Americans Say "No" To U.S. Involvement in Syria- Despite Chemical Weapons Used by Government

[Benvolio]

You are baffling yourself. I said nothing about Obama being bound not to attack. Sorry you cannot understand what I actually did say.

 

[Rolyo85]

You should be sorry that you can't express yourself properly. Please explain this:

Assad got away with it this time. Obama is desperately grasping at this straw as a way to get out of his corner. He will not attempt to go beyond huffing and puffing again. Assad and Putin are having a good laugh at our "community organizer" LOL.

What I read in this is that since Obama didn't resort to violence this time, he will somehow be totally afraid to do anything again. If I am wrong, feel free to make your points more coherent, so that others beside you can know what you post here.

 

[Jack Springer]

And if the president carried out the strikes you wouldn't be howling for his impeachment? It's a good thing he isn't striking Syria, and hopefully he still won't. But now the Russians want to impose conditions on the Obama Administration, most notably to foreswear the use of any military option to get the Syrians to comply with dismantling their chemical program. [Text: Removed] NOTHING has been resolved as of yet... if your instincts are to celebrate that the day has been saved with a cynical assist from Putin, maybe it has... I repeat I don't want strikes because it will make things worse, and as much as I think Obama is way out of his league I don't want America stained with yet another military intervention gone to shit. Of which the complications could be made infinitely worse with chemical weapons and a country falling apart in the mix. But I am sick to death of know it all progressives lording it over the plebes and it would be nice if the humility Jack may not have would at least be present in you and all those here on the left whose positions are as equally strident. Aren't you supposed to know better there are few issues that are black and white, that most are shades of grey?

People are acting like there is a resolution to this mess that Obama created. Russia will make it impossible to negotiate a deal or the USA will cave and accept a deal that binds us from doing something in the future.

Obama has been indecisive during this entire mess (I don't know what to call it other than a self-inflicted mess by Obama). People around the world are now laughing at Obama and looking to Putin as the possible new world leader. Like someone said on the news this morning "I miss when we lead from behind".

If Obama would have done something at the beginning I think most Americans would have supported him. He talked, drew red-lines, and did not work to build a coalition of countries. He focused on social issues. He sits alone.

Bob thinks I hate the President ... I don't. I think he's not prepared to be POTUS. Maybe if he had a little more experience in something other than the classroom and community organizing.

 

[justdra]

If he would acted at the beginning, he would be attacked for acting prematurely, he is the leader, he is going to piss off someone no matter what he does. I wish we would get our asses somewhere and sit down and stay out of everyone's business. Al Queda already done what they set out to do, they couldn't beat us in war but they damn sure made sure we spent every penny we had fighting them and their "ghost". We just got our hands in everybody's pocket and we wouldn't give a damn about Syria if it wasn't something in it for us. May as well get ready to start sending home body bags because I don't believe for one minute there will be no feet on the ground. People get killed and die everyday in the same manner across the world, we cant' beat everybody's ass.

 

[palbert]

There is a certain amount of Madeleine Albright's

What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?

To Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the 1990s, on Bosnia, recounted in Madam Secretary (2003), p. 182

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Madeleine_Albright

in this Syria thinking.

 

[palbert]

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has documented 110,371 casualties since the beginning of the uprisings in March 2011 through August 2013.

http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=736&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.Ui_isuDpbA4​

Today's UN Commission of Inquiry reports on the Syria carnage:

Bolstered by weapons and money from regional and global powers waging a proxy war, Syria’s government and rebel forces have committed murder, torture, rape and indiscriminate attacks on civilians, without fear of future punishment, the panel, a Commission of Inquiry that was expanded last fall, said in its latest report, to be presented to the United Nations Human Rights Council here in Geneva on Monday.

The report was careful to hold both sides responsible, but the unevenness of the conflict — with heavily armed government forces battling rebels with scanty, sometimes homemade arsenals — was evident. Of the nine mass killings the panel investigated for the report, eight were attributed to the government side and one to rebels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/w...cites-evidence-of-war-crimes-in-syria.html?hp

The Report:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/12geneva-doc.html (42 pp.)

 

[Kulindahr]

It would appear that Assad's air force has been testing defences at a UK airbase in Cyprus from which American aircraft could launch operations against targets in Syria. The two Syrian air craft involved would make formidable adversaries:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/syrian-warplanes-flee-after-testing-2259425

The craft would make formidable adversaries?

No, the aircraft are just tools. The adversaries are the ones flying the craft. And I highly doubt that Assad has been budgeting enough for pilot training and drill that any Syrian attack on a British base would be more than some tense target practice.

 

[Kulindahr]

The Wizzard has a good point, Obama could be looking for a congressional get out of jail free card so he does not have to act.

As far as the country forces being smart enough not to attack Jordan, Israel or what not?? They are not the forces I consider the most likely to carry out such an attack, however with no government control in the vast region of Syria, the likelihood of a rogue agent is all that more likely. Look at the gas attack and its possible origins. Anarchy is just that.

Syria isn't an anarchy, at least not its government, it's a feudal state with modern pretensions.

 

[Kulindahr]

great move by the Russians... if Syria destroys its chemical weapons and the US loses all reason to engage Syria militarily, the Russians and Iranians can continue supporting their man Assad.

all options at this stage are bad, but that's slightly less bad than getting entangled in the Syrian civil war ourselves.

Just to clarify what you're talking about here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24053918

 

[Kulindahr]

France is also participating to ensure that Assad's chemical weapons are destroyed:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24031203

LOL

The moment I heard about it I figured France would jump in.


It's an interesting play, if it really was a play: Kerry pretends to daydream out loud, the Russians grab the idea and make sure everyone knows about it and urge the US to go with it, Obama gets and out from having to face his own music, and of course the French can be counted on to jump in with support.

Kerry gets to look good, Russia looks civilized, France gets publicity (and photo ops), Obama can hand out compliments to all and sundry for a great solution to a crisis. Assad looks more like a statesman and less like a barbaric dictator.


It seems a bit too tidy to be accidental.

 

[Kulindahr]

Assad gets to keep his chemical weapons, and Obama gets off the hook and will claim a victory. Putin gets the real victory. Sure, they will pretend to negotiate a surrender of the weapons for 20 years or so, but there is no reason for Assad to stop using them again, since he knows the West will dither at best.

No. It's not behind the realm of possibility that Assad is behind the proposal -- it goes like this:

Obama is demanding bombing -- just a few (hundred) cruise missiles. Some of Syria's neighbors are adamant enough about it that if the US doesn't go ahead, they may. Half the country is in rebel hands, and it's a stalemate that favors those rebels. The longer it goes on, the shorter Assad's prospective lifespan looks to be. So . . .

The order was really given by the brother, and big brother is pissed at him for all the trouble. So he whispers to an aide to whisper to one of Kerry's aides that he wishes he didn't even have any weapons, especially since his brother can't be trusted not to use them. So Kerry mentions that if any existing weapons could just be rounded up, Assad would be off the hook. Putin agrees, which sends Assad the message that this will be taken seriously, and France is all ready with a U.N. resolution, which lets Assad know he has everyone's gratitude.

So the UN accepts the idea, NATO and Russia together send in forces to collect all those weapons (the US providing logistic support only), and while they're there, a group of French commandos spirit Assad out of the country, so he can retire in Dubai with a few billion in his pocket. Once everyone notices he's disappeared, Obama gets to step forward and urge a political process to pick a successor....

 

[Kulindahr]

To up the ante, Syria has now pledged that if the plan to collect and destroy their chemical weapons (which they attribute to Russia) is carried out, they'll sign the international treaty on the matter:

"We want to join the convention on the prohibition of chemical weapons. We are ready to observe our obligations in accordance with that convention, including providing all information about these weapons," Moualem said in a statement shown on Russian state television.

 

[palbert]

Why has no one asked AIPAC when Israel will ratify (it has signed) the same Convention?

Israel is thought to be a world leader in CW research and to have one of the world's largest CW inventories.
http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/israel/chemical/

Syria has asked for it. http://www.jta.org/2013/09/12/news-...srael-should-destroy-its-chemical-weapons-too

 

[kallipolis]

No. It's not behind the realm of possibility that Assad is behind the proposal -- it goes like this:

Obama is demanding bombing -- just a few (hundred) cruise missiles. Some of Syria's neighbors are adamant enough about it that if the US doesn't go ahead, they may. Half the country is in rebel hands, and it's a stalemate that favors those rebels. The longer it goes on, the shorter Assad's prospective lifespan looks to be. So . . .

The order was really given by the brother, and big brother is pissed at him for all the trouble. So he whispers to an aide to whisper to one of Kerry's aides that he wishes he didn't even have any weapons, especially since his brother can't be trusted not to use them. So Kerry mentions that if any existing weapons could just be rounded up, Assad would be off the hook. Putin agrees, which sends Assad the message that this will be taken seriously, and France is all ready with a U.N. resolution, which lets Assad know he has everyone's gratitude.

So the UN accepts the idea, NATO and Russia together send in forces to collect all those weapons (the US providing logistic support only), and while they're there, a group of French commandos spirit Assad out of the country, so he can retire in Dubai with a few billion in his pocket. Once everyone notices he's disappeared, Obama gets to step forward and urge a political process to pick a successor....

Dubai is Sunni thus, view Assad as an enemy...Assad would be much be safer exiled in Iran.

 

[Kulindahr]

Dubai is Sunni thus, view Assad as an enemy...Assad would be much be safer exiled in Iran.

Dubai is money....

 

[kallipolis]

Dubai is money....

Assad has bags to spare....in exile he needs protection, easily offered in Iran.

Far too many Westerners living, and working in Dubai.

 

[Sausy]

I'm wondering how long the Assad regime really has. After reading that link about David Polk's perspective on the Syrian situation he is presiding over a basket case. Lack of food and water from drought. The rebels are not going away and a bloody stalemate even with Iranian and Russian aid is all that appears best option for him. I don't know if he's playing games about his seriousness about giving up his chemical weapons but he and the Russians cannot in all seriousness say we must NEVER consider the possibility of force or totally withdraw our support for the rebels. Those demands are nonstarters. Is his brother a wild card, would he turn on him for giving up Syria's chemical stash, if indeed it is a serious consideration? This whole thing is still very far off from any resolution that can result in the world exhaling in relief nothing worse happened. And there still is what are the Iranians ultimately going to do amidst all this uncertainty?

 

[kallipolis]

^I have visited Damascus twice over the years for work purposes and noted that the Russian influence is all too persuasive at Syrian government level. The Russians have always wanted a Mediterranean naval base, after President Sadat kicked them out of Alexandria, Egypt leading me to believe that should the Russians decide that they really have no good reason to retain their naval facilities in Syria the Assad regime will collapse rapidly after the withdrawal of Russian support. The Iranians also provide Assad with valuable assistance but may well decide that after Russia's departure Assad's days are numbered.

 

[Sausy]

^I have visited Damascus twice over the years for work purposes and noted that the Russian influence is all too persuasive at Syrian government level. The Russians have always wanted a Mediterranean naval base, after President Sadat kicked them out of Alexandria, Egypt leading me to believe that should the Russians decide that they really have no good reason to retain their naval facilities in Syria the Assad regime will collapse rapidly after the withdrawal of Russian support. The Iranians also provide Assad with valuable assistance but may well decide that after Russia's departure Assad's days are numbered.

Thanks kallipolis... definitely a quandary. Hitting Assad hard with cruise missiles would have just brought total chaos, with chemical weapons still available to whomever could procure them first. Now a slower but probably no less inevitable a collapse will occur. Key is even if the Syrians give up their chemical weapons, the war with the rebels will go on. Are we certain that the rumors the rebels may have chemical weapons and have been using them to discredit the Assad regime are indeed just that? Just still way too many troubling questions and scenarios though thankfully, at least for now and the short term at least there won't be a cruise missile barrage which undoubtedly would have speeded things up for a terrible conflagration to occur.

 

[rareboy]

I'm wondering how long the Assad regime really has. After reading that link about David Polk's perspective on the Syrian situation he is presiding over a basket case. Lack of food and water from drought. The rebels are not going away and a bloody stalemate even with Iranian and Russian aid is all that appears best option for him. I don't know if he's playing games about his seriousness about giving up his chemical weapons but he and the Russians cannot in all seriousness say we must NEVER consider the possibility of force or totally withdraw our support for the rebels. Those demands are nonstarters. Is his brother a wild card, would he turn on him for giving up Syria's chemical stash, if indeed it is a serious consideration? This whole thing is still very far off from any resolution that can result in the world exhaling in relief nothing worse happened. And there still is what are the Iranians ultimately going to do amidst all this uncertainty?

The Assad regime will implode. The question is whether Assad cares about how he is ultimately executed.