Syria conflict: 'Chemical attacks kill hundreds'

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by eddie

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

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

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

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

[mapuc]

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

To those people I say do not fear

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

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

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

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

That's what going to happen

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

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

That's the most plausible outcome.

Markus

Originally Posted by August

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

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

[Mittelwaechter]

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

http://www.stripes.com/news/middle-e...nsing-1.236246

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

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

Meant to add this link in the above post:

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

[Ducimus]

Well, foxnews isn't exactly encouraging.

US prepares to bypass UN on Syria response

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

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

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

[Tchocky]

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

Most convincing so far has been the "do-nothing" course as advised by Yglesias
(bold is mine)

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

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

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

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/op...ml?ref=opinion

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

Some nice untangling of the legal issues at stake.

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

[Ducimus]

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

[Platapus]

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

Meshuggeneh is Yiddish for a crazy lady

Meshuggener is Yiddish for a crazy man

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

Who ever first made this poster is a Nebish.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Platapus

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

Who ever first made this poster is a Nebish.

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





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

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

[Platapus]

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

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

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

Smart money is betting no on both.

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

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

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

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

[Tchocky]

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

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

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

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


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

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

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

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

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

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

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