Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Platapus]

Under the War Powers Act of 1973, the POTUS can only introduce US Armed Forces into hostilities under one of only three conditions

1. A declaration of war by Congress
2. Specific statutory authorization (this is what President Obama is asking for)
3. "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions, or its armed forces." That is a direct quote from the War Powers Act of 1973.

It would be difficult to consider what is happening in Syria as applying to item 3.

So no the president can't legally just decide to send US Military into hostilities. That's the whole purpose of the War Powers Act, and the reason no President since 1973 has recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act.

If in the instance of item 3, the President must provide specific information as soon as possible. The exact words are "The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after such introduction shall consult regularly with Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. "

If after 60 days from either the delivery of the first report or the deployment of US Armed Forces, the Congress has not either declared war nor issued a statutory authority, the President must recall all US Armed Forces. There is an option to extend this an additional 30 days for the purpose of withdrawal logistics.

So no the president can't just decide to send in the troops and yes the president needs congressional approval if he can make a legal decision to send in the troops.

I think the War Powers Act is a necessary check on the powers of the Executive and Commander in Chief.

[TLAM Strike]

Wonder if the Soviets have any underwater assets in the area :hmm2:
Earlier this year there was a 2 Russian subs on maneuvers in the Med, 1 nuc and one diesel. I doubt those two boats are still on station but they were most likely replaced by other subs.

There was a E-6B Mercury spotted near the UK heading south so it would be a good guess that the US has one or more subs out there.

[mapuc]

Under the War Powers Act of 1973, the POTUS can only introduce US Armed Forces into hostilities under one of only three conditions

1. A declaration of war by Congress
2. Specific statutory authorization (this is what President Obama is asking for)
3. "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions, or its armed forces." That is a direct quote from the War Powers Act of 1973.

It would be difficult to consider what is happening in Syria as applying to item 3.

So no the president can't legally just decide to send US Military into hostilities. That's the whole purpose of the War Powers Act, and the reason no President since 1973 has recognized the constitutionality of the War Powers Act.

If in the instance of item 3, the President must provide specific information as soon as possible. The exact words are "The President in every possible instance shall consult with Congress before introducing United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and after such introduction shall consult regularly with Congress until United States Armed Forces are no longer engaged in hostilities or have been removed from such situations. "

If after 60 days from either the delivery of the first report or the deployment of US Armed Forces, the Congress has not either declared war nor issued a statutory authority, the President must recall all US Armed Forces. There is an option to extend this an additional 30 days for the purpose of withdrawal logistics.

So no the president can't just decide to send in the troops and yes the president needs congressional approval if he can make a legal decision to send in the troops.

I think the War Powers Act is a necessary check on the powers of the Executive and Commander in Chief.

I toke a copy of this and posted it on some of my friends wall. That because they wrote things like

Obama is a war... He is only interested in sending American soldie into an another war etc etc.

Your posting said it very clearly why these people had a wrong idea of how things works in USA and for the president. Regarding sending American soldie into a war.

Markus

[Skybird]

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.

You know that Iran and Hezbollah - armed up to the teeth and having stalled the Israelis in 2006 while now being better armed, trained and dug in - are sitting right at the Israelis' border in Lebanon, yes? Believe me, Hezbollah just waits for the Israelis to move. And also believe me that while the Israelis may be willing to retaliate against Syria in case of being attacked, they are nevertheless not eager at all to get drawn into this mess. They already have security concerns enough.

[Packlife]

Yeah I know Hezbollah an Iran are waitin but Hezbollah got their hands full fighting for Assad against the rebels an they're having trouble back home w/ Sunni militias been bombing them left an right. Besides we wouldn't leave Israel hanging between the US an Israel it would naasty for those two.

[Armistead]

We need to keep out, two of our enemies fighting each other, sad that innocents are dying, but we killed our fair share in Afgan and Iraq war. It will cost billions of dollars and solve nothing, cept whoever wins we'll be in conflict with. Millions are dying in Africa from war, so it's certainly a political ploy by Obama. War will come soon enough with the entire area, let's wait til then.

[Father Goose]

We need to keep out, two of our enemies fighting each other, sad that innocents are dying, but we killed our fair share in Afgan and Iraq war. It will cost billions of dollars and solve nothing, cept whoever wins we'll be in conflict with.

I agree 100%. It's "amateur hour" at the White House.

[Armistead]

I agree 100%. It's "amateur hour" at the White House.

Agreed! When Obama spoke that he made the decision to attack, I almost laughed when he said he made another decision to ask congress. He should've just stated he was going to congress. Just another case of big men in back room smoking cigars deciding how to spin it politically, then send poor men to die if it fits. All these wars are costing our future, trillions better spent.

[nikimcbee]

Agreed! When Obama spoke that he made the decision to attack, I almost laughed when he said he made another decision to ask congress. He should've just stated he was going to congress. Just another case of big men in back room smoking cigars deciding how to spin it politically, then send poor men to die if it fits. All these wars are costing our future, trillions better spent.

Congress.....:hmmm: I see a move to blame it on the republicans.:haha: Starting timer...now.:Kaleun_Los:

[Tribesman]

Under the War Powers Act of 1973, the POTUS can only introduce US Armed Forces into hostilities under one of only three conditions

1. A declaration of war by Congress
2. Specific statutory authorization (this is what President Obama is asking for)
3. "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories, or possessions, or its armed forces." That is a direct quote from the War Powers Act of 1973.

It would be difficult to consider what is happening in Syria as applying to item 3.


Easily solved on 3.
Park a destroyer in disputed waters during fighting and then claim someone shot at it.
Its worked before.:03:

[Mittelwaechter]

More and more I believe, the US military is a Saudi tool these days - to kick Assad and Iran. "Pay the oil with military power and keep your worthless greenbacks".
And a cornered Obama runs a show right now, telling his will to act, but in need for the Congress legitimation to attack. "Sorry may oily Prince, I tried everything to follow your wishes, but I can't break my own laws, you know. But I can deliver more weapons, training and intelligence to withdraw Assad and his friends."

:hmmm:

I see only one justified solution for Syria: according to the R2P (right to protect) rules, an international force with superior tech should enter Syria and install safe areas along the borders for the Syrian civilians. Expand these areas from the borders and destroy any resistance. No strategic important terrains, but a passive no fly zone over these areas.

No support for any fighting party in Syria, but the safe place for the pepole who choose to stay out of the conflict. That's the R2P spirit. Let Assad and the aggressors fight their dispute, but save the peaceful people. When done, ask the protected people, if they want to fight the remaining party (and let them do!) or if they want to accept the winner.

This should consequently be done in all the conflicts worldwide, to bring them to an end.

It would be possible, if there were no further interests of members of the international community concerning Syria - and no interests of war profiteers around the world.

[Vince82]

Obama wants Congress's okay for Syria strike:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/obama-wants-congresss-okay-for-syria-strike/2013/08/31/586cf232-126a-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_video.html

[Tribesman]

I see only one justified solution for Syria:
So your solution is full scale invasion fighting against all factions in the conflict.
Not bad, now you just need agreement from Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Israel and the Leb on setting up on their borders.

[Skybird]

Okay, this is Fox News. Ignore it, its not my favourite station too.

Okay its Krauthammer, if you don't like him, ignore the name, because what he says is right on target. He does not even say what he thinks should be done in Syria. He only says how Obama makes look himself. And there is is absolutely right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTozBDR4esc


"But the most astonishing thing is the lack of any emergency."

[Mittelwaechter]

No full scale invasion of Syria, but a clear UN scripted conquest of rather small areas to create save zones for civilians. All civil war parties should agree with it, should they? There would be no fighting necessary, if they would support the safety of the people.

Turkey, Jordan and Israel should be no problem, and even Iraq would probably join the club. Lebanon would be difficult, but maybe the Russian harbour at Tartus could be a beachhead for a safe zone. I guess Tartus is Assad's playground right now and his forces could leave the area.

Edit: well, there are already safe areas on the other side of the borders in Turkey and Jordan. All people can decide, wheather they want to leave the battle grounds or not. The international community should stay out of Syria and stop all support for any party. Simply wait for the last man standing. Those who stay in the combat zones are on their own.

You have a war in your country? Move out of the way or fight.

@ skybird

First I thought one zombie interviews an other one. ;)

But Krauthammer has a valid point.

[Skybird]

No full scale invasion of Syria, but a clear UN scripted conquest of rather small areas to create save zones for civilians. All civil war parties should agree with it, should they? There would be no fighting necessary, if they would support the safety of the people.

There would be no fighting necessary if they would support the peace for the country. Thjey should agree with it, shouldn'T they?

Well, "should" is not "would".

The zones you envision would need solid protection. Else you end up like the Dutch at Srebrenica. Solid protection needs a robust mandate. A VERY robust mandate. You need huge and costly military resources and a whole lot of money. You need the UNSC speaking unisono for all that. You will not get that. You need to fight your way in, and then keep on fighting to hold your ground. Hezbollah and Iran are against negotiations, so is Assad, so is AQ, the radical militias, parts of the FSA. Even if the FSA would sympathise with your idea (which i doubt they do), you would still need to fight on two fronts against two different enemies at the same time, with the Lebanon soup cooking over any moment and spilling into Israel. A brawl everybody against everybody.

Don't want to attack you, but: stop dreaming. It's reality you are dealing with. And reality is no vegetarian, but a carnivore.

[Vince82]

Well being able to pause is better to not being able to.

President Obama is one of the few who has all the facts, congress will follow him after those facts are presented to them. He will get the green light from them to strike.

Immidiate action is not needed in Syria, because it's about condemning Syria's use of CW's. There is enough time to think things over, but within 2 weeks cruise missiles will hit the Assad regime.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

No full scale invasion of Syria, but a clear UN scripted conquest of rather small areas to create save zones for civilians. All civil war parties should agree with it, should they? There would be no fighting necessary, if they would support the safety of the people.

Turkey, Jordan and Israel should be no problem, and even Iraq would probably join the club. Lebanon would be difficult, but maybe the Russian harbour at Tartus could be a beachhead for a safe zone. I guess Tartus is Assad's playground right now and his forces could leave the area.Problem here is that how participants of Syrian civil war can trust that this intervention would also stay in that safe zone? Why should al-Assad assume that USA, Saudi Arabia et al would not use it as pretext for full scale invasion?

[Skybird]

@ skybird

First I thought one zombie interviews an other one. ;)

But Krauthammer has a valid point.
Some start smoking Botox form their 30th birthday on these days... :D The babyface starting the interview is evidence (if he even is 30).

[Jimbuna]

The Syrian government has said the country's army is ready for potential foreign attacks and "has its finger on the trigger".
Reports from Damascus say the Syrian military has been moving equipment to civilian areas, including near schools and mosques, in anticipation of possible US-led strikes.


Most brave of them but not totally unexpected I suppose.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23918025

[Mittelwaechter]

Yeah! I edited my last posting. Should have some sleep now...

[Skybird]

Most brave of them but not totally unexpected I suppose.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23918025

Quote from that link:

"Reports from Damascus say the Syrian military has been moving equipment to civilian areas, including near schools and mosques, "

They want to provoke collateral losses. America will try to avoid them and thus will scratch plenty of targets off their list now. Making any already limited strike even more ineffective.

Wouldn'T be surprised if they start to move huge civilian crowds onto their airfields and imprison them there around the bunkers and aircraft. Saddam did install plenty of human shields in Kuwait.

[u crank]

We need to keep out, two of our enemies fighting each other, sad that innocents are dying, but we killed our fair share in Afgan and Iraq war. It will cost billions of dollars and solve nothing, cept whoever wins we'll be in conflict with. Millions are dying in Africa from war, so it's certainly a political ploy by Obama. War will come soon enough with the entire area, let's wait til then.

Exactly. At this moment it is contained within Syria's borders. Any military incursion by US/ Europe could see it spread. There are already enough regional players on both sides. Let's face it, this country will never be the same again. Within this civil war there is a Sunni-Shia proxy war that will only get worse and will eventually involve most countries in the region. There is no upside.

And as far as the use of CW, I guess what the West wants is for al-Assad to make this promise. "Okay I wont use any more chemical weapons. I'll just go back to killing civilians the regular way." I know that would make me feel a whole lot better.

[Vince82]

The threat of an attack alone makes things incovenient for Assad and also shows the world that he's a coward that doesn't care about his own people.

[Packlife]

Obama is sneaky smart though he's playin chess. That whole "red line" comment was deliberately thought up, an it was more meant for Iran an N. Korea. If Assad wouldn't of used chemical weapons Obama considers it a check. But Assad used them so now Obama will bomb Assad some as a warning or however he wants to put it. But by actually doing the bombing it's his way of telling the Mullahs in Iran an that lil short guy in N. Korea "Go ahead an try me I tomahawked ya buddy Assad for gassing 1.400 ppl, you keep building those nukes an watch what I do". Make no mistake those two countries are watching what we do, an you might say well if Obama wouldn't of said "red line" he wouldn't have to prove a point to them. But if Obama just lets some nut job gas people without saying or doing anything, why would Iran or N. Korea worry about us doing anything about them building nukes. Hell we hit Iran w/ "severe" sanctions an they're not even doing anything, sure prices for stuff went up but hasn't changed much companies like BMW, Lexus, Samsung, Lg all of who aren't suppose to do business w/ Iran still do they just use a proxy buyer or something like that. The only thing American you will not find in Iran is Battlefield 3 since majority of it takes place in Iran haha. I'm not sure what's going to happen w/ N.Korea but I've got a good feeling we'll get into it w/ Iran over their nuclear program sooner or later.

[Jimbuna]

Quote from that link:

"Reports from Damascus say the Syrian military has been moving equipment to civilian areas, including near schools and mosques, "

They want to provoke collateral losses. America will try to avoid them and thus will scratch plenty of targets off their list now. Making any already limited strike even more ineffective.

Wouldn'T be surprised if they start to move huge civilian crowds onto their airfields and imprison them there around the bunkers and aircraft. Saddam did install plenty of human shields in Kuwait.

No doubt the satellites and Mossad are pretty busy correcting co-ordinates.

[Packlife]

I'm watching meet the press and Secretary Kerry broke the news that, blood hair an tissue samples taken from victims from east Damascus have tested positive for Sarin gas.

[Feuer Frei!]

I'm watching meet the press and Secretary Kerry broke the news that, blood hair an tissue samples taken from victims from east Damascus have tested positive for Sarin gas.


Indeed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23918889

1 September 2013 Last updated at 13:22 GMT

Sidenote:

Mr Kerry also said he was confident that Congress would give its approval for the US to launch strikes against Syria.

[Father Goose]

Just another case of big men in back room smoking cigars deciding how to spin it politically, then send poor men to die if it fits. All these wars are costing our future, trillions better spent.

Like I told a friend last week, BO will go to Congress for one simple reason. No matter what Congress decides, that is where he will point the blame. He will use it against the GOP in the 2014 elections with the help of his propaganda media. BO never takes responsibility for anything. It's always someone else's fault.

A thought to keep in mind with BO...everything he does is for political reasons to support his socialist agenda. If you remember that, he's very predictable.

[mapuc]

I had many thoughts when I heard that Russia was sending to more Warship to Mediterranean. Why did they send them, what could be their purpose

Have just been reading an article in a Swedish newspaper. According to a source, these ships are there to track the missile and give warnings to the Syrians government

Markus

[Feuer Frei!]

According to a source, these ships are there to track the missile and give warnings to the Syrians government

Markus

.....

President Vladimir Putin has said the naval presence is needed to protect national security interests and is not a threat to any nation.Of course can we believe an ex-KGB? :haha:

The navy later indicated a deployment was imminent in the Mediterranean but gave no details except to say it would be part of a long-planned rotation and suggested it would not increase the size of Russian forces there.
"This is not a new group ... but a planned rotation," an highly-placed navy official who was not identified told state-run RIA news agency.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/29/syria-crisis-russia-navy-idUSL6N0GU1B420130829

[mapuc]

We are getting lots of information and disinformation from several sources

It's very difficult to see what's correct and what's not correct among all this information we get.

I guess the only way to find out what the purpose is regarding these two russian warship, we will first find out the day USA attack Syria.

Markus

[Tribesman]

No full scale invasion of Syria, but a clear UN scripted conquest of rather small areas to create save zones for civilians. All civil war parties should agree with it, should they? There would be no fighting necessary, if they would support the safety of the people.



That statement makes no sense.


Turkey, Jordan and Israel should be no problem, and even Iraq would probably join the club. Lebanon would be difficult, but maybe the Russian harbour at Tartus could be a beachhead for a safe zone. I guess Tartus is Assad's playground right now and his forces could leave the area.

So you have two countries that are backing rebel factions, one whose masters are allied with the Syrian government, one that is still at war with it and one which is run by Syrian/Iranian proxies.
Then you have the "beachhead" which is a Russian base, which happens to be a country that supports the Assad regime.

Edit: well, there are already safe areas on the other side of the borders in Turkey and Jordan. All people can decide, wheather they want to leave the battle grounds or not.
Are there? who is running the camps in those "safe" areas?

The international community should stay out of Syria and stop all support for any party. Simply wait for the last man standing. Those who stay in the combat zones are on their own.

That also makes no sense.
You views seem to contradict your own views, as well as run counter to reality.

[Vince82]

I had many thoughts when I heard that Russia was sending to more Warship to Mediterranean. Why did they send them, what could be their purpose

Have just been reading an article in a Swedish newspaper. According to a source, these ships are there to track the missile and give warnings to the Syrians government

Markus

Early warning will be usefull to the Assad forces in two ways:

-they will be able to move their mobile forces
-and to get ready to eliminate incoming missiles


It's possible that the Russians will try to defend Syria against cruise missiles in a more active way aswell.

[Armistead]

My guess is Obama wants to shoot a 100 Tomahawks, but any action will cost billions. I think right now with assets there, it's a billion a month. The problem is any action could cost much more. You've got to have all the assets in case they attack Israel, take out air, radar, command.

A mere missle prick will solve nothing and would be a political punch that solves nothing. I don't think Assad would attack Israel over missles, but if they start launching scuds, then it will be a war that we will have to get involved.

Again, stay the hell out, let the muslims go back to killing each other in mass like the old days, instead of fighting us.

[TLAM Strike]

Curious... anyone know what the legality would be if say a Russian warship shot down a US cruise missile in international waters? :hmmm:

A cruise missile is basically an unmanned aircraft, so it's more an act of destroying property.

[eddie]

Like I told a friend last week, BO will go to Congress for one simple reason. No matter what Congress decides, that is where he will point the blame. He will use it against the GOP in the 2014 elections with the help of his propaganda media. BO never takes responsibility for anything. It's always someone else's fault.

A thought to keep in mind with BO...everything he does is for political reasons to support his socialist agenda. If you remember that, he's very predictable.

What a load of political BS!! You should be Assads PR Manager:haha:

[Skybird]

A cruise missile is basically an unmanned aircraft, so it's more an act of destroying property.
And war is a bad joke where the laughing just got out of hand.

[TLAM Strike]

And war is a bad joke where the laughing just got out of hand.
It was a serious question, we just saw Iran force down one drone and shoot down another with little other than a protest from the US.

[Platapus]

Curious... anyone know what the legality would be if say a Russian warship shot down a US cruise missile in international waters? :hmmm:

That is a most interesting question.

I don't think there are any international laws that prohibit one country from interfering with the attack by another country. The worst that can happen is that the attacking country could declare war on the intercepting country.

Would the US risk going to war with Russia over this if it happened?

If the POTUS gets statutory authorization, from Congress, to launch missiles, Russia is in no way bound by such an authorization. Now if the UNSC authorizes action through the Military Staff, then Russia would be in violation of several treaties.

A most interesting question. :yep:

[Armistead]

Early warning will be usefull to the Assad forces in two ways:

-they will be able to move their mobile forces
-and to get ready to eliminate incoming missiles


It's possible that the Russians will try to defend Syria against cruise missiles in a more active way aswell.

We won't be going afer mobile foces, nor can they stop our missles and the Russians won't get involved.........nor should we.

But damn gas will go up, already is just with the talk....another money maker

[Jimbuna]

That is a most interesting question.

I don't think there are any international laws that prohibit one country from interfering with the attack by another country. The worst that can happen is that the attacking country could declare war on the intercepting country.

Would the US risk going to war with Russia over this if it happened?

If the POTUS gets statutory authorization, from Congress, to launch missiles, Russia is in no way bound by such an authorization. Now if the UNSC authorizes action through the Military Staff, then Russia would be in violation of several treaties.

A most interesting question. :yep:

A most interesting question indeed and an excellent answer :cool:

[Catfish]

And
- sry if i repeat myself -
despite a lot of speeches, desinformation and propaganda:

Still no evidence about chemical weapons.

[Armistead]

Like I told a friend last week, BO will go to Congress for one simple reason. No matter what Congress decides, that is where he will point the blame. He will use it against the GOP in the 2014 elections with the help of his propaganda media. BO never takes responsibility for anything. It's always someone else's fault.

A thought to keep in mind with BO...everything he does is for political reasons to support his socialist agenda. If you remember that, he's very predictable.

War is hell, there's been about 120,000 overall deaths, chemical weapons may acount for about 1000, but many medical issues in others.
Dying from severe burns from a bomb or a chemical....what's it matter. Syria has been torturing 1000's of innocent civilians before they execute them, but we need to attack because chemical weapons MAY have been used. Sort of like how we nuked Japan, hell that was gentle compared to Lemay fire bombing cities.

The laws from chemical weapons came from the mass use and killing, so the law is there, but the moral and motive is questionable. We certainly didn't care about the millions dying in Africa from war.

You're right, Obama is setting up the blame game. His attack speech was laughable, totally political. Reagan, Clinton, Bush all took actions without congress.

[Platapus]

And
- sry if i repeat myself -
despite a lot of speeches, desinformation and propaganda:

Still no evidence about chemical weapons.

Until such evidence is presented, it is well to keep repeating this.

This is why I am very happy that samples were collected and will be evaluated by an independent organization.

We need to have a scientific answer, not a political or emotional answer.

[Platapus]

Dying from severe burns from a bomb or a chemical....what's it matter....

The laws from chemical weapons came from the mass use and killing, so the law is there, but the moral and motive is questionable. We certainly didn't care about the millions dying in Africa from war.

An excellent point. It is OK to set people on fire, but not OK to expose people to chemical agents. When you think about it, it does sound silly in a horrible way.

[Tchocky]

That only comes up if you're looking for things to be contrary about.

I don't think we can honestly claim that the death and destruction caused by a conventional war is the same as a direct attack on civilians using nerve agents.

In the essence, yes, people die all the same. But one is not the same as the other.

[u crank]

We'll need a Meggiddo mod for this one.

Oh crap, I was hoping to get through this life before that one was used.:O:

[Armistead]

That only comes up if you're looking for things to be contrary about.

I don't think we can honestly claim that the death and destruction caused by a conventional war is the same as a direct attack on civilians using nerve agents.

In the essence, yes, people die all the same. But one is not the same as the other.

Syria tortures and kills innocents, children to adults by the 1000's, if we're talking what's humane, is it OK to kill 7000 several civilians with conventional weapons, only act when maybe 500-1000 total deaths due to chemicals? I rather drop dead from gas that be burned to death from a bomb.

I understand laws that arose due to chemicals being weapons of possible mass destruction, but that's now the case here. All this talk keeps us off the issues.

This is a civil war and like all Muslim civil wars they'll kill and torture. On one side you have several groups, some radical, versus the common dictator. I think the reason dictators come to power is because it beats all the factions. If Assad is overthrown, then the factions fighting together now would go to killing each other later. I think we best stay out of it, heck, one in five American children go hungry each day, let's that fix that first.

As long as Arabs live in the dark ages of their radical religion, theyll continue to live like hell. Let them have their war, if the winner turns out to be an issue, we can deal with that later.

[BossMark]

So, it transpires that in recent months Britain sold the Syrian government large amounts of potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride, chief ingredients in making nerve gas.

No wonder Cameron was so keen to fire cruise missiles at them last week. Probably his best chance to destroy the receipts.

[mapuc]

So we are upset about this war crime! Remember an article I read not so long ago just when this started.

It said something like

"We are truly upset, by seeing all this crime that is being committed by both side in this civil war. Why didn't we react the same way when the Russians slaughter Chechnya.

Is it because it's a superpower and not a little country which doesn't have much of military stuff they can use to response an attack."

Markus

[Tchocky]

Syria tortures and kills innocents, children to adults by the 1000's, if we're talking what's humane, is it OK to kill 7000 several civilians with conventional weapons, only act when maybe 500-1000 total deaths due to chemicals? I rather drop dead from gas that be burned to death from a bomb. We're not talking about what's humane. Carnage and destruction aren't confronted everywhere all the time. Look at the civil war in DRC, you'll be the only one paying attention. What makes people sit up and notice is when nerve gas is used on civilians like it appears to have been here.

How you would rather die doesn't enter into it. Not even slightly. There is a difference between shelling an area that you think contains enemy forces - and blanketing it with sarin. Get under a solid table or below ground level and you can improve your chances of surviving a shelling. That doesn't do squat for sarin. THis is the reason that the numbers of dead don't enter into it.

I agree the distinction is unsettling, but what concerns countries outside Syria here is the precedent. Or at least it should.

Also, is there no thought for what happens next if this action goes unopposed? How many gassings is too many? That's a loaded and manipulative question but I'm not sure how else to express it.


This is a civil war and like all Muslim civil wars they'll kill and torture. Yay. This is fun.

On one side you have several groups, some radical, versus the common dictator. I think the reason dictators come to power is because it beats all the factions. If Assad is overthrown, then the factions fighting together now would go to killing each other later. I think we best stay out of it, heck, one in five American children go hungry each day, let's that fix that first. Shootng a cruise missile doesn't automatically degrade your ability to ease poverty.
None of the actions contemplated by Western powers involve actively effecting the course of the civil war. That's a mess that will take a lot more time and blood to resolve, and Western guns won't help that at all. A strike against the chemical weapons sites/stores/launchers won't be totally decoupled from the civil war - but let's not pretend regime change is on the cards here.

As long as Arabs live in the dark ages of their radical religion, theyll continue to live like hell. Let them have their war, if the winner turns out to be an issue, we can deal with that later.

Arab is not a religion and 16% of Syria is Christian.

Again, this is not about effecting the course of the war.

[mapuc]

Is this a hoax?? I hope it is

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/putin-orders-massive-strike-against-saudi-arabia-if-west-attacks-syria/

Markus

Edit have just found out that it is a hoax

[Takeda Shingen]

Is this a hoax?? I hope it is

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/putin-orders-massive-strike-against-saudi-arabia-if-west-attacks-syria/

Markus

Edit have just found out that it is a hoax

You need to stop reading these sort of websites.

[eddie]

Something I wonder about, we all are horrified by the chemical attack in Syria, and yet the bombings and killings are happening everyday in Iraq, its into the thousnads the number killed already this year, but no outcrys from Washington, how come?

[Jimbuna]

Something I wonder about, we all are horrified by the chemical attack in Syria, and yet the bombings and killings are happening everyday in Iraq, its into the thousnads the number killed already this year, but no outcrys from Washington, how come?

If anyone knew the answer as to who prioritises what then I doubt any of us would be any the cleverer.

[mapuc]

You need to stop reading these sort of websites.


Some of my friends posted this on his wall.

Right now I have a discussion with him trying to tell him why it is a hoax.

OK for about 2 min I thought that the article was genuin...but then my brain kicked in....

[Takeda Shingen]

Some of my friends posted this on his wall.

Right now I have a discussion with him trying to tell him why it is a hoax.

OK for about 2 min I thought that the article was genuin...but then my brain kicked in....

Here's a helpful tip for future reference. Below are the links to three legitimate news services.

http://www.foxnews.com/

http://www.cbsnews.com/

http://www.cnn.com/

Notice two things: (1) The layout. The banner headlines are clearly displayed without scrolling, not hidden beneath advertisements. (2) the section tabs -- Politics, US News, Opinion, Science, Business/Money, Sports, Lifestyle. It reads like the sections of a physical newspaper.

Here's your link:

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/putin-orders-massive-strike-against-saudi-arabia-if-west-attacks-syria/

Compare. The banner headline is buried beneath three advertisements. The tab sections include Crime, Justice, Activism and Survival. You can tell within seconds that this source isn't legit.

[Catfish]

^of course you are right ..

Just this tiny bit:

... Below are the links to three legitimate news services.
http://www.foxnews.com
... /

:hmm2: :O:

[Platapus]

Something I wonder about, we all are horrified by the chemical attack in Syria, and yet the bombings and killings are happening everyday in Iraq, its into the thousnads the number killed already this year, but no outcrys from Washington, how come?

As was beaten into us in our analysis courses -- Cui Bono. Which in old dead Roman talk means "who benefits"

When evaluating pretty much any think dealing with foreign policy, it is always wise to ask "who benefits" from an action or decision.

Don't has "how come". Ask "who benefits" and you will have greater understanding of the dirty scummy world that makes up foreign policy. :yep:

I don't consider myself to be a conspiracy theorist, but ..... (how's that for a lead in? :haha:)

In September, Congress has to vote to increase our debt limit. What better rational for convincing uncooperative members of Congress of the need to increase it than the US being "forced" to respond to an "unavoidable" "emergency" such as a civil war in Syria. :hmmm:

Cui Bono

We can always just sell some more T-Bills...........:shifty:

[mapuc]

Here's a helpful tip for future reference. Below are the links to three legitimate news services.

http://www.foxnews.com/

http://www.cbsnews.com/

http://www.cnn.com/

Notice two things: (1) The layout. The banner headlines are clearly displayed without scrolling, not hidden beneath advertisements. (2) the section tabs -- Politics, US News, Opinion, Science, Business/Money, Sports, Lifestyle. It reads like the sections of a physical newspaper.

Here's your link:

http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/putin-orders-massive-strike-against-saudi-arabia-if-west-attacks-syria/

Compare. The banner headline is buried beneath three advertisements. The tab sections include Crime, Justice, Activism and Survival. You can tell within seconds that this source isn't legit.

Thanks for the advice.

I mostly use CNN both by watching and reading.

I told my friend that "In case of" a direct confrontation between USA and Russia it could be true. But neither Russia and USA is interested in such a thing.
Yes I guess Russia is going to help Syria in any way they can, without getting in a situation where a direct confrontation could be happening.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

I doubt Syria is valuable enough for Russia to risk escalating any conflict even remotely approaching a nuclear confrontation.

[mapuc]

Thanks Mapuc and Platapus: As before: Reread the Arms of Krupp to discover the Vickers/Krupp buidup to WWI and transpose that to the third millennium-nothing really changes. Then apply a total embargo at first and work up thru levels of force as needed, as any LEO is trained, and we think we're the world's police! The Arab League has already turned away from Syria and money is the 'sinews of war'...hence the embargo for starters.:arrgh!:

"The Arabic League has already..."

Ok could be that our expert to middle east is wrong. Have heard several times that almost each country, such as S.A, Yemen, UAE etc is funding their own fraction in this civilwar. I can't remember which fraction that gets money from S.A.

Markus

[August]

In September, Congress has to vote to increase our debt limit. What better rational for convincing uncooperative members of Congress of the need to increase it than the US being "forced" to respond to an "unavoidable" "emergency" such as a civil war in Syria. :hmmm:

Cui Bono

We can always just sell some more T-Bills...........:shifty:

This ^

[TLAM Strike]

I doubt Syria is valuable enough for Russia to risk escalating any conflict even remotely approaching a nuclear confrontation.
Someone probably once said the same thing about a crummy little island in the Caribbean.

Russia has economic and strategic links to Syria that have to be considered.

[TLAM Strike]

Until such evidence is presented, it is well to keep repeating this.

This is why I am very happy that samples were collected and will be evaluated by an independent organization.

We need to have a scientific answer, not a political or emotional answer.

And
- sry if i repeat myself -
despite a lot of speeches, desinformation and propaganda:

Still no evidence about chemical weapons.

Even the Iranians are now saying Assad gassed them. (http://www.uskowioniran.com/2013/09/rafsanjani-blames-syrian-government-for.html) :hmmm:

If you can't trust an Iranian government official when it comes to the truth about WMDs who can you trust? :03:

[eddie]

Aussies in Syria? Just wonder how true this is?

http://world.time.com/2013/07/16/gday-damascus-australians-are-joining-syrias-rebels-in-surprising-numbers/#ixzz2bLvaldWF

[Subnuts]

So, let me get this straight.

The Russians and the Americans are sending warships into the Persian Gulf, there's a civil war in the Middle East, weapons of mass destruction have been used, the British are on the sidelines but still lending moral support, Western nations are planning a well-intended military intervention, and Iran is somehow in the middle of it all?

Real life just turned into Threads. Speaking of which, does anyone know where my cyanide pills are? You know, just in case.

[Cybermat47]

Screw WWIII :stare:

[Platapus]

So, let me get this straight.

The Russians and the Americans are sending warships into the Persian Gulf, there's a civil war in the Middle East, weapons of mass destruction have been used, the British are on the sidelines but still lending moral support, Western nations are planning a well-intended military intervention, and Iran is somehow in the middle of it all?



What could possibly go wrong? :shifty:

[Mr Quatro]

What could possibly go wrong? :shifty:

Two (2) PT boats could cost you a few years and 58,000 men serving in the armed forces and some women were in that number too.


1964: North Vietnamese troops attack a pair of U.S. destroyers off the Gulf of Tonkin.

This attack was considered unprovoked:
http://www.archives.com/genealogy/newspaper-genealogy-vietnam-war.html

I have prayed (like many of us do) about this problem with military actions to be decided upon against Syria for using chemical warfare weapons on it's on people, to be decided by the US Congress in the next 8 to 9 days.

I prayed: "Lord I pray the white house will do the right thing"

The Lord answered back: "I've heard this prayer somewhere before"

Then he said, "What year is this"

I told him and he said, "I'll get back with you on this problem later"

I think he was busy with other people telling him what to do ... :yep:

If you pray (seek God's perfect will) then just pray for God's will to be done not your will :up:

[em2nought]

Personally, I'd have already set off a nuclear blast in the Middle East so I'm not sure I can support punishing someone as yet to be determined for gassing some, er, liver eaters. :D

Of course, if I was in charge all along would have been no need to set off the nuclear blast in the first place.

[Feuer Frei!]

USS Nimitz rerouted.

The nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and other ships in its strike group are heading west toward the Red Sea in case they’re needed to support a U.S. attack on Syria, defense officials told Reuters (http://ca.reuters.com/article/idCABRE9800IT20130901) Sunday


SOURCE (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/01/nuclear-powered-uss-nimitz-carrier-rerouted-for-possible-syria-attack-officials-say/)

Sep. 1, 2013 9:49pm


http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/600x348.jpg
(Credit: AP)

[Ducimus]

What I'm having trouble with, is this Obama's whole rational of "We must step up because Chemical weapons were used! OMG Crimes against humanity!" and that line of BS.

Ok, if Crimes against humanity and chemical weapons being used is an automatic press of the "Go! Button", then why the hell hasn't he taken a similar stance on say.. North Korea. They have freaking concentration camps / gulags, people starving, ex girlfriends being lined up and shot. I'll bet as crimes against humanity go, the DPRK is much higher up on the totem pole.

So what makes Syria so damn special then? Different theater, different conditions i can see being the official explanation. However, crimes against humanity is a boolean thing. There is, or there isn't. So I'm just not buying it. Face it, bottom line, there is no oil, or any ties to oil in north korea. I have no hesitation in calling Obama the "Liar-n-Chief" because that is what he is.

I also agree with what others have said. Obama waiting for congress ( even though he technically doesn't have to) is a VERY sly move. In his speech he says, "this is not time for politics as usual" or words to that effect, which i thought was pretty sad, because it's pretty obvious that's exactly what it is.

[u crank]

It will not be an easy task.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101001802

In a letter to the Armed Services Committee of the Senate on the use of military force in Syria on July 19, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gives his independent evaluation on the use of military force in Syria.

The option of controlling chemical weapons in Syria would be done, Dempsey explained, by destroying "portions of Syria's massive stockpile, interdicting its movement and delivery, or by seizing and securing program components." To achieve that, the minimum requirement would necessitate a no-fly zone "as well as air and missile strikes involving hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines, and other enablers."

But that's not all. Dempsey added that "thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites." A price tag was also included: An average cost of more than one billion dollars a month.

Even more disturbing,

Controlling chemical weapons in Syria means just that Dempsey was clear about the limited ability to fully control Syria's "storage and delivery systems", which could prove to be a boon for extremists.

And finally.

In his speech, Obama reiterated there were no plans to send in troops, acknowledging that Americans were "weary of war" after Afghanistan and Iraq.

By contrast, Dempsey had warned of spiraling commitments. "Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid."

[Tribesman]

Ok, if Crimes against humanity and chemical weapons being used is an automatic press of the "Go! Button", then why the hell hasn't he taken a similar stance on say.. North Korea. They have freaking concentration camps / gulags, people starving, ex girlfriends being lined up and shot. I'll bet as crimes against humanity go, the DPRK is much higher up on the totem pole.
Good point, though I think there was an example where they tried in N. Korea and found themselves getting a bit too much of a battering so they called a time out for a few decades.

[Ducimus]

It will not be an easy task.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101001802

In a letter to the Armed Services Committee of the Senate on the use of military force in Syria on July 19, General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, gives his independent evaluation on the use of military force in Syria.



Even more disturbing,



And finally.

Pair that with BO's address. Is this amateur hour in the white house or what?

[u crank]

Pair that with BO's address. Is this amateur hour in the white house or what?

Well I can think of three possibilities. There are probably more.

1. The White House is not listening to their top military advisor.
2. They are, but have their own agenda.
3. Dempsey has changed his views in less than 2 months.

I'll take door number 2 Monty. :O:

[Tchocky]

The delay waiting for Congress to debate gives time for a diplomatic solution to be hammered out at the G20. I wonder how things will go in st Petersburg.

Oh, and the idea that this is all about oil is silly.

[Skybird]

Pair that with BO's address. Is this amateur hour in the white house or what?
Amateur hour took place already a very long time ago. It was when the amateur-in-chief made his stupid comment on red lines.

Bluffing is extremely overestimated, as every poker player knows. In poker, you rely heavily on probability and math. And if you cannot do the math or think you can outbluff unfavorable probabilities, you may win occasionally, but by the end of your career you will have lost far more often than you gained something. And they are an unwise option if you have a high risk to be called over them but lack the substance or will to win the calling. It's like with Backgammon. You may win a single match by chance, but you lose the complete challenge. The results accumulate against you.

Obama is a blender and sweet-talker. And he has played that card too often. That's why so many things in his presidency are failures - more things than is inevitable for any president due to practical constraints and problem's self-dynamics.

[Oberon]

I wonder how things will go in st Petersburg.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HUpLkJ5l8oQ/Tjez-JLUQSI/AAAAAAAABDY/Nn_M0NiQ26Y/s1600/Bashar+al-Asshat.jpg

[Ducimus]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HUpLkJ5l8oQ/Tjez-JLUQSI/AAAAAAAABDY/Nn_M0NiQ26Y/s1600/Bashar+al-Asshat.jpg

Seriously. My understanding is that in the view of Iran/Russia, we are pretty much a joke because our government has lost any resemblance of credibility. BO is in way over his head, we know it and they know it.

[Tchocky]

Hardly. Economic sanctions have severely weakened the Iranian economy, perhaps to the extent of affecting the recent election. These sanctions would not be in place without the US pushing.

Not without credibility. Iran talks a tough line about the US, but that is for domestic consumption.

As for Russia it's hard to say. The Snowden mess has soured relations sure, but even there Putin is tired of the standoff.

[Ducimus]

I don't know. Something about 16 trillion in debt, and hitting our debt ceiling again next month makes me seriously doubt that we can afford another conflict. In the short term, yeah they'll run up the governmental credit card again, but it won't take long for collections to start calling in the aftermath.

[MH]

Seriously. My understanding is that in the view of Iran/Russia, we are pretty much a joke because our government has lost any resemblance of credibility. BO is in way over his head, we know it and they know it.

It seems that you got what you want.
American role in ME is coming to an end...at least in this administration.
Question is if this will pay off in long run.

[Mittelwaechter]

A young Navy veteran speaks out against the U.S. plans for war on Syria

http://www.answercoalition.org/march-forward/statements/to-my-fellow-sailors-refuse.html

And from Syrian patriot to US patriot

http://rt.com/usa/us-against-syria-strike-313/

[Vince82]

Political solution?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10281388/Syria-asks-UN-to-stop-military-strike-and-seek-political-solution.html


Ask Assad to give some cities to the Free Syrian Army maybe? Seems much better to me than launching missiles.

[Armistead]

Seriously. My understanding is that in the view of Iran/Russia, we are pretty much a joke because our government has lost any resemblance of credibility.

Sure Obama will do one last apology tour before he leaves office.

[Tchocky]

Sure Obama will do one last apology tour before he leaves office.


Some things just won't die.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/17/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-began/


Our ruling

Once again, Romney has accused Obama of beginning his presidency "with an apology tour."

Our reviews of Obama’s 2009 foreign travels and speeches showed no such thing. While he criticized past U.S. actions, such as torture practices at Guantanamo, he did not offer one apology.

It’s ridiculous to call Obama’s foreign visits and remarks "an apology tour." We rate this statement Pants on Fire!

[Catfish]

Hello,

Even the Iranians are now saying Assad gassed them. (http://www.uskowioniran.com/2013/09/rafsanjani-blames-syrian-government-for.html) :hmmm:

Well, they probably heard it on the western tv and thought 'Allah, why didn't we claim that before'.

If you can't trust an Iranian government official when it comes to the truth about WMDs who can you trust? :03:

:huh: .. :) ..:D .. :rotfl2: :up:

[Wolferz]

I have to ask myself; "Self. Who is the real target in this hootenanny?":hmmm:

[Aktungbby]

I have to ask myself; "Self. Who is the real target in this hootenanny?":hmmm:
We ALL are. God won't send another flood. He doesn't have to. Der Gefallen Engels will do themselves in for him...I wonder what crime the dinosaurs committed? We know what was happenin' in Sodom... what went on in Gomorrah or was there a little overkill in the cities of the plain; LOT's to ponder- where's that Megiddo Mod anyhow?:k_confused:

[Oberon]

Hardly. Economic sanctions have severely weakened the Iranian economy, perhaps to the extent of affecting the recent election. These sanctions would not be in place without the US pushing.

Not without credibility. Iran talks a tough line about the US, but that is for domestic consumption.

As for Russia it's hard to say. The Snowden mess has soured relations sure, but even there Putin is tired of the standoff.

I certainly don't see Iran doing anything, not officially, they'll send arms and stuff but they won't declare war on the US, I doubt even the Ayatollah is that mad.
Putin on the other hand, has absolutely no reason to trust the US, or give in to its demands, he will block any UNSC resolution and will force the US to go around the UN to act, if it's going to act, which will discredit the US more than going through the UN.
Honestly it's really hard to tell, as you say, just how far Russia will go for its Syrian ally, they've cancelled weapons sales, so it could be that they're trying to find a diplomatic position to push the US away from strikes, but if they are then they're being far too subtle about it for the western world to pick up...but then, we've never been particularly good at understanding Russia.

[Skybird]

Iran does not just deliver supplies and weapons, but has commandos and RG fighters operating both in Lebanon and Syria, plus conventional (and if one interprets Israel's signals: chemical) engineers as well. Iran will happily welcome any opportunity to distract attention form their nuclear weapons program, may it be by pouring those sweet words into Western ears that our diplomats would like to hear, may it be by creating a big bad mess somewhere else. The new Iranian president is misperceived by some as being willing to "negotiate" the nuclear bomb :haha: (in fact he supports and always has supported the nuclear weapon agenda as determined as the other candidates do since always, he just is smart enough to avoid provoking the West at every opportunity like the little chimp before him used to do - this is what t makes the new president far more dangerous than the earlier one), and he helps that impression by making sweet, sweet comments, oh yes, sooo sweeeet. Give diplomacy a new chance! :up: :O: These optimists will once again get shattered when they impact on the concrete bottom of ME reality once the flight phase of their LSD trip is over.

Regarding Hezbollah and Lebanon, and Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia already are in a hot proxy war. Since many years.

Israel will take note of the new American weakness in determination and leadership, and rate Obama's comments that he would not hesitate to strike Iran if it gets "too close" to the nuclear bomb accordingly.

I think Obama is wildly determined to never decisively strike Iran no matter what, and would willingly accept a nuclear armed Iran instead of preventing it.

Eggdancer. Somebody should give him some tapdancing shoes.

[Tchocky]

I think Obama is wildly determined to never decisively strike Iran no matter what, and would willingly accept a nuclear armed Iran instead of preventing it.

Economic sanctions and Stuxnet must have happened by accident then.

[Oberon]

I think if Obama did militarily strike Iran, given how much the American people are against war in general at the moment, particularly if American soldiers have to go on the ground (which they probably would), then he would probably become the most unpopular president since Nixon and would be impeached and/or shot.

[Skybird]

Economic sanctions and Stuxnet must have happened by accident then.

None of that was/is decisive, their centrifuges are fixed and more numerous than ever. They just wait for the right moment to start the final sprint to the rescuing finishing line, slowly creeping forward to silentloy reduce that final distance.

And it certainly is not decisive enough to make them seriously consider to give up the bomb. And why should they? Things are going well for them, they only got delayed a bit, but not really stopped, nor struck. While people like you endlessly babble with them, they have gotten the time to move more and more parts of their program facilities beyond reach of conventional airstrikes.

On a bad day one would call that kind of "diplomacy" conspiration with the enemy.

[Jimbuna]

I'll say it first...this is beginning to look like a big non event and the lunatics have took over the asylum on the world stage.

Should anything tangible happen in the future, near or otherwise, feel free to spank me with a hindsight leaf.

[Skybird]

I think if Obama did militarily strike Iran, given how much the American people are against war in general at the moment, particularly if American soldiers have to go on the ground (which they probably would), then he would probably become the most unpopular president since Nixon and would be impeached and/or shot.
Makes it even more important not to waste public support and military resources over stupid wars, and keep both for those remaining wars of need. And that logic makes Obama's premature red-line-comments even more silly. He is a blender and thought he could pick more marbles than he could juggle.

I am close to rating him even lower than Bush. And that is quite an achievement when you remember my comments about Bush years ago - I think I called Bush the most stupid US president ever, didn't I.

[TLAM Strike]

Looks like the Syrians hacked Marines.com (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d64_1378130010)

Also saw this image a little while ago...
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/3553/ttxt.jpg
The Chief always knows whats really going on.

[Skybird]

So right that man is. ^

[August]

So right that man is. ^

No he is not.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1234767_642260432474301_714847032_n.jpg

[Skybird]

Some soldiers are really in love with getting abused, lied to and betrayed by their leaders. Getting abused and betrayed is still better than giving up on that precious "code", they imply.

Sorry, but I call such soldiers thinking like that: FOOLS. You have just one life. Be choosy whom you donate it for, and what cause.

Sharing teams with terrorists and murderous America-haters cannot be it.

You certainly remember that I called Bush a traitor to his own troops. That's what he was by what he has done, the lies he told to justify his betrayal. He betrayed your people, your nation, and the troops. Since he was commander-in-chief of the armed forces in self-made war times, I would have courtmartialed and executed him.

[Mr Quatro]

Iran does not just deliver supplies and weapons, but has commandos and RG fighters operating both in Lebanon and Syria, plus conventional (and if one interprets Israel's signals: chemical) engineers as well.

Iran will happily welcome any opportunity to distract attention form their nuclear weapons program, may it be by pouring those sweet words into Western ears that our diplomats would like to hear, may it be by creating a big bad mess somewhere else.

The new Iranian president is misperceived by some as being willing to "negotiate" the nuclear bomb :haha: (in fact he supports and always has supported the nuclear weapon agenda as determined as the other candidates do since always, he just is smart enough to avoid provoking the West at every opportunity like the little chimp before him used to do - this is what t makes the new president far more dangerous than the earlier one), and he helps that impression by making sweet, sweet comments, oh yes, sooo sweeeet.

Give diplomacy a new chance! :up: :O: These optimists will once again get shattered when they impact on the concrete bottom of ME reality once the flight phase of their LSD trip is over.

Regarding Hezbollah and Lebanon, and Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia already are in a hot proxy war. Since many years.

Israel will take note of the new American weakness in determination and leadership, and rate Obama's comments that he would not hesitate to strike Iran if it gets "too close" to the nuclear bomb accordingly.

I think Obama is wildly determined to never decisively strike Iran no matter what, and would willingly accept a nuclear armed Iran instead of preventing it.


You sure seem to know a lot are you just a normal person?

How's your track record on these boards?

Just one negative comment (no real mud slinging here) I don't think you know what President Obama is really thinking or what he would really do, but worth jotting down what you think the new Iranian president will do :up:

[TLAM Strike]

No he is not.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1234767_642260432474301_714847032_n.jpg
Not that simple.

There is a serious question of "could I be guilty of a crime by following this order."

In the mind of the Chief in the picture he believes that by following an order to attack Syria he would be aiding Al Qaeda, a group at war with the US (and just about everyone not part of their ideology). Aiding them is treasonous (and yes aiding Al Qaeda is treasonous according to US Courts). If Al Qaeda wins in Syria and uses it to expand its war against the west that than sailor could be culpable in aiding an enemy.

[Tchocky]

A slew of court cases against every soldier and sailor in the theatre of operations is a prime consideration here.

As for everyone who buys oil from a gas station sourcing it from Saudi Arabia.

[August]

Some soldiers are really in love with getting abused, lied to and betrayed by their leaders. Getting abused and betrayed is still better than giving up on that precious "code", they imply.

Sorry, but I call such soldiers thinking like that: FOOLS. You have just one life. Be choosy whom you donate it for, and what cause.

Sharing teams with terrorists and murderous America-haters cannot be it.

You certainly remember that I called Bush a traitor to his own troops. That's what he was by what he has done, the lies he told to justify his betrayal. He betrayed your people, your nation, and the troops. Since he was commander-in-chief of the armed forces in self-made war times, I would have courtmartialed and executed him.

Too bad nobody really cares what you would have done and certainly not your opinion of a brave and honorable man like that decorated Combat Medic.

[August]

Not that simple.

There is a serious question of "could I be guilty of a crime by following this order."

In the mind of the Chief in the picture he believes that by following an order to attack Syria he would be aiding Al Qaeda, a group at war with the US (and just about everyone not part of their ideology). Aiding them is treasonous (and yes aiding Al Qaeda is treasonous according to US Courts). If Al Qaeda wins in Syria and uses it to expand its war against the west that than sailor could be culpable in aiding an enemy.

Then the Chief and all the other people who have done this need to stand up for what they believe, not hide their identities. For all we know they could be just some schmucks dressed up in surplus uniforms.

[Wolferz]

Good old brainwashed servicemen. Here's a counter to your argument chief...
You don't join to blindly follow orders. Especially if those orders are immoral or illegal. It is your duty to protect us all from enemies both foreign and domestic. Even if it turns out to be your CIC.
Last I checked, Syria isn't an officially declared foreign enemy of America,that I know of at this moment in time. Your leaders need to come up with concrete proof that it was Assad who ordered the use of chemical munitions. Until then, it's all gossip and circumstantial evidence at best. It should be hands off until their little civil war spills over their borders into an allied territory Then you have my blessing to drop the hammer on 'em.
And here I was under the impression that we elected these so called reps and Senators to act on OUR behalf. Certainly not to play hegemonic warmonger on our dime.

[Platapus]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1234767_642260432474301_714847032_n.jpg

This is reality of military service and one of the reasons military service is not for everyone. Military members don't get to set national policy, they implement it. I, like many other military members, had to take part in operations I did not enjoy, agree with, or even understand. There was one that violated pretty much all my morals. But I signed up to serve, took the queen's shilling, and had a job to do.

I don't mean to sound pompous (imagine ME sounding pompous!), but I truly believe that people who have not served, don't really understand military duty/discipline. Just like I don't really understand the mindset of citizens who have not served. It is a barrier to communication and understanding.

I am sure I am not the only military guy to suffer insults and degradations on the part of US citizens. Unfortunately, it is part of the job. :yep:

If I were still active duty, and the POTUS/Congress authorized military action, I would, if called, go over there and serve and perhaps even die... for something I don't believe in.

It is easy risking your life for a cause you believe in. It is much harder to risk your life for a cause you don't believe in..... but that's what the military is called upon to do at times.

And for that, members of the military garner my respect. :salute:

Just an old guy's opinion. Your mileage may vary.

[Skybird]

Then the Chief and all the other people who have done this need to stand up for what they believe, not hide their identities. For all we know they could be just some schmucks dressed up in surplus uniforms.

Yes. That way one can mop him as fastest and easiest as possible: by demanding him to be so stupid to hand himself over. His "comrades" will do that, and his superiors will have a tough word with him on what freedom of free speech is left to him as long as he is in the armed forces.

Illegal orders or the treachery of superior leaders will not be part of that tals, I'm certain.

You again give the idea that the armed forces is a world of shine and and everything is fair and open and just. Many active or former soldiers stick to that image, partly to justify themselves, their decision to join, for nobody wants to admit that what he has willed to become part of is not that ideal and just and shiny, but more like the rest of the real world. And if somebody dares to question that image, from inside or outside, he is seen as a Nestbeschmutzer, gets disciplined, mobbed, avoided immediately, for he questions the code of sielnce and the consensus.

Do not question your superiors, never. Obey orders, no matter what. Hide the club's dirt on the floor under the carpet. Keep it internal. Say in interviews what you behave been told to say. Let's all behave "as if".

In German, there is a nice word for that, illustrating the nastier implications of this attitude: Kadavergehorsam (word-by-word translated: cadaver obedience).

The man on the picture considered his situation he is in, he probably assessed his options available to him, and I think he was realistic in it, also, he wanted to keep the ball low and not making him the issue, but the argument on his mind. The decisive point is that he has a very valid, rational point that indeed illustrates his commitment to the causes that made him joining. If he would just complain on his poster that Obama is a mixed blood, then he would be a worthless piece with no spine, and his acting would be insubordination, or whatever the military would have in special terms for that kind of behavior.

[August]

Skybird as usual you attempt to lecture us on something you know nothing about. See Platapus' post above for an insight into the real world which seems to so often escape you.

[Skybird]

This is reality of military service and one of the reasons military service is not for everyone. Military members don't get to set national policy, they implement it. I, like many other military members, had to take part in operations I did not enjoy, agree with, or even understand. There was one that violated pretty much all my morals. But I signed up to serve, took the queen's shilling, and had a job to do.

I don't mean to sound pompous (imagine ME sounding pompous!), but I truly believe that people who have not served, don't really understand military duty/discipline. Just like I don't really understand the mindset of citizens who have not served. It is a barrier to communication and understanding.

I am sure I am not the only military guy to suffer insults and degradations on the part of US citizens. Unfortunately, it is part of the job. :yep:

If I were still active duty, and the POTUS/Congress authorized military action, I would, if called, go over there and serve and perhaps even die... for something I don't believe in.

It is easy risking your life for a cause you believe in. It is much harder to risk your life for a cause you don't believe in..... but that's what the military is called upon to do at times.

And for that, members of the military garner my respect. :salute:

Just an old guy's opinion. Your mileage may vary.

A blind and slavish obedience was what made the Nazis in my country possible, Platapus. Obedience of course is a must in the military - under "normal" circumstances that are covered by the purpose of existence of the military. So is discipline, and hierarchy. Yo7u cannot choose your wars once you joined.

What it is about, is TRUST. Trust that your superiors miust justify and deserve, especially policy-makers and the CIC. To obey ticks and tactcial deciisons you do not agree with yourself, is one thing. Blindly obey nevertheless somebody who gives you illegal orders, may ask you to shoot civilians wiothout apparent reason, or collaborate with your enemy are situations where you should start thinking and ask for the justification. AQ is not just a faction to which you have cold relations, but nevertheless may pragmatically cooperate over a single issue. It is a terror organisation, it is your enemy that yu claim since over a decade to wage war against, it hates you, it has killed your people by the thousands, it is evil, and to say you have strained relations to it would definitely strain my patience.

If your CIC then orders you to assist them to help them win a war, form a new position from which to strike against your socalled allies, supress human rights on racist grounds, and plots to kill more Americans, then this is the time where any soldier indeed should insist on his right to think (that they cannot take away from you!) and should start to ask his leaders for the need or justification of these highly dubious orders. Else you become morally, if not even legally and by the letter of the military laws guilty yourself!

This is what most likely is on the mind of that man. In 99 of a 100 cases, it probably is valid what you say. But there are the rare exceptions where leaving the ordinary procedures is not just recommended, but imperative. the highest authority you are accountable to, is no the law, is not the officer, is not the president or anyone else, and is not the constitution. the highest authority - there is, is your conscience. No higher authority there is in all world, than that.

And that can casue conflicts, because in the end, if you think it to the end, it is subjective, always. If it were objective, then it would not be your conscience, but the rules and demands by somebody else again.

[August]

What was that about Godwins law? :hmmm:

[Skybird]

Skybird as usual you attempt to lecture us on something you know nothing about. See Platapus' post above for an insight into the real world which seems to so often escape you.
Thank God your wish is not my command. If you cant stand my lecturing on slavish conformity, better stay away from me, for I will not give you one inch of space on issues that are that important. Your country has caused Vietnam and Iraq 03, and some questionable minor operations and engagements that would not have been possible if more men would not have shared your blind, submissive attitude. Politicians tricking their countries into war cannot have that war fought without a military obedient and willing to fall for his betrayal.

Be careful whom you swear your loyalties to. Some people may hold you responsible for it. And then saying "I had to obey" is a very low way to defend yourself.

I am fully aware that many people joining armed forces do so by noble notives. I was very close to voluntarily decide for that path myself once. I am happy today I did not, for today I see the illusions I had, and that the loyalty they would have demanded for me, was not deserved. But I understand the temptation all too well.

I wish more young people joining the forces would have much higher standards by which they judge whether the chosen path is worth their engagement or not. And I would wish they would be able to leave their emotions out of it. Emotions are very bad advisors.

Be choosy to which and to whom you swear your loyalty. Especially when it comes to politics and politicians. You loyalty only can be demanded a slong as the other justifies it. Where he fails you, or betrays you, you are free. A military should not serve political agendas and politicians, but the protection of the people in their homelands that pays for them. A leader who betrays the people making him their leader, cannot demand any loyalty anymore, for he is a traitor.

[August]

Who cares what you give or not Skybird? Like I said your opinion is no more valuable than anyone elses and I say a lot less valuable than the medic in the picture above.

[TLAM Strike]

Then the Chief and all the other people who have done this need to stand up for what they believe, not hide their identities. For all we know they could be just some schmucks dressed up in surplus uniforms.

Not everyone can be John Sheridan. We have already seen the reprisals against soldiers who don't follow the PC party line (like the one soldier who was reprimanded for owning a Rush Limbaugh book or the one with a NOBAMA bumper sticker).

[August]

Not everyone can be John Sheridan. We have already seen the reprisals against soldiers who don't follow the PC party line (like the one soldier who was reprimanded for owning a Rush Limbaugh book or the one with a NOBAMA bumper sticker).

Why were they reprimanded TLAM?

It's not for expressing a political viewpoint, it was because they expressed it while in uniform. When you are in uniform you represent the United States Military, you do NOT represent yourself. Nobody is telling them they can't have political opinions but they need to express them as private citizens.

The people who hide behind these placards are attempting to get around that. They want their voices to have the authority of a serviceman without taking any personal responsibility for what they say, assuming of course they are indeed real servicemen and not some political operative in a surplus uniform trying to cause trouble.

[Alex]

And from Syrian patriot to US patriot

http://rt.com/usa/us-against-syria-strike-313/
From the same site, that article (http://rt.com/op-edge/istael-syria-attack-crisis-251/) is also quite worth reading.

[Tchocky]

From the same site, that article (http://rt.com/op-edge/istael-syria-attack-crisis-251/) is also quite worth reading.

If by "reading" you mean "filing under crackpot garbage".

[Wolferz]

Some of us here seem to be arguing Esprit de Corps or military bearing in layman's terms. You essentially sign away your life and liberty when you take the oath of military service. But, it still doesn't mean that you are required to follow blindly. You are required to obey "lawful orders" only.
If the first link in the chain of command is actually a criminal and a traitor who doesn't take his oath seriously, then your oath becomes a sham and it doesn't mean jack. Essentially making you an accessory to a crime. Nearly every military action since WWII has been an illegal one for the simple reason that congress did not formally declare war on those perceived enemies. Now, if they truly wish to legally punish the Syrian government, then Obama should seek a declaration of war from congress and proceed to stomp a mud hole in their asses and walk it dry. This limited engagement crap is just that. Crap. Crap that will only play into the hands of an enemy that has no sovereign borders, no recognized governmental structure and no morals against committing atrocities against innocent people.
I think Al Qaida may be the scum who committed the act against the Syrian population just to push us all into WW III. This will take the pressure off of them and leave them free to continue building their fanatical following.
It could also be Al CIAda pushing all the buttons in an effort to continue the shadow government fear campaign for the purpose of finalizing the takeover of everything.
I don't support resource wars for the rich and infamous. Neither should anybody else. It's clear to me that if you don't do business through the IMF, like Syria, Iran, North Korea, etc, etc then you're just a target.

[Oberon]

Sounds quite familiar to a conversation we had a while ago about moderators.

Uniforms and freedom of expression aside, I do agree with August about the chain of command and following it.
There are not many armies in the world, or history that I'm aware of, where subordinates are allowed to question their orders and refuse them if they do not agree with them. I imagine that such an army, in a protracted war, would disintegrate through disagreements amongst the ranks very quickly. It's about cohesion, rapid response and information overload, as a grunt you're told to go here and shoot this, you don't know the overall reason why you're doing it, although you might periodically get briefings on the wider effort, but the whole key is to just focus the soldier on what he has to do, not to overload him with information that might cause a crisis of decision at the wrong moment. That is one of the things that does worry me about future-tech communications systems, that there might become too much information for a soldier to process in a battlefield scenario, obviously such burden generally falls on the group leader and they are usually trained to absorb the right bits of information, to sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, but it's still a case of fixing something that isn't necessarily broken, although there are certainly some things that would be handy for the average grunt to have (corner-cameras for example) and I'm sure that such things are either in service or being put into service soon. Exo-skeletons will be interesting when that comes about...but I digress.
Back during the Crimean war there was a disastrous cavalry charge straight into a line of Russian cannons which resulted in a third of the cavalry brigade being wiped out. This became known as the legendary 'Charge of the Light Brigade' and it was caused by a communication break-down. Both Lucan and Cardigan knew it was a suicide charge, and that something had gone wrong, but they were bound by orders to do so, and if they had disobeyed they would have been court-martialled and likely executed. As Tennysons famous poem was to put it:

"'Forward, the Light Brigade!'
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldiers knew
Some one had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred."

There have been many instances in history where the strategy and wisdom of commanders have been questioned, only for them to deliver a coup de grace on the battlefield, sometimes it is merely down to the hand of fate to deliver them from disaster, other times there are greater strategic decisions at work, but each time if their orders had been disobeyed then victory or defeat may have stemmed from it.

At the end of the day both gentlemen in the pictures will fight Assad if called upon to do so, or if the gentleman who has hidden his face feels so strongly about the decision then he will refuse orders and accept the punishment that follows and/or resign. Certainly posting pictures like that is not exactly good for the image of his branch of armed forces, but equally it does help to dispel the myth of soldiers being mindless automatons that some people like to believe.
No-one forced that gentleman to sign up, and he should have known that when you sign that paper, you go where they tell you to go, it's not Thomson cruises, it's war, and you're just a very small cog in a very big machine.


(Please note: This is my opinion only, I have not served in the armed forces, nor am I likely to [unless we reinstall conscription, and even then since I'm flat-footed I'd probably wind up somewhere behind friendly lines guarding a depot of toilet rolls] and so, as such, I defer to the more experienced opinion of those that have which may or may not tally with mine.)

[August]

Again Oberon that's assuming he is a real Navy Chief and not someone posing as one to make a political point.

That's the problem with anonymity. I don't know if either man is the real McCoy but at least the one that I posted can be authenticated. How do we determine the authenticity of someone who hides their identity?

BTW 10 points for quoting Tennyson. Good show old man!:)

[Madox58]

Ordered to clear a village is a lawful order.
Ordered to kill men, women, and children while clearing same village is an unlawful order.

It's in the wording/execution of any order as to the lawfulness.

[August]

Ordered to clear a village is a lawful order.
Ordered to kill men, women, and children while clearing same village is an unlawful order.

It's in the wording/execution of any order as to the lawfulness.

Exactly, and refusing to deploy to the village on the chance that one might possibly be ordered to do something unlawful is mutiny.

[Madox58]

Exactly, and refusing to deploy to the village on the chance that one might possibly be ordered to do something unlawful is mutiny.
Missing transport to said area for any reason can be charged as an Article 87

“Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”


(1) That the accused was required in the course of duty to move with a ship, aircraft or unit;
(2) That the accused knew of the prospective movement of the ship, aircraft or unit;
(3) That the accused missed the movement of the ship, aircraft or unit; and
(4) That the accused missed the movement through design or neglect.


Show all the signs you want. Unit moves? You arse BETTER be with it!

[nikimcbee]

Looks like the Syrians hacked Marines.com (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d64_1378130010)

Also saw this image a little while ago...
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/3553/ttxt.jpg
The Chief always knows whats really going on.

Look at all those pretty ribbons.:o:haha:

@ August,
I still remember our conversation of the military today and the number of ribbons given out to people.

See below.

http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/ike1.gif (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=DzVUfkXW_mTh-M&tbnid=aXy2vN2scOxzgM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.democraticunderground.com%2F1 0021844817&ei=3GIlUs2sF8-4qQGsmYHwCw&bvm=bv.51495398,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNGjOz-ujoWH41majpmcCmj1oaUlLA&ust=1378268238000885)

[August]

Yep if it were up to me i'd limit it to three rows of ribbons.

[Oberon]

Well if he defragged his hard-drive a little more often then it'd only be three rows. :timeout:

[Tribesman]

On these photos.
If you sign up but then object, do so within the conditions you agreed to and accept the consequences set out in your contract.
If you think politicians are lying scheming individuals who can send you off on a whim which you may not agree with, don't sign up.

[Mittelwaechter]

Some sign first and grow a brain later.

Some sign and refuse to grow a brain ever.

[Feuer Frei!]

:hmmm::hmmm:

Russian radar detected two ballistic "objects" that were fired towards the eastern Mediterranean from the central part of the sea on Tuesday

No further news...


SOURCE (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-syria-crisis-russia-defence-idUSBRE9820AC20130903)

[Jimbuna]

Bernard!! :o

[Sammi79]

Israeli/US missile test:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/sep/03/syria-crisis-2-million-refugees-live

It's a live stream but check the comment @ 11:28am

[edit] not sure I believe the official line on this, why on earth would you be conducting 'tests' like that without warning anyone?

[Skybird]

Who cares what you give or not Skybird? Like I said your opinion is no more valuable than anyone elses and I say a lot less valuable than the medic in the picture above.
And you have a patent on wisdom and correctness? Hardly. The attitude you show made the Tonking incident, the Vietnam war and the death of over three million people possible. It made the military follow Bush into a war of lies and forged and just claimed evidence, causing the death of 100-200 thousand people in the violence of the following years, although back then already serious questions should have been asked - but were refused to be asked with both Houses failing their duties with flying colours, being drunk by emotions. These two examples are both not any different from the Nazis staging a Polish attack on a German border post to create the excuse for attacking Poland. In thwe following years, the Wehrmacht'S olfficer corps for the most refused to revolt against Hitler, claiming the same arguments like you.

Arguments that have been rejected at the Nuremberg trials, btw. "I just followed orders, I had to follow orders" was often rejected there when the tried war criminals were questioned, afaik.

You deny the duty of a soldier to refuse follow a traitors orders, illegal orders, criminal orders.

And that should be taken serious? You are only about protecting the state-within-the-state-mentality that is inbred in every military apparatus today.

When you sign in, you cannot chose your wars and loyalty to commanders, but you have to obey. In 99 out of 100 cases I totally agree with it, because I fully understand the necessity for this. If you are critical about your leader's motives or do not want to fight in wars, better don't join then. But the precondition for that choice on leader'S motives is to know it in advance. And you cannot know what kind of corps general you get, and many people, apparently especially in America, are trained from schoolyears on to be remarkably uncritical of their politicians and political system, it sometimes crosses the border to brainwashing. So when you join in good faith, and then find out that your leaders betray you, you have not just the right, but the duty to expose them - because you serve not them, but the people of your country who pay your training and your wages and who are the only subject worth to pledge an oath over. If you have a problem with your people as well as with your leaders, like I have today, you better do not join indeed. But that must be known and understood in advance by that 18 year old teenager we are talking about.

And btw, August, since you questioned it, intervention on behalf of the opposition in Syria leaves no doubt about whether AQ is profiteering from it or not. They do, for intervention against Assad hurts AQ's enemy it fights against. And what weakens their enemy, makes themselves stronger. It does not get more obvious than this.

[Skybird]

Now this promises to hold potential for becoming - interesting...

Rifts emerge in Iranian leadership.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article3858973.ece

[Feuer Frei!]

Israeli/US missile test:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/middle-east-live/2013/sep/03/syria-crisis-2-million-refugees-live

It's a live stream but check the comment @ 11:28am

[edit] not sure I believe the official line on this, why on earth would you be conducting 'tests' like that without warning anyone?

Reuters has it up as well now although the article is bad, because it still has Israel being unaware of any missile launch :hmmm:

Strange either way though.

A prelude, testing has begun?

[Sammi79]

Reuters has it up as well now although the article is bad, because it still has Israel being unaware of any missile launch :hmmm:

Strange either way though.

A prelude, testing has begun?

As have the US according the Guardian. Let the speculation begin...

Ok I'll start - Israeli/US missile radar avoidance technology tested [against Russian radar detection technology] and found wanting...

[Betonov]

As have the US according the Guardian. Let the speculation begin...



Russians testing anti carrier missiles but failing. Stating that it was not theirs to avoid the embaresment :hmmm:

[Sammi79]

Russians testing anti carrier missiles but failing. Stating that it was not theirs to avoid the embaresment :hmmm:

Israel preparing to false flag the US again... :hmmm:

[Ducimus]

I'll say it first...this is beginning to look like a big non event and the lunatics have took over the asylum on the world stage.

Should anything tangible happen in the future, near or otherwise, feel free to spank me with a hindsight leaf.

I hope your right.

[August]

You deny the duty of a soldier to refuse follow a traitors orders, illegal orders, criminal orders.

What illegal orders have been given? As far as I know no US service member has been ordered to go fight in Syria for AQ yet so your latest rant against my county is again without form or substance.

And that should be taken serious? You are only about protecting the state-within-the-state-mentality that is inbred in every military apparatus today.

Because I believe a serviceman should not hide behind a mask and make threats to violate his duty? Again what proof do you have that the man wearing the Chiefs uniform is an actual serviceman? Show it to me.

And btw, August, since you questioned it, intervention on behalf of the opposition in Syria leaves no doubt about whether AQ is profiteering from it or not. They do, for intervention against Assad hurts AQ's enemy it fights against. And what weakens their enemy, makes themselves stronger. It does not get more obvious than this.

Skybird:
I don't support intervening in Syria.
I don't support preventing servicemen from speaking their mind.
Verstehen du?

These two examples are both not any different from the Nazis staging a Polish attack on a German border post to create the excuse for attacking Poland. In thwe following years, the Wehrmacht'S olfficer corps for the most refused to revolt against Hitler, claiming the same arguments like you.

Godwins law. You loose. :yep:

[MH]

Israel preparing to false flag the US again... :hmmm:


Another joker...
See... war is fun especially when bored.

Actually it was Israeli missle defence test if it is what the Russians have seen.

[Sammi79]

Another joker....

Actually it was Israeli missle defence test if it is what the Russians have seen.

:D possibly...

[MH]

:D possibly...
Sure...no problem lol
Have fun.

[Sammi79]

Sure...no problem lol
Have fun.

OK MH, It was you who said Joker... no?

Speculation is speculation, If I wasn't concerned with the unfolding situation in the ME, I wouldn't be commenting here. I see no good reason to believe the official line as I stated before. You apparently do, and that's your privilege. What is your reason, if you would indulge me?

[MH]

OK MH, It was you who said Joker... no?

Speculation is speculation, If I wasn't concerned with the unfolding situation in the ME, I wouldn't be commenting here. I see no good reason to believe the official line as I stated before. You apparently do, and that's your privilege. What is your reason, if you would indulge me?
If you don't believe the official lines how com you believe your own rubbish.
Or how come you invent one yourself .?
What you base it on?...long life experience?
Just asking?

[Sammi79]

If you don't believe the official lines how com you believe your own rubbish.
Or how come you invent one yourself .?
What you base it on?...long life experience?
Just asking?

I don't believe it. It is speculation - I believe it is a possibility. If you read my primary speculation;

Israeli/US missile radar avoidance technology tested [against Russian radar detection technology] and found wanting...

Is that not possible/plausible/fit nicely with official lines (albeit slightly twisted)?

Conceded that my false flag speculation seems increasingly unlikely, and I am honestly sorry to upset your sensibilities, but do you seriously believe your government never lies?

We have a saying here; "How do you know when a politician is lying? - the lips are moving."

Is it not interesting that as soon as the Russians announced the detection, both Israel and US denied any knowledge, and the US are still ambiguous 'we never launched it' while Israel now says Israeli/US test. If that isn't cause for speculation I don't know what is. Anyway, as you say, no problem.

[MH]

I don't believe it. It is speculation - I believe it is a possibility. If you read my primary speculation;

Israeli/US missile radar avoidance technology tested [against Russian radar detection technology] and found wanting...

Is that not possible/plausible/fit nicely with official lines (albeit slightly twisted)?

Conceded that my false flag speculation seems increasingly unlikely, and I am honestly sorry to upset your sensibilities, but do you seriously believe your government never lies?

We have a saying here; "How do you know when a politician is lying? - the lips are moving."

Is it not interesting that as soon as the Russians announced the detection, both Israel and US denied any knowledge, and the US are still ambiguous 'we never launched it' while Israel now says Israeli/US test. If that isn't cause for speculation I don't know what is. Anyway, as you say, no problem.

You did not upset me or anything alike.
I'm just curious how certain kinds work lol.

[Sammi79]

You did not upset me or anything alike.
I'm just curious how certain kinds work lol.

Cool.

Nice to talk with you. :salute:

[Feuer Frei!]

So...target practice eh?

Israel's Defence Ministry said that it, along with a Pentagon team, had carried out a test-launch of a Sparrow missile. The Sparrow, which simulates the long-range missiles of Syria and Iran (http://www.reuters.com/places/iran), is used for target practice by Israel's U.S.-backed ballistic shield Arrow

roughly in the direction of Syria :haha:

SOURCE (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/03/us-syria-crisis-russia-defence-idUSBRE9820AC20130903)

Tue Sep 3, 2013 8:31am EDT

[August]

So...target practice eh?

Response test. :yep:

[Catfish]

If you don't believe the official lines how com you believe your own rubbish. ...

Err, what ?
You mean if you do not believe the official lies how can you believe .. in your own .. :06:

[Oberon]

Inverse Godwins law and standard Godwins law aside. The following things are now known.

Obama has changed his langauge from hitting chemical weapons to 'degrading Assads military capabilities', which indicates that he will be looking to hit not only chemical weapons sites and delivery systems but also other key military systems such as command and control capabilities and airfields. This is likely in response to the knowledge that he will not be able to hit mobile launchers and assets so he's focusing on what he can hit with TLAMs and stand off air launched missiles, which is static targets. Senator McCain and another senator seems to have approved this, and it seems that Obama has won over key figures in the Senate.
This has increased the likelihood that the Senate vote, when it goes ahead (does anyone know when that will be?) will grant Obama permission to engage Syria.
The British, meanwhile, will very likely not be coming. Our opposition is trying to backtrack and ask the government under what circumstances it would consider a revote, but the government is not changing its position on the matter, and in a recent poll it was shown that third quarters of all those questioned supported the governments decision not to get involved.
As such, British military officials have been frozen out of the preparations for the strike, because we'd be a security risk otherwise.
The French are still eager to go, Hollande obviously thinks he can get a bit of that Sarkozy spirit, harvesting some successfull poll numbers from military action, however the French public opinion so far runs counter to his expectations.
Israel has launched a missile test in preparation for the possibility that Syria or Iran will retaliate at Israel when the US attacks, and the UN has announced that the situation in Syria has caused the worst humanitarian crisis since the 1994 Rwandan genocide, displacing over two million people.

On the other hand though, with the modern camera technology available and the internet to upload it on, there is a fascinating view of T-72 operations available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWPtiPoGzFw#t=459

As well as the dangers of operating in urban areas without infantry support whilst buttoned up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AevLyTR6lM

Remember, when in doubt, Allahu Ackbar.

[Wolferz]

Forget hitting Assad's junk. Just send the rebels a shipment of CARC and some MOPP gear.:up:

Gas Gas GAS! MOPP four now baby.

[Oberon]

One of these days I will invest in a Wolferz to English dictionary... :hmmm:

[Sammi79]

The British, meanwhile, will very likely not be coming. Our opposition is trying to backtrack and ask the government under what circumstances it would consider a revote, but the government is not changing its position on the matter, and in a recent poll it was shown that third quarters of all those questioned supported the governments decision not to get involved.
As such, British military officials have been frozen out of the preparations for the strike, because we'd be a security risk otherwise.

Yeah that vote went kinda like this:

DC: I want to go NOW!!
EM: Lets get the facts and maybe we WILL go but not yet.
DC: No! I want a decision NOW NOW NOW.
EM: But if you're forcing a decision now then it must be no.
DC: That's it then we're not EVER going ........NEVER EVER EVER.
EM: But I only said we should wait for the inspectors.
DC: WAAAAH! you made me look silly you [expletive deleted], we're never going now and it's ALL YOUR FAULT!!!


Don't you just love our plutocratic ruling class. Petty, self interested, downright amoral and that was on a good day...

[Oberon]

https://sphotos-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/1238122_364202960376378_1187856386_n.jpg

[mapuc]

Why didn't I think of that before !?

You know all this ask the Congress in USA. Ask the Parliament in England is nothing more than a "game play"

Here's the reason
USA and it's allied didn't really know where some of Assad's military stuff where.

They then came up with this idea. At the same moment they placed a satellite over Syria to monitor their movement.
When the go ahead comes they now exactly were most of it are

Markus

[Sammi79]

@Oberon :haha:

My favourite bit is George Osbourne 'Don't worry DC, we can still stick it to them badgers ;)'

though treasonous silver tongued snake oil mans first reply comes close...

[Armistead]

One of these days I will invest in a Wolferz to English dictionary... :hmmm:



I've known him for years and seldom understand him, but Wern usually can translate his gibberish.

[Tchocky]

It's a very poor argument to say we shouldn't do anything now because we didn't act in similar situations in the past.

[Sammi79]

Just heard on Al-Jazeera English live stream, Sweden will grant permanent residency to ALL Syrian refugees who make it there. Can't find a link anywhere else yet it was an interview with a humanitarian worker.

So at least one nation is following a 'moral imperative' as Aktungbby put it.

[Skybird]

One of these days I will invest in a Wolferz to English dictionary... :hmmm:
The new edition has an appendix with Skybird grammar. ;) :up:

[Skybird]

Just heard on Al-Jazeera English live stream, Sweden will grant permanent residency to ALL Syrian refugees who make it there.

...

[MH]

....rabidly militant Israel

If you people keep guns just because someone might steal your TV and deny you watching soap operas or exciting news on Syria wonder how militant you would get in ME east.

Seriously though ...What?



back to headlines....

[MH]

Inverse Godwins law and standard Godwins law aside. The following things are now known.

Obama has changed his langauge from hitting chemical weapons to 'degrading Assads military capabilities', which indicates that he will be looking to hit not only chemical weapons sites and delivery systems but also other key military systems such as command and control capabilities and airfields. This is likely in response to the knowledge that he will not be able to hit mobile launchers and assets so he's focusing on what he can hit with TLAMs and stand off air launched missiles, which is static targets. Senator McCain and another senator seems to have approved this, and it seems that Obama has won over key figures in the Senate.
This has increased the likelihood that the Senate vote, when it goes ahead (does anyone know when that will be?) will grant Obama permission to engage Syria.
The British, meanwhile, will very likely not be coming. Our opposition is trying to backtrack and ask the government under what circumstances it would consider a revote, but the government is not changing its position on the matter, and in a recent poll it was shown that third quarters of all those questioned supported the governments decision not to get involved.
As such, British military officials have been frozen out of the preparations for the strike, because we'd be a security risk otherwise.
The French are still eager to go, Hollande obviously thinks he can get a bit of that Sarkozy spirit, harvesting some successfull poll numbers from military action, however the French public opinion so far runs counter to his expectations.
Israel has launched a missile test in preparation for the possibility that Syria or Iran will retaliate at Israel when the US attacks, and the UN has announced that the situation in Syria has caused the worst humanitarian crisis since the 1994 Rwandan genocide, displacing over two million people.

On the other hand though, with the modern camera technology available and the internet to upload it on, there is a fascinating view of T-72 operations available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWPtiPoGzFw#t=459

As well as the dangers of operating in urban areas without infantry support whilst buttoned up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AevLyTR6lM

Remember, when in doubt, Allahu Ackbar.


Yes- this is one piss game.

[Sammi79]

...

OK some of the papers have it now, Sky.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11119144

http://www.canada.com/news/Sweden+relaxes+asylum+policy+toward+Syrian+refugee s+citing+extreme/8863607/story.html

[Oberon]

OK some of the papers have it now, Sky.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11119144

http://www.canada.com/news/Sweden+relaxes+asylum+policy+toward+Syrian+refugee s+citing+extreme/8863607/story.html

How the heck are the poor sods who cross the border with nowt but the shirt on their backs going to make it all the way across Europe to Sweden if not by a shady man who will stuff them in the back of a lorry and suffocate them before they get there and/or sell them into prostitution when they get there? :hmmm:

[Sammi79]

How the heck are the poor sods who cross the border with nowt but the shirt on their backs going to make it all the way across Europe to Sweden if not by a shady man who will stuff them in the back of a lorry and suffocate them before they get there and/or sell them into prostitution when they get there? :hmmm:

I don't know, but they have ~50,000 already apparently.

[edit] Hey! maybe we could use our army trucks and troops to transport them! or would that be too sensible... :hmmm:

[Oberon]

I don't know, but they have ~50,000 already apparently.

[edit] Hey! maybe we could use our army trucks and troops to transport them! or would that be too sensible... :hmmm:

What trucks? :haha:

[Sammi79]

What trucks? :haha:

We still have horses, right? ... right?

[Oberon]

Kerry - "In the hundred years since we united against Chemical weapons, only two tyrants have crossed that glowing line, and now Assad has become the third..."

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-90yNnVwozio/UKNdS7syvJI/AAAAAAAABNc/fXhWLp1l1ks/s1600/agent_orange_800.JPG

:hmmm:

[Oberon]

We still have horses, right? ... right?

We have more horses than we have tanks - And that's a fact. :haha:

[Sammi79]

We have more horses than we have tanks - And that's a fact. :haha:

Ok then, an emergency conscription of sheep, could carry a small person or pull a small cart...

We have plenty of sheep. (still a bit irradiated granted, but probably safer than depleted uranium rounds)

[Ducimus]

Kerry - "In the hundred years since we united against Chemical weapons, only two tyrants have crossed that glowing line, and now Assad has become the third..."

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-90yNnVwozio/UKNdS7syvJI/AAAAAAAABNc/fXhWLp1l1ks/s1600/agent_orange_800.JPG[

:hmmm:

Come on now, I think it's well established that anything coming out of our talking heads in the white house is a big stinking sack of BS.

[eddie]

I've read stroies about how young Afghans have tried to get out of Afghanistan the same way, paying someone to smuggle them out. Sometimes they are taken as far as across the Iranian border, where they get dropped off and then arrested by the Iranians. Some take months to get to Europe, and when they get there, they expect to get free housing and a job, plus any other benefits they can think of. Problem is, when they don't get what they want, they claim they are being treated unfairly, and start trouble, rioting in some places.

Don't know whether you want to help them or send them back?

[mapuc]

Are in need of help

As many of you may have seen. There is a picture of some officer with some paper in front of his face. This picture have even been posted in this thread

I know it's not real as T. S stated

Many of my friends have shared this picture and I really want to tell them, it is a fake. I know it is. I just can't say why. I could use T.S and Platapus words but would that be enough?

Markus

[Oberon]

Ok then, an emergency conscription of sheep, could carry a small person or pull a small cart...

We have plenty of sheep. (still a bit irradiated granted, but probably safer than depleted uranium rounds)

We'd have to ask the Welsh Assembly for permission to being the conscription, but I think you've got a good idea there.

Come on now, I think it's well established that anything coming out of our talking heads in the white house is a big stinking sack of BS.

You know that, I know that...I guess we'll find out if Congress knows that over the next few days. :/\\!! I think we both know the answer to that one...


I've read stroies about how young Afghans have tried to get out of Afghanistan the same way, paying someone to smuggle them out. Sometimes they are taken as far as across the Iranian border, where they get dropped off and then arrested by the Iranians. Some take months to get to Europe, and when they get there, they expect to get free housing and a job, plus any other benefits they can think of. Problem is, when they don't get what they want, they claim they are being treated unfairly, and start trouble, rioting in some places.

Don't know whether you want to help them or send them back?

Catch-22, of course, some people will state that the best thing to do is send them straight back or put them in camps or something, but immigration is as old as humanity, to them the streets of Western Europe are paved with gold, it is basically the new world for them, just as many saw America, and just like many who went to America, not all of them survive the experience. Unfortunately some nations, such as the UK, are getting to the point where immigration is becoming a social problem, and when that happens you get radicalisation of both sides and bad things occur.
I don't have the answer, but I know that if I was a young Afghan or Syrian who wanted to get away from the bloodshed and fighting, and take my family to a place where everything is supposed to be better then I wouldn't hesitate to get across Europe to the UK or France or wherever.

[August]

Kerry - "In the hundred years since we united against Chemical weapons, only two tyrants have crossed that glowing line, and now Assad has become the third..."

:hmmm:

I dunno Oberon. By that standard the weed killer you use on your crab grass is a chemical weapon.

[eddie]

Are in need of help

As many of you may have seen. There is a picture of some officer with some paper in front of his face. This picture have even been posted in this thread

I know it's not real as T. S stated

Many of my friends have shared this picture and I really want to tell them, it is a fake. I know it is. I just can't say why. I could use T.S and Platapus words but would that be enough?

Markus

This is where that picture came from! Syrian hackers,lol

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/syrian_electronic_army_hacks_marines_54iM0wfTXtgjA ADXQbN4CM

[Jimbuna]

No real surprises there then.

[Oberon]

I dunno Oberon. By that standard the weed killer you use on your crab grass is a chemical weapon.

True, but you spray that on the grass, not on your neighbour. :yep:

[Ducimus]

You know that, I know that...I guess we'll find out if Congress knows that over the next few days. :/\\!! I think we both know the answer to that one...


Idiots. One and all.

Obama gains Boehner's support for Syria strike (http://www.ksl.com/?sid=26701211&nid=757&title=obama-gains-boehners-support-for-syria-strike)

I loved watching the video on that news story, with the two big government statists from the Peoples Republic of California.

We have the best government money can buy; they'll find a way to get us into another war - one way or another. (insert long string of colorful expletives here)

edit:

Secretary of State John Kerry, lead-off witness at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, said, "President Obama is not asking America to go to war.

LYING SACK OF ****.

[TLAM Strike]

The Russians have dispatched another ship to the Med, the AGI Priazovye.

Looks like they are going to get some good old fashion snooping done. :hmm2:

[Oberon]

The Russians have dispatched another ship to the Med, the AGI Priazovye.

Looks like they are going to get some good old fashion snooping done. :hmm2:

Just like the good old days. Wonder how many times F-18s will buzz it? :haha:

[mapuc]

Have any of you wondered what will happen if the Congress turns Obama's demands/wishes down ?

Markus

[Oberon]

Have any of you wondered what will happen if the Congress turns Obama's demands/wishes down ?

Markus

A lot of anger and shouting between both sides, and then Obama will probably bomb anyway.

So basically, business as usual in America. :haha:

[eddie]

I have to laugh at the Syrian Foreign Minister, who says if they are attacked, Syria could lash out at Turkey and Israel. My question for that jerk would be, what kind of response do you think you would get from Turkey and Israel? There aren't a lot of Christians living in either country, so I don't think turning the other cheek would apply in this situtation!:D

[mapuc]

I have to laugh at the Syrian Foreign Minister, who says if they are attacked, Syria could lash out at Turkey and Israel. My question for that jerk would be, what kind of response do you think you would get from Turkey and Israel? There aren't a lot of Christians living in either country, so I don't think turning the other cheek would apply in this situtation!:D

If he do, what do you think could happen next ? Yes Israel and Turkey will of course response, what else?

Markus

[eddie]

Markus, I don't want it to go that far, but the idea that Syria could attack Turkey and Israel without those 2 countries fighting back is ignorant. The Syrian army is in no shape to fight them both. Iran is a lot of talk I think, they are in no shape to fight a war so far away from Iran itself. Hezbollah could be a problem for a while, but without air support, Israel would win in the end.

But as I said, I don't want to see any of this happen. Its just my opinion, means about as much as everyone elses for that matter. None of us really knows how things are going to go over there, just have to wait and see.

[mapuc]

Markus, I don't want it to go that far, but the idea that Syria could attack Turkey and Israel without those 2 countries fighting back is ignorant. The Syrian army is in no shape to fight them both. Iran is a lot of talk I think, they are in no shape to fight a war so far away from Iran itself. Hezbollah could be a problem for a while, but without air support, Israel would win in the end.

But as I said, I don't want to see any of this happen. Its just my opinion, means about as much as everyone elses for that matter. None of us really knows how things are going to go over there, just have to wait and see.


Even I could be wrong. What Syria hopes going to happen when Israel returns fire is that all the other Muslim country will join them and attack Israel.

Most likely scenario:

Some fraction i Syria that support Assad makes some attacks against some area in Israel. The same goes for those fractions in Lebanon

Very unlikely scenario
Assad gives the order to his general...

And you are right, we can only wait and see. I too hope nothing bad is going to happen

Markus

[Skybird]

OK some of the papers have it now, Sky.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11119144

http://www.canada.com/news/Sweden+relaxes+asylum+policy+toward+Syrian+refugee s+citing+extreme/8863607/story.html
Hope you Swedes get happy with them. I know you won't.

Accepting refugees for some time and over a war, is one thing. Keeping them forever and making them your citizens, is a very different thing. And its not as if you do not already have tremendous problems in Sweden with your peaceful ethnic minority that enriches multiculturalism so much.

The netto effect on your population probably is zero, since Jews have started a big exodus from Sweden. Hope the newcomers compensate for the brain drain and good will drain and tolerance drain. :yeah:

[eddie]

Most likely scenario:

Some fraction i Syria that support Assad makes some attacks against some area in Israel. The same goes for those fractions in Lebanon



Markus

I agree Markus, I hope not but no one controls all the different factions in Syria or Lebanon.

[Wolferz]

Ipso Facto

Have a pudding pop.

[u crank]

I agree Markus, I hope not but no one controls all the different factions in Syria or Lebanon.

Some of these factions are considered 'terrorist organizations'. Hezbollah and The Al-Nusra Front, who have strong ties to Al-Qaeda, for example. Funny thing is they are on opposite sides.

Oh....that's a shame.

[Wolferz]

It appears that Obama wants to strike people who are only accused of using chemical weapons.
from a recent MSN article on the subject:
Before his scheduled departure(for the G-20 summit) Tuesday night, Obama urged lawmakers meeting with him at the White House to support his plan to punish Syria for allegedly using chemical weapons to attack its own people.

And they gave this chump a Nobel Peace prize?!?!
I think it should be rescinded.:nope:

[Platapus]

It appears that Obama wants to strike people who are only accused of using chemical weapons.

Good thing we have all these smart weapons that will only kill people accused of using chemical weapons. An accusation is good enough for targeting purposes evidently. :shifty:

[Tchocky]

French and US have released declassified intelligence detailing the accusation.

I'm not saying they're correct - but the picture of blind unsupported accusations isn't correct either.

[Skybird]

The likelihood always was in favor of the chemicals being used by Assad's side, the question was about evidence to prove it (just assuming it is a bit thin for going to a time-limited war), and the question was how it came to it, since, the attack obviously made no sense and was counterproductive for Assad, which gave argument for assuming it could have been the rebels as well - which is another reason why the regime's responsibility must not be assumed, but proven.

However, we can have no interest in helping the rebels' side. If there would be no AQ, djihadists, Iranians and Hezbollah, one maybe would debate the option (and even then I am likely refusing to participate in any strike). But considering the nature and internal battles of the factions forming the rebels' "alliance", as well the as West-hostile stance of the Syrian population, evidence for this or that is unimportant, since it does not change the matter of main concern.

Send the bill for any strike now to the Saudis.

[eddie]

So much for the great air defense system in Syria! What was Syria (or Iran)trying to send to Hezbollah? That's the only reason Israel will strike inside Syria.

"The blasts rocked a large military area in the suburbs of Syria's capital, prompting terrified residents nearby to run for cover.
"Everything kept exploding over and over again," said Anna Deeb, whose family lives just over a mile away. "We could hear gunshots, we could hear people screaming. ... We didn't know what to do, and there was a problem with us breathing because the smoke was too much."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/05/world/meast/syria-violence?SR=DynamicSearchAd

[Tchocky]

Not sure if you meant to post that one. That link is from early May.

[Tchocky]

Well at least they're all taking it seriously

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/the-senates-syria-hearing-live-updates/?id=ed01ca14-222b-4a23-b12c-c0b0d9d4fe0a


http://i.imgur.com/jwedyuy.jpg?1

Senator John McCain plays poker on his IPhone during a U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing where Secretary of State JohnKerry, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey testify concerning the use of force in Syria

[August]

True, but you spray that on the grass, not on your neighbour. :yep:

Well actually depending on the wind conditions at the time your neighbor just might be in your weed killer dispersal zone too.

The point is however that like your weed killer, Agent Orange was deployed to destroy plants, not to injure or kill people. Of course it did turn out to be quite deadly but not immediately enough to be remotely useful as a weapon.

For example it took AO 31 years to kill my father with liver cancer after his exposure to it in 1967 but it didn't stop him from carrying out his military duties or completing his tour over there. It that makes it a weapon it is a damned inefficient one.

[eddie]

Not sure if you meant to post that one. That link is from early May.


Mean't to post a different day,lol

[Tchocky]

New use-of-force resolution introduced in the Senate with a 60-day limit.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/senators-syria-compromise-96234.html?hp=t1_3

[Oberon]

Well actually depending on the wind conditions at the time your neighbor just might be in your weed killer dispersal zone too.

The point is however that like your weed killer, Agent Orange was deployed to destroy plants, not to injure or kill people. Of course it did turn out to be quite deadly but not immediately enough to be remotely useful as a weapon.

For example it took AO 31 years to kill my father with liver cancer after his exposure to it in 1967 but it didn't stop him from carrying out his military duties or completing his tour over there. It that makes it a weapon it is a damned inefficient one.

It wasn't just deployed to strip cover, it was also deployed to push the peasants out of the countryside and into the cities, thus removing the rural support for the VC. So it was designed to attack crops as well as trees, which meant that it was inevitable that it would get into the food supplies of the rural Vietnamese. It also caused mass migration to the urban areas which sparked a housing crisis and created vast slums around Saigon. So it was deployed with full knowledge and acceptance of collateral damage, which is pretty shaky moral grounds, but c'est la guerre.
In regards to your father, he is one of many victims of AO, and it's affects have manifested themselves in different ways, particularly in Vietnam and other areas where AO was used, it may not have been a swift killer, but it had an affect on both the forces handling it, and those sprayed by it.
I'm not judging, the use of AO and whether it should have been used is a debate that will be had for many decades to come, particularly given the eventual outcome of the war, but in my opinion AO was a chemical based deployment designed to disrupt the lives of not just the enemy but innocent civilians, and that makes it a weapon, a chemical weapon, in my eyes at least, and America was not the only one to use it, we did too in small doses in Malaya, and for all I know it could have been that and not the fingerprint dust that gave my grandfather emphysema. In fact, on the quiet, I'd wager that a lot of the tactics used by the US in Vietnam were likely based on tactics that we'd deployed in Malaya under a similar situation and terrain as that which developed in Vietnam.

[August]

We really got to get the log out of our own eye first befor removing Assad's speck!:arrgh!:

So in other words any nation that has done bad things at some point in it's history has to stand aside and let those things continue elsewhere unabated? :hmmm:

[TLAM Strike]

The RAF has sent six Typhoons to Cyprus. (Making the eastern med more heavily protected by the RAF than the Falklands).


The French have sent two Atlantique patrol planes. Mostly likely for SIGINT work but the fact that they are intended for ASW work is interesting (last I check Syria's Romeos were just hulks).

[Oberon]

The RAF has sent six Typhoons to Cyprus. (Making the eastern med more heavily protected by the RAF than the Falklands).

Well, you never know, the Argentinians might try to sneak up on Cyprus whilst using the Falklands as a ruse. :yep::haha:

Ah well, those Tiffies will get a nice ring-side seat to the show, unless Assad invites us in we're not going to be playing this game.

Aaah, looks like HMS Westminster was just passing through Gib, she's playing ASW with the Italians, so Tireless was probably going to be our TLAM boat if the vote had gone through. I imagine she's still in the area, just in case.

[TarJak]

Ah well, those Tiffies will get a nice ring-side seat to the show, unless Assad invites us in we're not going to be playing this game.

That would be the world's shortest phone call.

Assad: Dave mate can you pop over those Tiffies for a bit? The yanks are causing a bit of bother.
Click
Assad: Dave, ...Dave. .. you there?

[Wolferz]

That would be the world's shortest phone call.

Assad: Dave mate can you pop over those Tiffies for a bit? The yanks are causing a bit of bother.
Click
Assad: Dave, ...Dave. .. you there?

Electronic tones followed by electronic voice; " The number you have reached is not in service at this time. If you feel you have reached this recording in error. Please hang up and try your call again."

[Tribesman]

Well actually depending on the wind conditions at the time your neighbor just might be in your weed killer dispersal zone too.

The point is however that like your weed killer, Agent Orange was deployed to destroy plants, not to injure or kill people. Of course it did turn out to be quite deadly but not immediately enough to be remotely useful as a weapon.

For example it took AO 31 years to kill my father with liver cancer after his exposure to it in 1967 but it didn't stop him from carrying out his military duties or completing his tour over there. It that makes it a weapon it is a damned inefficient one.
Oberon is correct.
From the link already posted by Platapus on chemical warfare treaties.
Recognizing the prohibition, embodied in the pertinent agreements and relevant principles of international law, of the use of herbicides as a method of warfare

[Feuer Frei!]

Putin talking tough:


Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned America and its allies against taking one-sided action in Syria.
He said any military strikes without UN approval would be an aggression
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23955655


4 September 2013 Last updated at 08:49



Sidenote:
Russia has suspended missile component deliveries to Syria.


Next we have Reuters:

President Barack Obama won the backing of key figures in the U.S. Congress, including Republicans, in his call for limited U.S. strikes on Syria to punish President Bashar al-Assad

And here is the Draft Senate Resolution:
http://live.reuters.com/Event/Syria_9/87331436

SOURCE (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130904)

Wed Sep 4, 2013 4:44am EDT

[Tchocky]

Putin is also saying he may support strikes based on harder evidence and if backed by the UN.

It may go back to the UNSC after all

[Jimbuna]

I think he'd need to get China to drop their veto first.

[Sammi79]

China wouldn't Veto with solid evidence against Assad I think. They would abstain, as they are pragmatists.

[Tchocky]

I think he'd need to get China to drop their veto first.

In the Russia-China blockage situation, I got the sense that it was really Russia driving it. I don't see China going it alone on a veto if Russia backs action.

Then again, who can tell :)

[Wolferz]

Sure, they're all going to back it because a destabilized ME keeps oil prices up.

The Saudis are probably driving this bus. Leaving the door open for our elected reps to ignore our wishes....AGAIN!:-?
BOB SAGET!

[Ducimus]

McCain needs to freaking retire already. He's too old and crotchety now.

Fox news headline:
McCain Pulls Support for Syria Plan
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/04/mccain-opposes-syria-strike-resolution/

Sounds great right? Nah uh.

McCain, who has long favored stepped-up U.S. involvement in the Syrian civil war, said he opposes the resolution crafted by fellow Sens. Bob Menendez of New Jersey and Bob Corker of Tennessee. The resolution puts a 90-day limit on action and says no American troops can be sent to Syria.

McCain reportedly wants more than cruise missile strikes and "limited" action; he wants to tilt the direction of the civil war. He has, though, said he doesn't want combat troops on the ground in Syria.

What was that old saying.... oh yes..

War is old men talking and young men dying.

This old man needs to retire already.

[Oberon]

War is old men talking and young men dying.

QFT.

[August]

The one thing nobody is talking about are the chances of collateral damage and civilian casualties as a result of an Obama attack. When it turns out that the military installation we thought we were destroying was actually a school for blind crippled orphans I wonder whether we'll be hurting Assad more than he'll be hurting us.

[Mittelwaechter]

Colateral damage? Not with this high precise super just US weaponary.

Al pictures of dead children will be set up, any civilian casualties will be pure Syrian propaganda. Enforced human shields would have to be punished with even more strikes anyway. FoxNews: "Assad kills his people with foreign weapons!"

It was so far no problem and it won't be.

I am the Lord God. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. = Don't trust any other media but our own.

[Wolferz]

Clearly the nuts are running the asylum now.:-?
Aided by a narcissistic president who isn't going to walk his red line statement back to the house for fear of losing face and all of his credibility. Not that he had any to begin with.

Deciding what to have for breakfast is complicated to him...

[August]

Colateral damage? Not with this high precise super just US weaponary.

Al pictures of dead children will be set up, any civilian casualties will be pure Syrian propaganda. Enforced human shields would have to be punished with even more strikes anyway. FoxNews: "Assad kills his people with foreign weapons!"

It was so far no problem and it won't be.

I am the Lord God. Thou shalt have no other Gods before me. = Don't trust any other media but our own.


Getting the western nations to go along with our military adventurism had been so far no problem until just the other day when most of them, most notably Britain, told Obama to take a hike so I am not convinced that anyone would give him a pass if and when a missile goes awry.

I certainly don't expect Fox to be an Obama cheerleader either so maybe you meant MSNBC or CNN. After all they've been carrying his water this long, so why would they stop now?

[Tchocky]

Here's something worth reading.

9 questions about Syria you were too embarrassed to ask - http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/

[Susexx]

Politics fun again, and ordinary people are dying. It is interesting to look at whether the people who voted for Obama? :hmmm:

[Betonov]

Something worth throwing in the journalists face, not reading.

It's written like a travel brochure for Ibiza meant for spoiled teens :down:

[Tchocky]

It does what it says on the tin. Given some of the posts around here it seemed necessary.

[Armistead]

If history has taught us anything it's there's almost always political motive behind the scenes, followed by propaganda by the govt to gain support

[nikimcbee]

The one thing nobody is talking about are the chances of collateral damage and civilian casualties as a result of an Obama attack. When it turns out that the military installation we thought we were destroying was actually a school for blind crippled orphans I wonder whether we'll be hurting Assad more than he'll be hurting us.

Would that make him a war criminal? What about the nobel prize?

I still say, no blood for Syrian oil.

Why would we bomb such a nice guy, he's on facebook.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1FF6vMS6pFA/TeZ4HmwdCrI/AAAAAAAABCw/Rqgl6P57y2Q/s1600/pelosi-assad.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=Ki8sBaprRsbrhM&tbnid=TVDOkH7m-0gHbM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.commentarymagazine.com%2F2012 %2F04%2F02%2Fnancy-pelosi-syria-junket%2F&ei=zoQnUo27K4mPqwHy8IDICA&bvm=bv.51495398,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNG7kuoQSeqzARiOv12_DOU2SpbSzQ&ust=1378407997968935)

Thank you for the donation to my election.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/kerry-assad.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=hZWwXkzGQzQ7OM&tbnid=YTEVrcQcBFm12M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fblog%2F2013%2F 09%2F02%2Fa-picture-is-worth-1000-words-kerry-assads-2009-dinner-date%2F&ei=WYUnUvqfGMz1qAGT_IHgAQ&bvm=bv.51495398,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNH9Fqy_zKVOAvCi376VNd11nWgZxQ&ust=1378408113188385)

"Is this the premium ketchup?"

[Jimbuna]

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/kerry-assad.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=hZWwXkzGQzQ7OM&tbnid=YTEVrcQcBFm12M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fblog%2F2013%2F 09%2F02%2Fa-picture-is-worth-1000-words-kerry-assads-2009-dinner-date%2F&ei=WYUnUvqfGMz1qAGT_IHgAQ&bvm=bv.51495398,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNH9Fqy_zKVOAvCi376VNd11nWgZxQ&ust=1378408113188385)

"Where's your manners?....you have your elbows on the table".

[Oberon]

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/kerry-assad.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=hZWwXkzGQzQ7OM&tbnid=YTEVrcQcBFm12M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fblog%2F2013%2F 09%2F02%2Fa-picture-is-worth-1000-words-kerry-assads-2009-dinner-date%2F&ei=WYUnUvqfGMz1qAGT_IHgAQ&bvm=bv.51495398,d.aWc&psig=AFQjCNH9Fqy_zKVOAvCi376VNd11nWgZxQ&ust=1378408113188385)

"Where's your manners?....you have your elbows on the table".

"I have no need for your arrogant American manners!"

"Well, then it's war!"

[mapuc]

Have to share this funny thing or what ever it is called I guess it is some kind of conspiracy stuff

In a radio show some days ago the host asked som guest if he could give us-the listener where WWIII will start and when

He said of course as sure as Amen in church

"WWII is going to start in middle east exactly in Syria"

The funny thing is that the same person said following many month ago

"WWIII is going to start in South Korea"

No one can predict the future!!

You can from your point-of-expertise give a "story" of what's going to happen if.

Markus

[Stealhead]

The other party is just as guilty.Therefore I trust neither.


http://i1162.photobucket.com/albums/q527/datsun260zyojimbo/diplomacy-rumsfeld-saddam-hussein-reagan-republicans-political-poster-1275483107_zps3fbca14a.jpg~original (http://s1162.photobucket.com/user/datsun260zyojimbo/media/diplomacy-rumsfeld-saddam-hussein-reagan-republicans-political-poster-1275483107_zps3fbca14a.jpg.html)

[mapuc]

Today I have on several walls, seen a ut-video where a spoke man from the White House saying
"White House Admits Assad Not Guilty of Gas Attacks"

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

I have seen this video several times. It looks like some one have cut and paste.


Have now been watching some video from The White house with this spokesman and the voice is different from the video above.


Markus

[TLAM Strike]

Today I have on several walls, seen a ut-video where a spoke man from the White House saying
"White House Admits Assad Not Guilty of Gas Attacks"

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

I have seen this video several times. It looks like some one have cut and paste.


Have now been watching some video from The White house with this spokesman and the voice is different from the video above.


Markus
http://tryimg.com/3/fake.gif

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDkgRBtMJUo&t=3m27s

[Packlife]

No Assad's guilty of the gassing's they know that. I've been watching the hearings yesterday n today, an technically David Cameron's government wanted to help British parliament did. Cameron should of waited an did it like Obama is doing it, w/ better evidence than they had at the time Cameron when he called Parliament back early, if he had waited till now the Brits might be on board. But there are other countries that have said they'll put military asset's in motion if we do, the Turks, the Pakistani's, the French, an maybe the Saudi's. An a bunch of the Arab leagues countries have offered up money an use of their military bases, which doesn't always happen to often for us, usually just the Saudi's an Turks let us use bases. Sound's like Obama is going to start gearing the rebels we like probably the FSA (FreeSyrianArmy) w/ weapons ammo an other supplies they need to fight. An judging by the reactions an comments of the Senators yesterday an the reactions an comments of the congressmen an women, Obama is in good shape I think of winning the vote. Obama's got the support of the big names like McCain, Boehner, Pelosi, Cantor, an now support from both Foreign Relations Committees.

[Ducimus]

Get a load of the Liar-in-Chief:

Aug 2012:
US President Barack Obama in 'red line' warning to Syria over chemical weapons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avQKLRGRhPU)

(He clearly says, "red line, and "my calculus" and "my equation" on the use of Chemical weapons)

Sept 4 2013:
Obama: "I Didn't Set a Red Line' on Syria" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLFoFBrxRTQ)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-s2wF5LBuCco/UPd0WVgtmRI/AAAAAAAAIfo/vKo8icgOHMQ/s200/liar-liar-pants-on-fire.jpg

[Stealhead]

I can not speak for every American but hearing people of many different stripes talking about all this I would say that public support for taking action is very low.

People are tired of war why should we spend more and risk anyway more of our people in anyway and for what really?

To prove a point?

[BossMark]

Syria's President Assad referred to President Obama as weak. Obama is so angry he plans to ask Congress for permission to come up with a good comeback.

[Mittelwaechter]

Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.

“With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”

Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.

“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/?id=e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3


In other words: the US relys on oil from Saudi Arabia and the Saudis want them to pay with an attack on Syria.

Want some oil? Work for it and keep your 'money'!

But let's fool the US folks to make them supportive: "a dedicated Saudi Arabia wants to carry the costs for an full invasion", Mr Kerry tries to sell.

"Hey - if we kick them really hard it's free!"

Rent an US army anyone?

[Tchocky]

In other words: the US relys on oil from Saudi Arabia and the Saudis want them to pay with an attack on Syria.

Want some oil? Work for it and keep your 'money'!

But let's fool the US folks to make them supportive: "a dedicated Saudi Arabia wants to carry the costs for an full invasion", Mr Kerry tries to sell.

"Hey - if we kick them really hard it's free!"

Rent an US army anyone?

No. Not even slightly.

Around ten percent of US oil imports come from Saudi Arabia. That's half of what they import from Canada.

Again, the talk of this all being about oil makes no sense whatsoever.

[Feuer Frei!]

I would say that public support for taking action is very low.

You would be correct in assuming this.

In fact 6 out of 10 US Citizens are against any intervention by the US.

And growing.

6 days ago it was 5 out of 10

[Mittelwaechter]

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm

Saudia Arabia is US second oil importer to Canada.

And this year the import from Saudi Arabia is growing (more than 30% since January), while from Canada the import is shrinking (~ 20%).

Over the past years, the US imported roughly double the amount of oil from Canada in relation to Saudi Arabia.

80 000 to 90 000 barrels (CAN) to ~ 45 000 barrels (SA) per month.

EDIT: Crude Oil only is about 65 000 to 45 000 barrels, over the past years.

[Tchocky]

So Saudi Arabia supplies around 1.5 million barrels annually.

The US consumes somewhere around 18 million barrels annually.

The thesis is not holding up. Anyone claiming that this potential attack is about oil reserves has to provide more than vague handwaving about the Saudis.


Edit - changed days to years

[Mittelwaechter]

If Saudi Arabia doesn't want to accpet Dollars for payment anymore, the US has to compensate in some other way.

Fracking is one choice - or trading military workforce.

Saudi Arabia wants to kick Assad out of the helm.

And they want to kick Iran, just like Israel wants to kick Iran.

[Jimbuna]

It must be nice to have enough money that you can ask what is probably still the most powerful military in the world to do your bidding for you.

[Tchocky]

And if that's what was happening it would be interesting.

The Saudi lobby has minimal influence in the decision making, least of all in countries like France.

[Mittelwaechter]

Maybe Saudi Arabia told the US they won't accept Dollars any longer (let's assume there is an interim arrangement). Maybe even the OPEC considers to end the Petro-Dollar agreement.
Iran is able to sell for Rubel or Yuan - or Indian Rupee, due to the US sanctions. They get real money insted of FIAT Dollars.
If the OPEC or Saudi Arabia would openly claim to refuse the Dollar soon, the impact on the global economy would be serious, not to talk of the impact on the US economy.

So consequently the US tries to become independant from Middle East/OPEC oil.

Don't underestimate the contacts of Saudi Arabia to the US ruling class. They are close since WWII. The Bush family is a good example.
And the Saudis supported the US with thousands of fighters (including Bin Laden), to fight the Russians in Afghanistan.

France is no necessary partner for going in. The US is seeking for support - to legitimize the attack - but it will act on its own if no one joins the force.