If Obama does not get authorization to use military force,and the U.N. confirms use of Gas.by.......

[busterbrown]

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 06:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Assad....He should consider other non high profile operations (Bin Laden Capture) to stop the madness.
A military strike now could lead to massive retaliations and who actually knows anything certain about the rebels, although a good guess is that many of them are enemies of our Country..

The important thing to remember is that most of the blame for the horrendous situation in Syria, and generally the Mid-East is a direct result of the Fat Ass Countries of the West and their Colonial Imperialist policies over the past several hundred years..

This thing is gonna get worse and the way Obama handles this will hopefully be a useful template for all the troubles that are gonna come down the pike in the next several decades..

This is very scary stuff..

[99th_Monkey]

1. I think the ME as a whole is getting fed up with US military firepower

enough already.

[busterbrown]

4. That means enough with MIC...Not gonna happen..

Stocks of Raytheon have jumped since talk of a U.S. attack began..

[jakeXT]

2. They have been funding them for a long time

That is a dilemma that concerned the US government even before the protests began. The author of an April 2009 cable expressed concern that some of the projects being funded by the US, if discovered by the Syrian government, would be perceived as "an attempt to undermine the Asad [sic] regime, as opposed to encouraging behavior reform."

The Post reported that much of the money – as much as $6 million since 2006 – has been funneled through a group of Syrian exiles in London, known as the Movement for Justice and Development. The group is connected to a London-based satellite television station that is broadcast in Syria, known as Barada TV, which has recently expanded its coverage to include the mass protests.

Several other civil society initiatives in Syria received secret US funding, but by 2009, US officials were concerned that the Syrian government had discovered the US funding. The Post was unable to confirm whether programs are still being funded, but cables indicate the funding was planned at least through September 2010.

http://m.csmonitor.com/World/terrorism-security/2011/0418/Cables-reveal-covert-US-support-for-Syria-s-opposition/(page)/2

[busterbrown]

7. Most exile groups from Middle East don’t have a history of being helpful to bringing peace

to their home country... It is usually all about the money..Iraq and Afghanistan might be good examples..

[NuclearDem]

3. So, if Congress says don't do it, just do it so quietly we don't get caught.

That worked out well in Nicaragua.

[meow2u3]

5. He can always send in covert operations

The CIA ought to do what the military isn't allowed to do.

[NuclearDem]

12. No, no, no, no, no, no.

That sort of shit is why we're dealing with so much chaos in the ME already. Ajax and Cyclone.

Covert CIA action would have even more disastrous results than open military action.

What in the flying fuck is happening here? Support for ignoring the UN, ignoring Congress, ignoring international law, and for allowing the CIA to run wild?!

[meow2u3]

18. He'd have to get the OK from the UN

Either that, or have NATO or the UN do the peacekeeping, just to keep civilians from further WMD attacks.

[Crimson76]

6. I have lurked here for years, but I am so livid.

If you believe that Syria is a threat to civilians, call the lazy fucks back tonight, don't lollygag. Either Assad is a direct threat and needs to be removed or he isn't.

[busterbrown]

8. Direct threat to who? Certainly not the U.S. correct? n/t

[Crimson76]

10. To anyone

If they think he is going to use chemical weapons on his own people. Why not call congress back? and don't tell me he can't, if he wanted to he could. I have not one clue why this is happening now, why now?

[busterbrown]

13. I feel Obama is trying to push back on his “Red Line” comment...

This I think is why he isn’t calling them back immediately...Gives him more time to evaluate a very very sticky situation..

[Crimson76]

15. Personally, I think he is hoping that the congress will bail him out, one way or another.

[busterbrown]

17. Exactly!!!

He saw those horrendous pictures of the children, was reminded by republicans of his “Red Line” statement and felt he had to act..

Just maybe on the other hand, politically he made himself look impetuous and knew Republicans would jump all over him...Wise move... He put it back all on them..

[Crimson76]

19. The Republicans

Other than those maniacs Mccain and Graham, I have very little idea where they stand. Are they on the side of war in Syria, the rebels aren't exactly America's friend, or do they hate they President so much that they will use this as the ultimate final fuck you, that scuttles the rest of the Presidents time in office.


Also a question, is the congressional vote on this Syrian strike before a joint session or does it have to go through different houses.

[busterbrown]

21. My feelings.. McCain strays once in a while because of senility. Graham not so much.

I’ll tell you this however: The Republican’s strategy is only one play...Let Obama play his hand then screw him anyway possible. Today Obama is holding 4 of a kind..not a royal flush but close.

[kentuck]

9. President Obama and the entire intelligence committees understand....

That there are gangs running loose in Damascus. Some of them are alleged to be Al Qaeda? Whether true or not, Assad has a very tenuous hold on Damascus. Where are the elections when you need them??

Furthermore, any replacement for Assad may be even worse. Due to his questionable strength as a leader, it might not be wise - indeed a gamble - to hurt his chances of taking back Damascus from the rebels...

[MADem]

27. The USA has always favored a Yemen Solution for Syria.

They don't WANT "regime change."

They want "Assad change." The regime stays, he goes.

They've been talking this up for two years, now, at least.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. If congress says no, that should be the end of it.

[busterbrown]

14. Exactly..and the “Red Line” comment fades away...n/t

[reformist2]

16. Yep. Simple as that. The power lies with Congress, NOT the Prez.

[kentuck]

20. It will be an interesting vote if...

...Boehner allows it to happen.

This is Obama's legacy - not the ACA.

Then if the Congress votes for it, then he should ask his military, as the Commander in Chief, if the mission is possible? Then, as President, he will follow their wishes.

If they vote no, he should be willing to abide by the wishes of Congress. That would mean that he has willfully agreed to give executive branch power back to the Congress. That is what the Constitution intended.

[MADem]

29. The military has already said they can do it. The plans have already been vetted.

Remember, this is not a sustained operation, this is a two to three day mission to deprive al-Assad and his slaughter-happy brother of some of the tools needed to put chemical weaponry on target amongst their own civilian population. That is the scope and limitation of the mission.

No "boots on the ground," no aircraft within the borders of Syria. It's a very constrained scenario, both in scope and timeframe.

[kentuck]

33. I am very skeptical that it is that predictable.

Under no circumstances do you envision Syria or one of its allies of retaliating in any manner? We may look at a cruise missile attack as just a surgical strike- not a bomb. They may look at it in a different manner?

It is difficult to burn the fuse just up to the edge of the keg. If we did bomb them, who would it help the most? In my opinion, it would help Assad. As usual, it would draw the support of the people toward him, as the one who stood up to the Great Satan.

[MADem]

35. I'd love to be looking over someone's shoulder and seeing the targeting list.

The objects of the mission, from what I understand, are these:

-It's punitive.
-It's designed to deprive al-Assad of some (not all) assets and methodologies to use CW.
-It does not target personnel, either military or civilian.
-It will last for forty eight to seventy two hours, tops.
-It won't involve any servicemembers' going in harm's way, or entering Syrian airspace.
-It's not expected to "solve all problems." It's more about inflicting some retaliatory pain, with a goal towards deterring CW use in future.

It's hard to point to damaged "stuff" and cry. Sometimes, those macho guys don't want to admit that they did such a lousy job preserving their toys either--it makes them look weak. They'd prefer to say "Ehhh, I didn't even feel it!" (while pleading with Pootie for more stuff)...

[Crimson76]

23. If Congress votes No, it's the effective end of the Presidency of Barack Obama.

I hate to say it, because I donated money to him, that I didn't have in '08. But to be voted down by Congress about a war 80% of Americans don't want. I am watching all the cable channels right now, and it sounds like the circular firing squad has already commence.

[Warren Stupidity]

34. I don't see it that way at all.

If congress votes no the administration can walk away from a vastly unpopular war. Any bad outcome is then congresses fault.

[busterbrown]

37. Huh?

I think Obama set up the Republican’s in Congress like Hymie Roth did to the Corleone family..
He will prove that gas was used by Assad. He advised Congress to strike back and they vote no?
We walk away and the horrors continue....and you think the people will blame Obama?

Republicans are war mongers and everyone knows that. If this was a Republican Administration there wouldn’t be 5 republican’s who would sanction an attack...Some of the true Libertarians.. Maybe, but very few..

Dems...are considered much more flexible when saying no to war.. Only Dems voted against Iraq war so when and if many Dems vote no.. It will be expected....

[David Krout]

22. I think you meant "and if the UN investigation confirms the White House allegations"

on the facts about the chemical attack.

Once we add that, I agree with your overall point.

[busterbrown]

24. Done...Thanks

[David Krout]

25. Cool. Good thread nt

[MNBrewer]

26. The UN will not confirm the use of gas by Assad

It will only confirm the use of gas.

[busterbrown]

30. You know I heard that too. On an MSNBC interview..

However I hard the contrary as well. I wish the Media would get that part straight..
Any others have info on this?

[KittyWampus]

32. that's what I thought too BUT >>>>>

Charles Duelfer was a top U.N. inspector in Iraq during the 1990s. After the U.S. invasion in 2003, he led the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, which continued to look for weapons of mass destruction. He's author of "Hide and Seek: The Search for Truth in Iraq."



JEFFREY BROWN: What will that tell you? And will it tell you about who used it?

CHARLES DUELFER: If it is a sophisticated kind of a rocket or an artillery shell, such as the Syrian army would have, you can tell.

There's different reservoirs for the components of the sarin gas if they're there which are made to mix when it's fired. They're able to look at the type of gas, the sarin gas. Some of it is more sophisticated than others. For example, if it were just made up by insurgents, an ad hoc group, as some are suggesting as one alternative, they wouldn't have something called stabilizers or preservatives in it.

Serious Syrian army stuff has been on the shelf for a long time. It's like Wonder Bread. It has got something in the agent which will keep it active for years.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, come back to the intelligence community. And I say that because the British intelligence just put out a report today saying it is highly likely that the regime was responsible for the chemical weapons attack on 21 August.

Based on?

CHARLES DUELFER: Presumably, the British and Americans have very similar sets of intelligence. They have got presumably agents on the ground. Presumably, they can hear what's going on.

One would think that the NSA, which is so prominent in the news these days, is listening carefully to the types of communications going on. Now, that communication can sometimes be ambiguous. But if you put all that together, it can clearly point in the direction of one actor in this, and I think there's probably, as has been said, the preponderance of evidence, public or nonpublic, does fall on the side that it's the Syrian government that did this.

JEFFREY BROWN: Now, the important context here, of course, is what happened in Iraq, where you were involved, where you looked at what happened afterwards. To what degree has what happened there affected how these kinds -- how this kind of work is done?
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec13/syria2_08-29.html

[pampango]

38. Exactly. There is a separate UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria to determine guilt.

If they do find evidence, what will it mean?

Any confirmed use of chemical weapons is of course very serious. The use of such prohibited weapons would be a serious violation of international humanitarian law and constitute a war crime. (As is the deliberate targeting of civilians using weapons of any kind.)

However, the mandate of the UN Mission is just to determine whether chemical weapons were used, not to identify the perpetrators.

So what can the international community do if they do find proof that chemical weapons were used?

The UN-mandated Commission of Inquiry on Syria must be allowed access to Syria to assess who was responsible for the attack, as well as to investigate other ongoing allegations of crimes under international law being committed in the context of the armed conflict. Given that the Commission of Inquiry has been denied permission to enter Syria since it was set up in August 2011, the UN Security Council should demand that the Syrian government and opposition forces allow it access to territory under their respective control and co-operate fully with its inquiries. All other governments should use any influence they have with the parties to the conflict to support this demand.

As Amnesty International has been repeatedly calling for, the UN Security Council should also refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court to ensure accountability for the use of chemical weapons and all other war crimes and crimes against humanity.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/MDE24/043/2013/en/6f93cf47-5adf-4b7f-ac2a-1ec57261dcca/mde240432013en.html

[MNBrewer]

28. To be clear

are you proposing that US troops be sent in to capture then assassinate Assad and dump his body in the ocean? or something else?

[busterbrown]

31. Good Point...Easier said than done...

However.....Assad dis not attack the U.S.

[Jesus Malverde]

36. UN mandate is not to assign blame for the use of chemical weapons only that they were used.

Their mandate has them compromised and hamstrung as objective parties.