Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Oberon]

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

So...yes...

[Oberon]

Obama due to make a statement in a few minutes.

[CaptainHaplo]

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

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

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

Didn't he complain about the same thing?

Originally Posted by Packlife

This is nothing like 2003, in 03' they were talking about weapons that nobody knew where they were an they hadn't been used in years.

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

[vienna]

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

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


<O>

[andritsos]

Lets hear the Obamatalk

he ll seek authorisation in congress it seems

[Oberon]

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

[eddie]

Its the right thing to do, let Congress debate.

[Platapus]

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

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

There is still a lot that does not make sense.

[vienna]

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


<O>

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by vienna

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


<O>

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

[CaptainHaplo]

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

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

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

[vienna]

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


<O>

[Wolferz]

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

[CaptainHaplo]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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

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