered to the Syrian Regime.

Actually, to be technical we've surrendered and it's the French that are probably going to attack.

But tea-drinking surrender monkeys doesn't roll off the tongue quite as well...

Wolferz

08-30-13, 10:40 AM

Best course of action is take no action unless it spills over their borders.
It's their civil war after all.

Now let's see what the eared penis does next.

Skybird

08-30-13, 10:55 AM

Platapus

08-30-13, 10:55 AM

An interesting note: Every US president since 1973 has issued formal statements proclaiming that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and that the President does not consider himself bound by it.

Unfortunately, until the WPA is formally challenged, the SCotUS won't issue a Writ of Certiorari. It is up to the Congress to hold the POTUS accountable for the WPA.

Equally unfortunate, congress, since 1973, seems unwilling to challenge the WPA. That would be a very interesting court case to follow.

Let's just hope that if Congress issues an Authorization for Military Action for Syria, that they close up the loopholes that were in the last one.

One should NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER grant a president the authority to 'use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or person he determines......"

You can drive several trucks through that loophole!

Any authorization of military force from the Congress must have boundaries and time limits for re-authorization. :yep:

Anyone wanna bet on this? :nope:

Don't worry, the Syrians will greet us as liberators. :up:

(They did not throw out Bush's Mission Accomplished sign did they?)

Ducimus

08-30-13, 11:11 AM

A long time ago, back when i still wore a uniform, I came to the conclusion that all presidents like war to some degree. They get to "play with the toys", look like champions of all that we value, and get the peoples minds off the problems they can not fix - all in one go.

On that note, i once saw a political cartoon with the caricature of a "baby" version of the sitting president at the time (i forget who, either Clinton or one of the Bush's), sitting in a bubble bath, playing with their toys, making animated noises. The toys were planes, ships, and army figures. Wish I could find that cartoon, it's always been fitting.

mapuc

08-30-13, 11:27 AM

It's very clearly why so many people in different countries are against any type of intervention in Syria

There's two reasons:

1. We have just finished two wars in Middle east

2. The government controlled propaganda haven't had time to affect the people in these countries. If they have had time they needed it would have been otherwise today.

Platapus

08-30-13, 11:28 AM

I have often thought that pretty much anyone can be a good president during a war (especially a limited one). All you have to do is keep the public fired up and pump money into the MIC and Bob's your Uncle. Other domestic problems can be pushed aside in the name of expediency of the war mission.

Now, being a good president in times of peace is, in my opinion, is much harder. Then the president has to focus on the more difficult domestic problems and there is little that can emotionally distract the citizens.

So, yeah, I think the presidents would see the advantage of the political distractions of being a "war president".

What disturbs me, as a citizen, is what appear to be in the last 20+ years, is an eagerness of US presidents to engage in military action.

Military action should be the very last option. I fear that it has become one of the first. And that's not right, in my opinion.

Oberon

08-30-13, 11:28 AM

Platapus

08-30-13, 11:32 AM

Alex

08-30-13, 11:41 AM

The latest poll from France has 60% of the French population being strictly against the Syria strike. I forgot how many were undecided, I think it was around 20% undecidede, 20% in favour for strike.

So it is more a Hollande-the-great-presidential-French-leader style of thing.

Opposition in Britain, Germany and the US all is beyond the 60% level, it seems.
I like how everyone's supposed to assess the validity of that poll (doesn't have anything to do with you personally, Skybird).

But that one needs to be quoted once again, for everyone to know I'm having a chuckle about it once again :
Hollande-the-great-presidential-French-leader

:haha:

Israel has been treating wounded Syrians.

So?
Hey dude, care a bit about what you're saying please, you just should be ashamed of yourself for showing such disrespect towards the state of Israel : I'd say myself that reading about its fights against Hezbollah and its constant incursions in the Gaza strip, it's just so very well-known the state of Israel is the greatest friend of real Muslims, you know. :O:
And now the West is beating the drums of war against Syria - with no hard evidence of the use of chemical weapons by armed forces of the Syrian regime - there you can see too how much the US authorities can be neutral in that whole stuff.

The whole thing should be solved through peace talks. Everyone knows it. And the American and European People too. But our armed forces - for what they're worth, LOL - just are the toys of some other authority not caring about the lives of American nor European armed forces.

What Al-Assad is willing to go for is no more than the eradication of terrorists : Jabhat al Nusra, Wahhabi, Salafists and Takfiri. And it is the role he has to play, to fight for the security of his People.
Mr Bashar Al-Assad is the head of state of Syria. The occidental media considers him "a dictator", whatever : Mr Al-Assad is a democratically-elected president. The fact that the West wishes to overthrow him doesn't make him a terrorist, a dictator, or whatever : the West just supports Takfiri - being terrorists themselves - there lies the problem.

But you're watching tv and reading the Daily Mail, so I guess you'll always feel like you're reading the truth there and all.

And now, just to switch to something a bit more interesting... For all reasonable people who wish to get a bit more familiar with the Zionist problem... Just check this (http://youtu.be/Ei0bC1s2Mqw) out. The man is a great enlightened anti-zionist jazzman (saxophonist)/philosopher British by adoption, who's got to be part of the Israeli army in the 70ies if I remember correctly (he may talk about that in that video, I just can't remember actually), and moved to the UK once he's got to smash the myth of the Chosen People, and decided to break the ethnic supremacy wall, letting tribalism aside himself. An half an hour video possibly making some a bit familiar with the difference between proper Judaism, and Zionism. I know it will not catch everyone's attention, but well, some might be interested in that.

Mr Quatro

08-30-13, 12:20 PM

I would like President Obama to provide the answers to three important questions.

1. What is the objective(s) of our military action in Syria?
2. How will we measure failure or success in our progress toward those objectives?
3. What is the exit criteria for success and for failure?

If the President can make these arguments, I would be more willing to support this proposed military action in Syria.

In my opinion, if the president can't answer these questions fully, we should not consider military action in any country.

Not bad questions, but President Obama hasn't finished answering the questions on the late response on the Libya terrorist attack on the US mission resulting in the death of four US citizens (of which I was told were US Marines) and one US ambassador Stevens, except to blame the initial reporting as being just talking points.

President Obama is still explaining the NSA/Snowden affair while congressman uncover even more disturbing news.

While the Justice department is still explaining the "Fast and Furious" campaign to trace guns that cross the border and the IRS is still under investigation for stopping the Tea party from obtaining 501 3c status for a non profit organization that even the democratic party has obtained to do the same thing they were stopping the Tea party for, which was to fund political ads, with the latest admission that the orders came from IRS headquarters in Washington.

To back yourself into a corner with the "red line being crossed" is his latest experiment that will also require another explanation. :yep:

The only good thing I see is that today is Friday ... "thank God it is Friday"

Post Script: as for all of the polls out there on what to do about Syria from Great Britain, France and the USA we need one right here on subsim, but we need one that all you can do is vote without adding an opinion.

Most of the opinions I see in this thread (being international even) are against using military force in Syria. :yep:

Platapus

08-30-13, 12:34 PM

Post Script: as for all of the polls out there on what to do about Syria from Great Britain, France and the USA we need one right here on subsim, but we need one that all you can do is vote without adding an opinion.

You can always start a poll here and just choose not to read the comments if you are just interested in the poll numbers.

If polling people posting on a video game website has any importance that is. :D

Wolferz

08-30-13, 12:47 PM

If polling people posting on a video game website has any importance that is. :D

I'm sure the president will sit up and take notice of our opinions.

NOT!:rotfl2:

Ducimus

08-30-13, 12:54 PM

The only thing that would get their attention is hundreds of thousands of angry American's marching in the streets, and even then they might not listen.

nikimcbee

08-30-13, 12:59 PM

The only thing that would get their attention is hundreds of thousands of angry American's marching in the streets, and even then they might not listen.

They could close all the golf courses.:hmmm: That might make the Golfer-in-Chief move...

Oberon

08-30-13, 01:19 PM

That might make the Golfer-in-Chief move...

Which one?

http://www.bizpacreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/obama-golfing.jpg

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2008/05/14/va1237307690750/George-W.-Bush-AP-6038115.jpg

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39193000/jpg/_39193183_clintonswingap_203body.jpg

http://www.golfdigest.com/images/magazine/2009-02/gwar01_081226bush.jpg

http://i.cdn.turner.com/dr/golf/www/release/sites/default/files/imagecache/node-gallery-display/gallery_images/reagan_600x414_0.jpg

Still....could be worse...

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02352/cameron_2352894b.jpg

http://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/browntennispa_450x300.jpg

http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/01145/blair-main_1145846a.jpg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1vwKZiDsY4

mapuc

08-30-13, 01:35 PM

Wouldn't the world have been a bit different if the politician above, made these thing as their living?

Markus

Vince82

08-30-13, 02:35 PM

U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-intelligence-report-on-last-weeks-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria-2013-8

http://http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57600624/syria-chemical-weapons-attack-blamed-on-assad-but-wheres-the-evidence/

Jimbuna

08-30-13, 02:43 PM

@Oberon

:har:

mapuc

08-30-13, 02:53 PM

Looks more and more like it going to be USA on her own in this case.

Of Course Denmark have sent sent a message to Obama, that if he needs additional ships, planes and perhaps Troops. Denmark will not hesitate if USA is in need of assistance

Tell you a lot of the Danes(ca 60-70 %) are really mad about this decision the danish government have made.

Markus

Jimbuna

08-30-13, 03:07 PM

Vince82

08-30-13, 03:11 PM

This is the speech by secretary of state John Kerry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDN4L00Ls9E

nikimcbee

08-30-13, 03:12 PM

@Oberon

:har:

http://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/browntennispa_450x300.jpg

Touche:salute: Steed does look smashing though in his suit and red tie.

Wolferz

08-30-13, 03:19 PM

Who's the guy with the tennis racket? Benny Hill?:haha:

Jimbuna

08-30-13, 03:23 PM

Not sure if your being serious but just in case...Gordon Brown, former Labour Prime Minister.

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

BossMark

08-30-13, 03:38 PM

US Intelligence agencies are "100% certain" that Bashar al-Assad's regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attack on his own people, and believe that military action is the only way to restore peace.

Surely that's a huge contradiction...

US Intelligence?

Catfish

08-30-13, 03:48 PM

All common sense aside, what is the real intention why any western nation would launch a war against Assd, and just of all help the rebels ?

He is a dictator, ok. From Noriega to Saddam, to Gaddafi, all have been armed to the teeth by the west, because they stood against communists (for obvious reasons) or had aome resources.

Now there is a man called Assad providing stability and being a bulwark against communism and muslims, and AL Quaeda, even protecting the christians in his country. So godda... why ?

"He used chemical weapons" ??? Really ?
And still no evidence, but even then the CIA helped Saddam back then to gas the Curds, so why suddenly be shy here?

Not too much oil there either, that would make up for the losses of a military strike (but then hey, it's all paid by tax payers not oil industry)

Seriously, aren't there other contries in the world that would be more worthwhile ? Who profits from that, other than radical muslims ?
:hmm2:

Skybird

08-30-13, 04:02 PM

Again Kerry fails to give evidence. A report like that intelligence assessment I could write, too, then copy the WH's emblem on top of it and then call that evidence. The infamous missile memorandum 2003 (London) was such an assessment with an emblem on it. The US excuse to the public to go to war in 2003 was such an assessment.

It is just a claim as long as the content is not beign proven to the reader., Just claiming hat it is true, is no evidence.

I understand the rational of wanting to maintain to protect your sources fore future use again. However, there are critical times like now when you have to weigh that against the need to indeed give evidence for your "assessments". Such times come when you decide on whether or not to go to war, and have your people paying for it.

It is about proving that you are acting on honest motives yourself. It would not change my principal objection to taking action on behalf of any of the sides in Syria, but at least it would add credibility to the government's claims.

Instead: they leave it to claiming something, and expecting everybody to blindly believe it.

Sorry, Mr. Kerry - no way this way. The rotten smell around it reminds of 2003, and not giving evidence but making excuses for why not giving it, will not help to make it go away.

I still wait for precise definitions of any strikes' military objectives. Obama has said a lot about what they do not want. They do not want to intervene, they do not want regime change, they do not want to take sides. So wildly firing around from the hip with 2 or 3 hundred cruise missiles is achieve exactly what precise objective that is meant to not help the other side...?

I think most people know by now what Obama really wants to achieve. He wants to make forgotten his stupid comment on red lines - a bluff he raised in the hope of never being called over it - and he wants to get away with it without suffering too much from that. A cowboy-from-the-wild-wild-west-show, so to speak: make a lot of noise, gallop up and down main street to create some impressive cloud of dust, raise an impressive show and bang-bang-shoot around a bit: and then everybody knows again you are the bad bully of the block.

I wonder whether that will work. I think not. I think it will create the opposite: many Syrian people will put expectations into the bombardment when it has begun, will raise their hopes for the future outcome of the war - and then it will already be over again without having brought victory to any of the sides, and the war moving on. That is the worst kind of intervention you can do. It sends a message of being weak and undetermined.

Better not to do anything.

Even better would be to never make stupid comments like red line bluffs in the first. No, Obama will squirm - but he will not manage to make this episode forgotten.

Maybe giving him the Nobel prize for political science next.

mapuc

08-30-13, 05:30 PM

From Danish news they say that Obama haven't decided if he will give the green light.

Here's a question about Israel

Many of my friends who lives in Israel or have relatives living there are nervous about would happen if USA and it's allied attack Syria.

I wrote to them that most likely there will be an increase of rockets and shells coming from Palestine area and perhaps some fractions that fight for Assad would do the same.

Some are afraid that a coalition of Iran, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria would join forces and attack Israel

I wrote that is very unlikely. Iran is doing it's best to develop their own bomb and Israel is waiting for any chances for attacking them and Iran know that. the others now what capacity Israel have. And increase of weapon and volunteers from Iran could be the most logical thing. That goes even when it comes the other countries that I have mentioned.

Is my answer to them wrong or?

Markus

nikimcbee

08-30-13, 05:33 PM

What do you think Russia will do in the event of an attack?

Catfish

08-30-13, 05:35 PM

What do you think Russia will do in the event of an attack?

If France does not support the 'allies' this time, maybe Russia will care for the refreshments ?

Feuer Frei!

08-30-13, 05:38 PM

What do you think Russia will do in the event of an attack?

Nothing.

If France does not support the 'allies' this time, maybe Russia will care for the refreshments ?

France is in. Already confirmed a while ago.

mapuc

08-30-13, 05:43 PM

What do you think Russia will do in the event of an attack?

Forgot all about that.

I wrote: If it's only is a small operation, where USA send no more these few hundreder TLAM against military installations I my guess is they only will protest, maybe call their ambassador to USA home for a week or so.

If the war escalate then my guesses is as good as yours I really don't know.
I know that one of Syria's biggest allied is Russia, I doubt that Russia are interested in a conflict with USA and the west. But who knows how things will go if this small operation goes wrong and USA and it's allied get more and more involved in this civil war

Markus

Platapus

08-30-13, 05:47 PM

Iran is doing it's best to develop their own bomb

We still do not have any evidence that Iran has an active nuclear weapon development program.

August

08-30-13, 05:47 PM

https://sphotos-a-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1016348_353843328082185_1104606674_n.jpg

mapuc

08-30-13, 05:52 PM

We still do not have any evidence that Iran has an active nuclear weapon development program.

Read in a Swedish on line newspaper not so long ago that Iran had installed more centrifuge in some area(sorry can't remember the name of that place) this was according to IAEA

I know that our intelligence have since, what year? 2005 posted reports about Iran and telling us that they will have a bomb in a year or so.

In that way you could be right.

Markus

Ducimus

08-30-13, 05:54 PM

http://media.cagle.com/82/2013/08/29/136726_600.jpg

mapuc

08-30-13, 05:59 PM

Do you remember one of my earlier posting in this thread, where I wrote that we will see a lot of information and disinformation in this ongoing crisis

here's another information or perhaps disinformation-who knows

http://www.siotw.org/modules/news_english/item.php?itemid=1288

Markus

Platapus

08-30-13, 05:59 PM

Read in a Swedish on line newspaper not so long ago that Iran had installed more centrifuge in some area(sorry can't remember the name of that place) this was according to IAEA

I know that our intelligence have since, what year? 2005 posted reports about Iran and telling us that they will have a bomb in a year or so.

In that way you could be right.

Markus

It is true about the centrifuges, although there is some uncertainty whether they are new centrifuges or moved existing centrifuges. The issue is that there has to be a lot more than just the presence of centrifuges to indicate an active nuclear weapon development effort.

Centrifuges only mean that some enrichment of uranium is underway. Without knowing the configuration of the stages and cascades, no estimation of enrichment level can be made. Knowing the number of centrifuges is not enough. :nope:

Cynically, I think that Iran is about a year or two from developing a weapon... and will always remain so.

mapuc

08-30-13, 06:06 PM

It is true about the centrifuges, although there is some uncertainty whether they are new centrifuges or moved existing centrifuges. The issue is that there has to be a lot more than just the presence of centrifuges to indicate an active nuclear weapon development effort.

Centrifuges only mean that some enrichment of uranium is underway. Without knowing the configuration of the stages and cascades, no estimation of enrichment level can be made. Knowing the number of centrifuges is not enough. :nope:

Cynically, I think that Iran is about a year or two from developing a weapon... and will always remain so.

When thinking about it I must admit you are right. Even though they try hard to develop their own bomb, I don't think they will succeed with that.

It seems that I was wrong about Iran and their "bomb" however I stil say they won't attack Israel.

Markus

vienna

08-30-13, 06:08 PM

France is in. Already confirmed a while ago.

Well, if France is joining the action, then it is sure to be a success. If they haven''t surrendered yet, that may mean there is little chance of the operation going sideways... :03::D

<O>

Ducimus

08-30-13, 06:09 PM

Personally I think Iran will eventually succeed in any efforts to obtain nuclear weapons. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Russia handed them some tidbits under the table.

vienna

08-30-13, 06:12 PM

Turkey has weighed in on their hopes regarding Syria:

http://world.time.com/2013/08/30/for-turkey-planned-u-s-missile-strikes-on-syria-not-good-enough/

<O>

DetCord

08-30-13, 06:13 PM

Skybird

08-30-13, 06:14 PM

On Israel, Hezbollah is actively fighting in Syria, while other militias from Lebanon also are fighting there, but on the rebel side. I expect any result for or against one of the two sides in Syria causinf conflict in Lebanon where Hezbollah alraey is in de facto command. Iran is ally of Hezbollah and Assad. Turkey has turned into abitter enemy of Assad, making him responsible flr the refugee mess in Turkey, a Turkish provoked incident kr two, and realising that the rebelas are more in line with the AKP'S fundamentalist agenda for the Osmanic middle east 2.0 .
So it is complicated and the chance that Israel faces getting drawn jnto the turmoil, absolutely is real, and nkt even unlikely.

That Egypt has turned towards becoming less fundamentalist and more under military control again, must be a great relief for them, and ckmes nkt kne month too early. Israel has had good relations to Mubarak, there was military cooperation on the Palestinian terrorism and Sinai security concerns, and Mubarak, corrupt but stable, kept religious hotheads in check with iron fists.

So on Israel, their position is exposed, very uncomfortable, and they have all reasons to be concerned. The Palestinians recently hailed the murderers that were released by Israel, and have already called off the first round of these hopelessly optimistically socalled peace talks.

I do not envy the Israelis. They really have both hands full.

Skybird

08-30-13, 06:22 PM

[QUOTE=DetCord;2107979]This latest attack was defiantly NOT a chemical weapon. It has all of the telltale signs of a WP or white phosphorus munition, likely a artillery round with a VT bursting fuze.

I wish this administration and the media would stop putting more fuel in Obama's war machine. It's getting old.

White phosphorus in an urban environment.

According to Tchocky so much more civilised than gassing. He obviously never has seen how it works on human flesh, and burns jnto the body with people going insane in pain. If you survive, the scars and mutilations are terrible.

In the Baltic, on Ruegen and on some German beaches, people get injured until today from wp that get awashed on the shore and looks like Bernstein. 1.5 million tonnes of wwii ammo are lying close to the beaches, in the sea. The moment the stuff gets out of the water, it starts burning again, injuring collectors and tourists.

Almost like mines.

vienna

08-30-13, 06:24 PM

This latest attack was defiantly NOT a chemical weapon. It has all of the telltale signs of a WP or white phosphorus munition, likely a artillery round with a VT bursting fuze.

I wish this administration and the media would stop putting more fuel in Obama's war machine. It's getting old.

Unless I am greatly mistaken, WP is classified internationally as a chemical weapon and has been so formally classed for over two decades and informally for a lot longer. I also recall WP is part of a group of chemical weapons scheduled to be fully banned and destroyed by pending international treaties. Has anything changed in recent time?...

Oberon

08-30-13, 06:25 PM

Not just Germany, UK too, we get the odd phos bomb on the beach, usually you notice when the smoke starts coming out from the stones. :doh:

eddie

08-30-13, 06:28 PM

The BBC reports a bomb dropped on a school yard today. Seems it was WP! Kids with nasty burns, and shaking like a leaf! Really sad.:nope:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

Platapus

08-30-13, 06:33 PM

Unless I am greatly mistaken, WP is classified internationally as a chemical weapon and has been so formally classed for over two decades and informally for a lot longer. I also recall WP is part of a group of chemical weapons scheduled to be fully banned and destroyed by pending international treaties. Has anything changed in recent time?...

The status of White Phosphorous weapons is a complex one. The treaties and agreements play word games depending on the intended use of WP.

If it is used in such a way that the intended effect is as a screening/smoke agent, it is not considered a chemical weapon even though it may directly cause human causalities.

If it is used in such a way that the intent is to use the phosphorous itself as the primary agent to cause human causalities, then it is considered a chemical agent under many circumstances.

A moment's reflection should reveal some convenient loopholes. :yep:

This is why nations only use WP as a screening agent and not as an anti-personal weapon. If people just happen to be burned alive by the WP, that is an Unintended Effect and is not considered a chemical attack.

Setting fire to people while playing word games -- a long tradition. :nope:

So, treaty wise, WP's relationship to chemical weapons or non-chemical weapons is that WP is a little bit of both but not enough of neither.

vienna

08-30-13, 06:35 PM

I am getting the impression some people think of chemical weapons as being only gases. Actually, a chemical weapon is any weapon that uses chemicals rather than explosives as its primary means of "doing damage". Most are gases, but some make use of chemical properties, like phosphorus, to achieve the goal of inflicting caualties or damage...

<O>

DetCord

08-30-13, 06:45 PM

Platapus

08-30-13, 07:11 PM

It will be interesting seeing the US condemning Syria for using WP by claiming it is a chemical weapons, while turning a blind eye toward Israel when Israel used WP weapons in Gaza in 2008/2009

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2009/03/25/rain-fire

Text of the Chemical Weapons Convention can be found here. In it are all the confusing definitions

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1997_04/cwctext

Syria has not signed nor ratified the CWC. Five countries total have not signed the CWC. Angola, Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan, and Syria

Israel has signed but not ratified the CWC. Only Israel and Myanmar have signed but not ratified the CWC

Kinda makes it a bit rough to hold Syria or Israel accountable to a treaty they did not sign/ratify. :nope:

Feuer Frei!

08-30-13, 07:22 PM

This latest attack was defiantly NOT a chemical weapon.

O'really?

Source?

WHICH attack are you referring to? The school yard one?
If so, then yes, it wasn't. It seems.

Pictures aren't evidence.

And considering the Weapons Inspectors haven't even delivered their preliminary report to the council yet, unless of course you are privy to the findings already.

And fueling the Obama war machine?

More like fueling Skybird.

darkone999

08-30-13, 09:57 PM

Let the EU deal with it.Even better the Arab League of nations.As an American I get tired of our nation being the goat and packing the burden of the worlds issues all the time.On another thought I think other nations get sick of us messing around in the affairs of other countries all the time."if you can not understand our silence then you could never understand our words"..Hope we just stay out of it.....:woot:

Peace

Packlife

08-30-13, 09:58 PM

WOW somebody on here actually said that Assad is a democratically elected president an not a dictator :har::rotfl2::har::rotfl2: That made my day, while he is the President of Syria he was not elected. The Assad family has been ruling Syria for decades the first was Hafez Assad, Bashar's father, who ruled for over 3 decades. Hafez was responsible for bringing Syria into a more modern society, but just like his son's he didnt put up w/ any type of uprisings. In February 1982 after a unit of the SAA (SyrianArabArmy) was ambushed my Muslim brotherhood guerrilla's in the city of Hama which lead to an uprising in Hama. Hafez sent his younger brother Rifaat who was a commander of the special forces to take the rebels out. To make a long story short it became known as the Hama Massacre, Hama was shelled an hit from the air for weeks an rolled on w/ armor. Rifaat believed rebels were hiding in tunnels so he had them flooded w/ diesel fuel an set on fire w/ tanks waiting outside the entrances to kill who ever tried to escape (nice family eh?). It's believed all the rebels were killed an then the local population suffered the worse the death's range from 10,000-30,000, mostly in the form of executions combined from the extensive shelling an airstrikes etc. You can see the similarities between the Hama Massacre an the current war. So the Assad's have a history of violence towards their ppl. Basher Al-Assad became the president after his dad died in 2000, it would of been his older brother Bassel but he died in a car crash. Now the guy to really fear is Maher al-Assad, Bashar's younger brother he command's special forces who some call the "ghosts", his guys are responsible for massacres of innocent protesters beginning, a sniper who defected said Maher gave them orders to aim for the head or hurt of unarmed protesters an to keep killing until there were no more protests. Maher is also believed to control the Shabiha's which mean's ghost's, a mix of special forces, mercenaries, an local thugs who wear civilian clothes an were used to attack an kill protesters. They're suppose to be responsible for the Houla massacre, an the Al-Qubair massacre both took place between May an June 2012, Houla was two villages where mostly women an children were shot an knifed, an Al-Qubair was a farming settlement where women an children were stabbed an shot. So let it be clear the Assad's have always been dictators, an are not simply fighting terrorists as somebody posted earlier.

Packlife

08-30-13, 10:02 PM

I'm not so sure about the school yard bombing not being a chemical attack, one of the teachers said that they heard an explosion hit a building close by, when they went outside they heard jet's an as they were about to go inside they all started feeling a burning sensation, an the pain is supposedly horrible. The teacher also said they didn't hear another explosion after the first one that the burning came out of no where. I'm not an expert on WP but wouldn't you know it's coming at you?? It could be possible that this was a mix of two kinds of chemical weapons.

Mittelwaechter

08-30-13, 10:32 PM

Iran and the nuclear threat? Business as usual.

Scott Peterson at the Christian Science Monitor did a useful timeline for dire Israeli and US predictions of an imminent Iranian nuclear weapon, beginning 20 years ago.
1992: Israeli member of parliament Binyamin Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years” from having a nuclear weapon.
1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV.
1995: The New York Times quotes US and Israeli officials saying that Iran would have the bomb by 2000.
1998: Donald Rumsfeld tells Congress that Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the US by 2003.
_______

Assad has been "elected" in 2007 - just like Bush has been "elected". :03:

According to a NATO paper (from may iirc), 70% of the Syrians back Assad right now in this Syrian war on terror, 20% are neutral and 10% support the aggressors.
_______

White Phosphorus is a chemical weapon!

A Pentagon spokesman told the BBC that white phosphorus "was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants". He claimed "it is not a chemical weapon. They are not outlawed or illegal." This denial has been accepted by most of the mainstream media. UN conventions, the Times said, "ban its use on civilian but not military targets". But the word "civilian" does not occur in the chemical weapons convention. The use of the toxic properties of a chemical as a weapon is illegal, whoever the target is.

The Pentagon argues that white phosphorus burns people, rather than poisoning them, and is covered only by the protocol on incendiary weapons, which the US has not signed. But white phosphorus is both incendiary and toxic. The gas it produces attacks the mucous membranes, the eyes and the lungs. As Peter Kaiser of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons told the BBC: "If ... the toxic properties of white phosphorus, the caustic properties, are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because ... any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons."

The US army knows that its use as a weapon is illegal. In the Battle Book, published by the US Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, my correspondent David Traynier found the following sentence: "It is against the law of land warfare to employ WP against personnel targets."

The blogger Gabriele Zamparini found a declassified document from the US department of defence, dated April 1991, and titled "Possible use of phosphorus chemical". "During the brutal crackdown that followed the Kurdish uprising," it alleges, "Iraqi forces loyal to President Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorus (WP) chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels and the populace in Erbil ... and Dohuk provinces, Iraq. The WP chemical was delivered by artillery rounds and helicopter gunships ... These reports of possible WP chemical weapon attacks spread quickly ... hundreds of thousands of Kurds fled from these two areas." The Pentagon is in no doubt, in other words, that white phosphorus is an illegal chemical weapon.

DetCord

08-31-13, 12:30 AM

There ya go.

http://routeclearance.blogspot.com/2013/08/lies.html?showComment=1377926827369#c8088505351517 491951

DetCord

08-31-13, 12:43 AM

O'really?

Source?

WHICH attack are you referring to? The school yard one?
If so, then yes, it wasn't. It seems.

Pictures aren't evidence.

And considering the Weapons Inspectors haven't even delivered their preliminary report to the council yet, unless of course you are privy to the findings already.

And fueling the Obama war machine?

More like fueling Skybird.

First hand experience as a combat veteran, having seen said munition utilized, does that count?

Twat.

Mittelwaechter

08-31-13, 12:55 AM

There ya go.

http://routeclearance.blogspot.com/2013/08/lies.html?showComment=1377926827369#c8088505351517 491951

We'll see, if the international media will cover this.
It may be a counter misinformation to the US "proof of guilt" misinformation.

Truth is hard to find in all this propaganda, but I have no reason to doubt this information more than Kerry's statements.
_____________

As DelPonte stated in may 2013 the rebel aggressors used chemical weapons, the famous US's red line wasn't crossed. Obviously chemical weapons have to be used only by the right guys, to avoid any consequences.
As the US military itself uses chemical and thermobare weapons committing war crimes to attack civilians, the US is no acceptable moral entity to cop the rest of the world.

Feuer Frei!

08-31-13, 03:19 AM

First hand experience as a combat veteran, having seen said munition utilized, does that count?
Does it count?
When you're posting a post stating that you are undeniably certain and without a doubt that something wasn't something that hasn't even been proven to be so by a body and providing no link to anything when making that opinion then no, it doesn't count.
You've had first-hand experience in combat. Fair enough, i respect that.
But the post i made previously in response to your post claiming undeniably something that hasn't been proven so is where i was coming from.
Take that for what its worth.

Twat.Nice attitude, Pal.
Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. :down:
======================================

UN Team is out, the Clock starts ticking:

UN inspectors investigating the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria have left Damascus.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23908808

31 August 2013 Last updated at 06:03

Tribesman

08-31-13, 03:42 AM

We'll see, if the international media will cover this.

will the international media cover an unverified claim that is published in the international media????????

Does it count?

I think it does, combat experience gives a person the ability to make unquestionably certain analytical judgements based on an unverified photo taken at an unverified location at an unverified time.
Its a sort of special magic.

Feuer Frei!

08-31-13, 04:09 AM

The video linked in the Blogger's piece does nothing for his/her credibility.
Nor anyone who links to it.

Not least of all since the alleged chemical attack a week ago occurred during the night.
Eye witness accounts confirm this to be so.

Gotta love 3rd part bloggers who also give video game reviews :haha:

Packlife

08-31-13, 04:18 AM

So the weapons inspectors pulled out early. Well it's only a matter of time now, wouldn't be surprised if the strikes happen in a few hours. And big surprise not long after the inspectors left shelling could be heard, they sure didn't wait to long to start that up again.

Ducimus

08-31-13, 05:00 AM

Does it count?
When you're posting a post stating that you are undeniably certain and without a doubt that something wasn't something that hasn't even been proven to be so by a body and providing no link to anything when making that opinion then no, it doesn't count.

Hate to tell you, but your sound like one of those "internet experts".

You've had first-hand experience in combat. Fair enough, i respect that.

No, I don't think you do.

But the post i made previously in response to your post claiming undeniably something that hasn't been proven so is where i was coming from.
Take that for what its worth.

You do realize that a word like "but" is a retraction of your previous statement right? So, no you really don't respect first hand experience. I will grant that there are a lot of "internet experts" and "Keyboard commando's" that pretend to be something their not. However, with Detcord im inclined to believe he's not some poser.

Nice attitude, Pal.
Can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen. :down:
======================================

Dude, If i had served in recent years and been there, done that, bought the T shirt, i'd have said the same thing. Because when you pair that personal experience to what your saying on a message board and having most likely never seen anything at all first hand, well.... yeah.

Nothing personal Feuer Frei, I'm just saying when you go barking up someones tree who may have actual experience, you may want to think about it first. Because if your wrong, you make yourself look really bad.

Jimbuna

08-31-13, 05:13 AM

Tribesman

08-31-13, 05:23 AM

I'm hoping no military action is started until the UN weapons inspectors have submitted their report but as far as I am aware said report will only confirm what weapons were used and not the source of origin/side using them.

Which means the politicians will lack the smoking gun which would justify the red line they set themselves.
I wonder if it wasn't for the absolute balls up they made with their claims of "evidence" over Iraq if they would get a smoother ride this time with their claims?
Not that any of them are dealing with the crucial "then what?" aspect of any military intervention.

Vince82

08-31-13, 05:34 AM

First I didn't really believe attacking was a good idea, but now I feel like there should be done something. It's about the people of Syria. I hope many countries will join the US in their efforts.

Feuer Frei!

08-31-13, 05:39 AM

Hate to tell you, but your sound like one of those "internet experts".

Wouldn't know. Not trying to.
Asking for links and credible sources. Nothing internet expert about it.

No, I don't think you do.Yes i think, in fact i know i do.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what i called him out on. Until he mentioned he had combat experience.
Which in the light of his uneducated claim that he made re chemical attack(s) has nothing to do with it.
So for someone to bring that ole i served and have combat experience into the fray when it didn't need to be doesn't wash with me.
He made a claim, which was and still isn't backed up by cold hard facts.
No amount of: "oh but i served and saw it many times with my own eyes" will give someone who posts a claim based on nothing other than some blogger who links a crap video and does game reviews the ability to make such a claim.
Unless of course, like i suggested, the poster is on the ground, and was actively present in the samples taken, the analyising of said samples, the construction and finalising of reports of said samples, and the delivery of reports to the un council.
If thats not the case then i'm afraid he, like me and you and others of this community are in the same boat and cannot make claims like the one that was made.

You do realize that a word like "but" is a retraction of your previous statement right? So, no you really don't respect first hand experience. I will grant that there are a lot of "internet experts" and "Keyboard commando's" that pretend to be something their not. However, with Detcord im inclined to believe he's not some poser.See my above post.
Once again, i was quiete happy to ask for links and some sort of evidence which is actually credible, not some garbage posted by some blogger.
Why the serving in combat came up, don't hold me to account, ask him.
You're assuming and putting words in my mouth.
I'm quiete happy and possibly sometimes a bit harsh in debating and asking for links to a claim made, but for someone to throw the "i served" line and to then expect automatic credibility to their posts in future, from that moment on is ludicrous.
I hope you're not implying that that is the case, since that would disappoint me.
I asked for links, credible sources to his claim, and the poster came up with a dodgy link and that he served.
Now, you say i don't respect someone because they served?
You're basing that on what?
Assumptions?
Knowledge?
Or just the thought process that "how dare someone questions someone who served" no matter what they post?
Seems like it.

Dude, If i had served in recent years and been there, done that, bought the T shirt, i'd have said the same thing. Because when you pair that personal experience to what your saying on a message board and having most likely never seen anything at all first hand, well.... yeahYea yea i get it, if you served it gives you the right to claim something, granted, with more knowledge than say i, however once again, to make a claim like the one he did is nothing without cold hard facts.
The difference between you and me it seems is that you seem to think that how dare i question him and that i should put up and shut up and let him or anyone who has served post claims without being able to ask for links or even question what they say.
Stuff that.

Nothing personal Feuer Frei, I'm just saying when you go barking up someones tree who may have actual experience, you may want to think about it first. Because if your wrong, you make yourself look really bad.Nothing personal either, although if it isn't then your claims are pretty harsh.
As for me being wrong?
Not likely since i don't spout out claims in a thread, and bleat undeniably that that is what happened, without so much as an iota of proof, from say a body or organisation that is actually involved in the current conflict, not 10 years ago or however long poster served, or you for that matter, then i think it's quiete appropriate to ask for further clarification on why that poster made such a claim.
Without getting into the whole debate of oh oh i served, which has absolutely nothing to do with the request to present facts to a claim made in relation to this particular issue.

You will of course say that veterans are more quaslified to comment on matters such as these, i have no doubt.
But, it still doesn't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt whether the claim made is true or not.

I rest my case for now.

I don't want to get into a slanging match with you.

Oberon

08-31-13, 05:51 AM

Which means the politicians will lack the smoking gun which would justify the red line they set themselves.
I wonder if it wasn't for the absolute balls up they made with their claims of "evidence" over Iraq if they would get a smoother ride this time with their claims?
Not that any of them are dealing with the crucial "then what?" aspect of any military intervention.

I think if it hadn't have been for Iraq and the fiasco that was the WMD 'evidence' there, we would probably be bombing by now. Certainly parliament wouldn't have been so twitchy about voting for action.

Feuer Frei!

08-31-13, 05:52 AM

So Putin says US Claim is nonsense

Get that evidence out.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has dismissed US claims that Syria's regime used chemical weapons, describing them as "utter nonsense"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23911833

Skybird

08-31-13, 06:12 AM

kraznyi_oktjabr

08-31-13, 06:21 AM

What do you think Russia will do in the event of an attack?You have mid-term elections coming, don't you? You remember that fella called Snowden who is in vacation in Russia? Maybe he has some nice conversations with press just before election day... :hmmm:

Vince82

08-31-13, 06:54 AM

Showing a written claim that one has evidence, and showing the evidence, are two different things.

They seem to have big problem to see that difference. Instead they want their claim taken as the evidence itself.

Unacceptable.

No circus director will make the audience laughing by just claiming that the circus has a clown. The clown has to enter the arena himself and make his jokes, there is no way around that.

Evidence, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Obama. Evidence. Either you show it, or you don't.

Mr. Kerry already did say that himself. He said this is what or findings are and this is what we got. It's no evidence, but draw your own conclussions. Some things are classified, but we will show them to your government officials.

I was reasoning the same way as the Russians did, because it's just not very smart to use chemical weapons. The Assad regime must have thought they could cover it up and maybe they felt they needed to use them in order to get the upper hand in the conflict. And maybe the temptation of using them was too great because of the effectiviness. I don't think Assad has any sort of compassion with the victims. He sees them as muslim terrorists that use chemical weapons aswell.

Skybird

08-31-13, 07:29 AM

"It's no evidence, but draw your own conclusions."

Drawing conclusions on the basis of what? Claims...? The claims need to be proven, then - when they are proven to be correct claims, and thus are shown to be not mere claims but facts - then you can draw conclusions.

I have repeatedly argued in this thread that it makes absolutely no sense that Assad wanted this strike at this time, and should have ordered it. I concluded by that that it may be a staged act by the rebels, because they have a very great interest in as high collateral casualties as possible, for propaganda reasons. Later I added the possibility that a failure in the chain of command took place, that the attack was kind of "accidental" (which is no excuse, to make that clear).

But the US claims they know from where the rockets were started, where they went, and what they did. And leaves it to those claims. That sounds like 2003, what they claimed about the WMDs: "We know they have them and we know where they are."

Sorry, that is no basis for making conclusions, but speculations. That is no evidence. This way it's no way.

Packlife

08-31-13, 08:07 AM

This is nothing like 2003, in 03' they were talking about weapons that nobody knew where they were an they hadn't been used in years. This is not the case an your idea of a "rebel" staged scheme falls flat. I've seen more then 1 doctor on CNN watch those videos an call out all the little things that say yes this person is dying from a chemical weapons attack. An then there's the rows of dead kids, you think your gonna get that many kids to lay that still an not breath for minutes yeah ok. An Assad doesn't care he did it once twice up to 30 times an nobody said anything till the attack on the 21st. Even the inspectors said they were held up for 4 days while Assad's ppl ratcheted up the shelling of the area where the attack's took place. The only ppl who don't believe gas was used is Skybird and Assad.

kraznyi_oktjabr

08-31-13, 08:19 AM

Catfish

08-31-13, 08:27 AM

@packlife: sS you were there and saw it ? And maybe even teset this substance ?

I have to say, Mr Kerry telling me that 'certain substances' have been used, does not convince me.

He should at least had held up some test tube with some green slime in it, you know like Powell did, before the UN. And Mr Cheney in the background, somewhere,
THAT would have convinced me, since i am still dumb as a brick :O:

Ducimus

08-31-13, 08:35 AM

I don't want to get into a slanging match with you.

That's fine. It's clearly obvious you know everything. Nothing anyone could say would make any difference.

Vince82

08-31-13, 08:37 AM

The only ppl who don't believe gas was used is Skybird and Assad.

You forget about President Putin according to him it's utter nonsense to suggest Assad did it. He's probably just trying to be funny....

Skybird

08-31-13, 08:56 AM

. The only ppl who don't believe gas was used is Skybird and Assad.

False claim by you, as proven by repeated comments of mine that it probably were chemical weapons indeed. Why and By whom are the questions remaining.

Stick to the facts, or stay out.

What I say is the attack and its timing make absolutely no sense from Assad's POV, but that rebels have a high interest in big collateral damages reported in the world press. And that raises questions.

And to make it completely clear to you what I think: I rate every of these three scenarios

- Assad ordered it
- breakdown in chain of command, a communication error or internal power struggle led to it
- the rebels did it

an equal probability of 30 %, and give a remaining probability of not more than 10 % for the possibility that the attack was not chemical at all.

The only thing that is 100% certain is that an event took place, whatever it might have been and whomever may be responsible for it.

Feuer Frei!

08-31-13, 09:10 AM

That's fine. It's clearly obvious you know everything. Nothing anyone could say would make any difference.

Listen, if you wanna defend your little buddy and start openly attacking me then do it in pm.

I suggest you have a serious think about why you jumped in, what you wrote and why you make some pretty dumb accusations.

Putting words in my mouth, assuming you know what i think or why i posted something when it had absolutely nothing to do with you is rich.
Doing it in this thread is even richer.
PM me otherwise let your buddy defend himself, with facts.
Not assumptions and opinions based on bloggers.

Skybird

08-31-13, 09:34 AM

A good piece from the NYT. Advice worth to be considered.

Experts fear US plan to strike Syria overlooks risks:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?from=homepage

Its a 'lil complex for added excitement, isn't it…

Skybird

08-31-13, 09:54 AM

And this from the WP

http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-1500-killed-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says/2013/08/30/b2864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

While unusually detailed, the assessment does not include photographs, recordings or other hard evidence to support its claims. Nor does it offer proof to back up the administration’s assertion that top-ranking Syrian officials — possibly including President Bashar al-Assad — were complicit in the attack.

u crank

08-31-13, 09:59 AM

Experts fear US plan to strike Syria overlooks risks:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/experts-fear-us-plan-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?from=homepage

Ever walk down the side walk and step on something you wished you hadn't stepped on?

That would leave the United States to choose between a loss of credibility and a more expansive — and unpopular — conflict, they said. “So he continues on in defiance — maybe he even launches another chemical attack to put a stick in our eye — and then what?” Mr. Crocker said. “Because once you start down this road, it’s pretty hard to get off it and maintain political credibility.”

The rabbit hole awaits.

Skybird

08-31-13, 10:14 AM

And German FAZ reports (refering to Jane's Defence Weekly) that Moscow has not frozen but cancelled the sale of 12 Mig29, 6 S300 SAM systems, and 36 Yak130 jet trainers.

TLAM Strike

08-31-13, 10:57 AM

The Assault ship San Antonio just joined the five destroyers in the Med, while the Russians have sent two new warships and are going to send Admiral Kuznetsov to the Med.

US Forces:
USS Barry
USS Gravely
USS Mahan
USS Ramage
USS Stout
USS San Antonio (26th MEU(-))

NATO:
French Frigate Chevalier Paul

Russian Forces:
Slava cruiser Moscova
Udaloy destroyer Marshal Shaposhnikov
Amur Class Repair Ship PM-138 (off Cyprus, evacuated Russian personel from base in Tartous)
+ about 8 others (might be 1 Udaloy, 1 Kashtin, 1-2 Neustrashimyy, 5 anphibs) which were already in the med on exercises in the past weeks and months.

Syrian Naval Forces:
Nothing of interest but they do have 72 P-800 Yakhont ASMs and ~25 C-802 ASMs,

(Fred Thompson meme on standby)

Oberon

08-31-13, 11:49 AM

Pretty sure there's a Traffie around there too, I know Tireless popped up near Gibraltar a few days ago, whether they'll have moved her on station just in case the vote went Daves way and will pull her out, or keep her there just to monitor things, who can say? Westminster is at Gib as well, but she's probably still there sticking the finger to the Spanish.
I think Lusty is down there too, but she's not really much use with just a handful of Apaches to play with.
The Kuznetsov's deployment is routine, but certainly also a message to the US fleet to back off, especially if she berths up at Tartus like her last deployment.

So...yes...

http://jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/fred-thompson-hunt.jpg

Oberon

08-31-13, 12:13 PM

Obama due to make a statement in a few minutes.

CaptainHaplo

08-31-13, 12:14 PM

Even if one accepts that chemical weapons were used (and I do think that there is little doubt of that fact) - there remains the question of who used them. The US position that it was the Assad regime is based on an intercepted call that makes it clear that defense officials were NOT aware such an action was sanctioned. In other words, the very proof that is claimed to substantiate the regime's culpability is that which offers great doubt about the very thing.

Logically, it made no sense for Assad to ok the use of CW's. It made very little sense for his brother to go "rogue" and use them on his own. It made perfect sense for the rebels to use them.

Attacking without even knowing who the perpetrator is? Attacking a nation for something that there is no proof they are responsible for?

Didn't he complain about the same thing?

:/\\!!

Tribesman

08-31-13, 12:20 PM

This is nothing like 2003, in 03' they were talking about weapons that nobody knew where they were an they hadn't been used in years.
Maybe I am getting too old and my memory is getting fuzzy, but in '03 didn't they repeatedly claim they knew where the weapons were?

vienna

08-31-13, 12:37 PM

Maybe I am getting too old and my memory is getting fuzzy, but in '03 didn't they repeatedly claim they knew where the weapons were?

Absolutely. And, to borrow from Arlo Guthrie, with "8x10 color glossy photos, with a paragraph on the back back of each one saying what each one was"...

<O>

andritsos

08-31-13, 12:52 PM

Lets hear the Obamatalk

he ll seek authorisation in congress it seems

Oberon

08-31-13, 12:56 PM

Looks like he's taking the UK route. Can't see the likelihood of Congress passing it, although, it is a sly move. If Congress blocks it, then he can portray Congress as supporting a regime that uses chemical weapons, and if they pass it and it gets out of control then he can turn around and say "Hey, at least I went to Congress." :03:

eddie

08-31-13, 01:03 PM

Its the right thing to do, let Congress debate.

Platapus

08-31-13, 01:06 PM

Seems to me that taking some blood samples of the "survivors" and some tissue samples of the dead would provide the necessary evidence. I hope the UN was able to do this.

I share the concerns already posted about the motivation of the Syrian government authorizing the release of chemical weapons. Many bad words can be used to describe al-Assad, but irrational and insane are not two of them. :nope: .

There is still a lot that does not make sense.

vienna

08-31-13, 01:07 PM

Oberon

08-31-13, 01:14 PM

Where it will get interesting in Congress is where the votes will come down: if the GOP votes in a lockstep block to deny and the Assad regime commits a new chemical weapons atrocity, the issue of GOP seeming culpability or benign collusion is sure to be an issue in the mid-term elections in 2014. This, for the GOP leadership, may be a case of be careful what you ask for...

<O>

Exactly, you can bet that the whip...or whatever you have in the US will be ringing around all the Democrats to get them to support it, and if the GOP blocks it, then Obama has enough ammunition against them for a long time, particularly as more and more disturbing images come out of Syria...which they will, this much is certain because if, after all the bluster, Obama does obey a no vote from Congress and stands back, then Assad will destroy the opposition with relish, and will also take measures to cement his powerbase by extending strikes against anyone who might be a problem in the post-civil war Syria. When the next US election comes around, it'll be bleeding Syrian children with the message "The GOP put petty partisan politics ahead of warcrimes and dying Syrian children, vote Democrat."
Sly move, Obama, sly move.

CaptainHaplo

08-31-13, 01:16 PM

I don't often do this - but looking for Congress to approve of any military action in Syria is the right thing to do. I am glad the President has made that choice. He did the right thing on that - and deserves the credit for it.

Yes, we can argue that it might have been smart politically, etc etc... I get it. But it also was simply the way our system works - and he respected that. For that, I give him credit on this decision.

He could have used the 100 day rule - but he didn't. I am glad he made the right choice.

vienna

08-31-13, 01:17 PM

If it does come down that way, it won't be just a sly move by the Dems, it will be a continuation of the gross stupidity of the GOP leadership and the further erosion of the partty...

<O>

Wolferz

08-31-13, 01:23 PM

It's a con job. For what purpose is yet to be revealed. I guess we'll see soon enough. I think Congress had better weigh this properly by taking the pulse of the nation. I'm not for it.:-? Yes, it's tragic what happened but, I'm not seeing where these events have threatened our national security, if there is such a thing. You can help the Syrian opposition with humanitarian aid but, that's as far as I would go with assisting them. Anything else paints a nefarious agenda for the fate of their country.
Going forward with military action will definitely identify which of the players will put up or shut up.

CaptainHaplo

08-31-13, 01:28 PM

Exactly, you can bet that the whip...or whatever you have in the US will be ringing around all the Democrats to get them to support it, and if the GOP blocks it, then Obama has enough ammunition against them for a long time, particularly as more and more disturbing images come out of Syria...which they will, this much is certain because if, after all the bluster, Obama does obey a no vote from Congress and stands back, then Assad will destroy the opposition with relish, and will also take measures to cement his powerbase by extending strikes against anyone who might be a problem in the post-civil war Syria. When the next US election comes around, it'll be bleeding Syrian children with the message "The GOP put petty partisan politics ahead of warcrimes and dying Syrian children, vote Democrat."
Sly move, Obama, sly move.

This assumes that it was Assad who authorized the use of such weapons. Given that it is at least equally possible that the rebels were the ones that used them - based on other CW attacks against Syrian loyalists - it might very well come out that the GOP stopped an attack that would have killed innocent people. Time will tell.

Oberon

08-31-13, 01:31 PM

This assumes that it was Assad who authorized the use of such weapons. Given that it is at least equally possible that the rebels were the ones that used them - based on other CW attacks against Syrian loyalists - it might very well come out that the GOP stopped an attack that would have killed innocent people. Time will tell.

Time will indeed tell, but I'd be willing to reckon that the UN report will indicate that while chemical weapons were used, they cannot say who by. The US will then be able to point to its 'intel' and say 'It was Assad', and if Congress blocks the action and Assad does go ahead and use chemical weapons because he feels that he can definitely get away with it, then that's the GOP pretty much screwed in the midterms and perhaps the next election.

Jimbuna

08-31-13, 01:38 PM

Jimbuna

08-31-13, 01:40 PM

Oberon

08-31-13, 01:42 PM

Wonder if the Soviets have any underwater assets in the area :hmm2:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Sigmund_Freud_LIFE.jpg/200px-Sigmund_Freud_LIFE.jpg

Thirty years ago maybe, Jim. :03:

kraznyi_oktjabr

08-31-13, 01:53 PM

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/12/Sigmund_Freud_LIFE.jpg/200px-Sigmund_Freud_LIFE.jpg

Thirty years ago maybe, Jim. :03:C'mon Oberon! Don't burst Vladimir's bubble! :03:

Platapus

08-31-13, 01:54 PM

I just get this mental image of Darth Chaney, watching the news, down in his underground lair, eyes glowing through his hood, sneering "excellent, my young apprentice..." :o

Oberon

08-31-13, 02:08 PM

C'mon Oberon! Don't burst Vladimir's bubble! :03:

But...But...I thought Obama was the communist now?

This whole post-Cold war existence is confusing... :doh: :haha:

u crank

08-31-13, 02:16 PM

I just get this mental image of Darth Chaney, watching the news, down in his underground lair, eyes glowing through his hood, sneering "excellent, my young apprentice..." :o

:rotfl2:

Wait.... that's actually kinda scary.

vienna

08-31-13, 02:17 PM

But...But...I thought Obama was the communist now?

This whole post-Cold war existence is confusing... :doh: :haha:

Perhaps I have a better answer; lets talk....

http://symbolreader.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/carl-jung.jpg

<O>

Oberon

08-31-13, 02:32 PM

:haha::haha::haha: :up:

Tribesman

08-31-13, 02:37 PM

Seems to me that taking some blood samples of the "survivors" and some tissue samples of the dead would provide the necessary evidence. I hope the UN was able to do this.

All that would do is provide the same evidence as last time, where they found two people had been exposed to chemical weapons but not how or by who.
Unless they can provide evidence as to which faction did it they cannot prove who the guilty party is.

Packlife

08-31-13, 03:27 PM

Skybird I would like to point out one thing though. Your looking at Assad's POV from your mind, it's been started that Assad is highly irrational. Second this is a man who in his mind thinks that country belongs to him since his dad gave it to him in 2000, an he will fight to the death to keep it especially considering he doesn't have the option of loosing because loosing means death for him an for his Alawites. Now if I was in Assad's position I'd see my two paths clear I can A) not use the chemical weapons/gas weapons an hope I can either wear the rebels out in a longgggggggg drawn out war that'll leave me w/ very little country standing, or B) I use my chemical/gas weapons dare the US to stop me since I have the backing of Iran China an Russia, an I try to win this war now. Because it would be my life my wife an children's life as well as the lives of my clan on the line as well. Now if it's my life an the lives of my family on the line me personally I'm fighting tooth an nail there's no length I wouldn't go to protect my family. I'd also add that after he gassed his ppl the first couple times an nobody said nothing to him he figured he was good. But Obama just put the lives of thousands of Syrian ppl in the hands of the most incompetent Congress ever known to man these guy's cant decide how to make a pb&j sandwich. Obama definitely dissapointed me w/ that decision he's not even asking Congress to return early from their recess. So meanwhile back in Syria Assad will definitely ramp up his attacks, you can probably guarantee the artillery will be going round the clock probably whatever aircraft he has in country since he probably sent some into Iran to protect them from us. I've got a real bad feeling on this latest decision made by Obama, just a gut feeling that nothing good will come of it, w/ a congress full of nut jobs, an a mad man gassing his own ppl smh this is going to get a lot worse for the Syrians. Obama pretty much said Assad ya got at least 10 days to do as much damage as possible since the great John Boehner said congress will not be coming back early to vote. Obama is trying to do the opposite of everything Bush did which I understand, but don't do it at the cost of probably thousands of more lives

Platapus

08-31-13, 03:29 PM

A good point. But the first step is to establish that any side used any chemical weapons. Until we can establish that, trying to find out who did it is a waste of time.

One of the problems is that there is evidence that people have been exposed to toxic and otherwise harmful chemicals. But then there is a war going on and factories and chemical pipelines are being damaged all the time. Many of the external symptoms of an industrial chemical exposure can be very similar to the external symptoms of a chemical weapon exposure.

One can not assume that because someone is exposed to harmful chemicals that they were exposed to chemical weapons.

All chemical weapons are harmful chemicals, but not all harmful chemicals are chemical weapons. :)

That's why I am initially focusing on the blood/tissue tests.

We have to determine whether the causalities are caused by exposure to a mixture of industrial chemicals as a result of the destruction or whether they were caused by chemical weapon agents.

Videos of choking and burned victims, while heart rendering, do not prove chemical weapon agent exposure. This is why I am skeptical of the human based reporting of chemical agent usage.

As I learned in my chemical warfare courses, you can't identify or even confirm chemical agent exposure by just observing the causality.

Also, even with a non-persistent chemical weapon agent, there will be some environmental evidence that will remain in the soil and on other natural and cultural structures. It is only the toxic properties that are non-persistent, not the chemicals themselves.

I did not mean to imply that I thought that blood/tissue tests are all that is required. Just that they would be required to confirm any use of chemical agents.

Once it is established that there were chemical weapon agents used, then, and only then, can an investigation, on where the agents came from and who may have used them, be started.

Jimbuna

08-31-13, 03:31 PM

Unless they can provide evidence as to which faction did it they cannot prove who the guilty party is.

Precisely :yep:

Oberon

08-31-13, 03:37 PM

I dunno about Assad being irrational, he's quite well educated, although he wasn't the top pick for the job, but got it when his older brother died, so he's probably not the most stable leader in the middle east, but he's also not stupid, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation and the US would have begun bombing Syria a long time ago.

Here's an article worth a read, by a left-leaning UK paper:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/17/syrians-support-assad-western-propaganda

Jimbuna

08-31-13, 03:48 PM

Governments in the west have survived with lower ratings :hmmm:

Jimbuna

08-31-13, 03:54 PM

The circus continues...one of the clowns starts growing in confidence some might say....

Russian President Vladimir Putin has challenged the US to present to the UN evidence that Syria attacked rebels with chemical weapons near Damascus.
Mr Putin said it would be "utter nonsense" for Syria's government to provoke opponents with such attacks.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23911833

Platapus

08-31-13, 04:14 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23911833

They are taking the evidence they gathered during four days of site visits to the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, in The Hague.

The samples are thought to include soil, swabs from munitions, blood and hair from the victims and, experts say, possibly even flesh from dead bodies.

Excellent. Actual samples to be evaluated by an independent organization. This is exactly what we need. So the question for President Obama is, why not wait until the results of the tests are completed and published?

Packlife

08-31-13, 04:28 PM

Platapus

08-31-13, 04:39 PM

Well nobody is really disputing whether or not chemical weapons were used, thats the 1 thing that everybody has agreed upon.

I would be most interested in reading a citation that supports that.

That is a pretty big assertions to make on this issue.

u crank

08-31-13, 04:48 PM

Obama already said he's decided to strike Syria but he's gonna let the congress jam everything up for the next 10+ days. May God have mercy on those will pay the ultimate price for that horrible decision.

Considering the fact that over 100,000 have been killed and over 1.5 million are refugees in other countries, it's a little late to close the barn door. The horse is gone.

kraznyi_oktjabr

08-31-13, 04:59 PM

Well nobody is really disputing whether or not chemical weapons were used, thats the 1 thing that everybody has agreed upon. An maybe if it was just a few ppl who lived by a factory or plant sure, but when you have over 1,400 dead an they all came from multiple locations the idea that it was spilled chemicals from a factory falls short.<snip> The Bhopal disaster, also referred to as the Bhopal gas tragedy, was a gas leak incident in India, considered the world's worst industrial disaster. It occurred on the night of 2–3 December 1984 at the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh. Over 500,000 people were exposed to methyl isocyanate gas and other chemicals. The toxic substance made its way in and around the shanty towns located near the plant. Estimates vary on the death toll. The official immediate death toll was 2,259. The government of Madhya Pradesh confirmed a total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release. Others estimate 8,000 died within two weeks and another 8,000 or more have since died from gas-related diseases. A government affidavit in 2006 stated the leak caused 558,125 injuries including 38,478 temporary partial injuries and approximately 3,900 severely and permanently disabling injuries.

Bhopal disaster (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster)

Alex

08-31-13, 05:04 PM

The circus continues...one of the clowns starts growing in confidence some might say....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23911833
Since some time now, and it's clear to everyone (http://youtu.be/0SXBeMhIgFo).

vienna

08-31-13, 05:08 PM

Obama is essentially doing what the Congress whines about every time a situation like this comes up; they always (no matter which party is in control) pout and fuss about how the President (again, of either party) is taking on too much power, how he is disregarding the "will of the people" (read: the will of the party in control of Congress) and all the other standard platitudes run out on these occasions. The real truth is all Congress has to do is fully repeal/revoke the War Powers Act and, if necessary, enact further checks on assumed presidential perogatives. Simple: don't want him to go to war without your say so, just pull the rug out from under his "powers". But this will never happen. Each party wishes to reserve those assumptive powers for when their guy is in the White House...

The other reality is the ability of any present or future President to respond to any international situation without an obstructive degree of scrutiny has been severly hampered by the actions of the Bush's neo-con cronies and the Cheney "Old Guard" in regards to the whole Iraq War mess. They have done for presidential initiative what Nixon did for the ability of the American people to have faith in the operations and intents of their goverment....

<O>

Skybird

08-31-13, 06:08 PM

Syrian army have evacuated key facilities of theirs in Damascus. One can assume precious weapon platforms have been brought to hardened shelter as well, or are constantly moved around, or hidden. Key personnel of their weapons programs are in hiding already, too. Military command posts have been moved and evacuated.

But Obama said that "it does not matter whether to strike now, tomorrow or in one month". Obviously nobody briefed him on the meaning of "surprise"?! If striking, he should have done it already days ago.

Just saying. To illustrate into what a corner he has manouvered himself.

When he now fires, he will not do much damage, probably, not by the small scale that is to be expected. Which delivers a message of weakness, due to the limited reach and consequences of the strike.

When he doe snot strike,l he again now sends a message of weakness.

Assad may answer by launching a gassing attack afterwards. Which would damage America's and Obama's reputation even more.

The Americans will try hard to reduce the score on civilian victims, which will reduce the military effect of any strike even further. Such collateral losses will be propaganda assets for Assad, helping him to find new support in the Arab world.

Or Iran will stage one. With the same result for America.

As I see it, Obama has outmanouvered himself. And now only self-damaging options are left.

Clever. Assad may have overstepped a red line that was meant as a big-mouthed bluff. But Obama is trapped in the dumps - and that is no bluff, but is real.

Maybe another rhetoric lecturing of Putin on how angry a little boy Putin is, will help improve Obama's rating again? :D

One thing is certain. America has found the limits of its power and influence once again over this story. Even if it would produce a substantial, serious military major campaign, it then would cause shockwaves in the region (Iran, Lebanon, Israel, Hezbollah, Hamas, gulf states) that probably would dominate over any US military victory in a Syrian "field battle". The situation now and today is more complex and instable, than Iraq 2003. And the risks for Israel to get drawn into a war, are higher.

And then there is the angry big mouth in Turkey. Oh my, what a sight.

Never was the phrase "FUBAR" as precious as today!

Tchocky

08-31-13, 06:23 PM

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/782228-aumfresolutiontext.html

Draft resolution from the White House to Congress

Platapus

08-31-13, 06:33 PM

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/782228-aumfresolutiontext.html

Draft resolution from the White House to Congress

Facepalm!

No end dates for re-authorization, no limits on scope, loop-holes you can fly a 747 through..... What could possibly go wrong?
:nope:

Tchocky

08-31-13, 06:33 PM

White phosphorus in an urban environment.

According to Tchocky so much more civilised than gassing. He obviously never has seen how it works on human flesh, and burns jnto the body with people going insane in pain. If you survive, the scars and mutilations are terrible.

:nope:

At least respond to what I actually posted instead of playing stupid and offensive games with what I did not post.

Facepalm!

No end dates for re-authorization, no limits on scope, loop-holes you can fly a 747 through..... What could possibly go wrong?
:nope:

I'd like to see an end-date as well, but to me the wording seems fairly tightly condensed to the chemical weapons aspect. As is every pronouncement coming out of Washington - no regime change, only a response to the gassing.

Packlife

08-31-13, 06:38 PM

Yea I understand a lot of ppl have already died, but for Obama to go out on tv an say I've decided to use military force against Assad's regime an then say but first I'm chill for 10 days waitin for congress to come back from break. He could of at least asked them to come back early, but I did hear that the senate might come back early an do a vote of their own. What's crazy is Obama doesn't even need congress's authorization to do what he wants to do. If he wanted to declare an all out war on Syria then he'd need the congress to authorize that. An what I meant by the God have mercy on those who will suffer from his decision now, was that Assad is going to seriously crank up his attacks on the Syrian rebels an civilians. The weapons inspectors weren't even outta Damascus an the artillery batteries had started up again. Assad said he might attack Israel in retalliation, thats a horrible move on his part Israel is itching for a reason to go off on him. I think it was the Israeli PM or DM who said if anybody attacks them they will defend themselves "ferociously". An you know Israel does not play around they will tear somebody up bad.

mapuc

08-31-13, 06:43 PM

I have written some comments in this thread. Mostly of what I believe and some from what I have read.

Now I rest and wait...until they have made this strike, then I again, can, from the result, give my point/argument

We all have our opinion on this issue and maybe some of them is head on.

I hope that USA isn't planing on getting involved in this Civil war, not more than just this "Narrow operation" against Assad.

Markus

Mr Quatro

08-31-13, 06:43 PM

What if your neighbor was seen spanking his child in his backyard rather severely?

The little child was yelling, screaming, crying bloody murder and hollering at the top of his lungs. Yet the fathers backside was to you and you couldn't get a good angle for a picture of the man doing the crime. You are almost certain it was him so you check it out.

You have your child go over and ask the little boy what was going on and the child said that his father beat him unmercifully for no apparent reason.

You call the cops, but they do nothing. The father finds out from the police that question him that the American neighbor on his left did this (not the Jewish neighbor on his right).

The father writes a dirty note to both neighbors threatening to take action against both of them. He will put nails in their driveway, he will spray all of their trees with harmful poisons, he will tear down their satellite antenna, he will cut off their phone, lights, gas and internet service.

What do you do?

Do you live in fear? Stay the course? Get other neighbors to help you fight back?

Draw your conclusions from the same thing President Obama and the US Congress have to face soon and very soon.

Fear is the number one enemy ... always has been and always will be :yep:

President Obama is doing the right thing now it is up to the US Congress to decide if the punishment phase should go into effect.