Military strikes on Syria 'as early as Thursday,' US officials say

[brooklynite]

Source: NBC

Missile strikes against Syria could be launched “as early as Thursday,” senior U.S. officials said Tuesday as the White House intensified its push toward an international response to the suspected use of chemical weapons.

The “three days” of strikes would be limited in scope, and aimed at sending a message to the regime of Syria President Bashar Assad, U.S. officials told NBC News.

News on the possible timescale for military action followed another round of telephone diplomacy by President Barack Obama, who held discussions with Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and French President Francois Hollande on Monday.

Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday said there was "undeniable" evidence that Syria’s government had used chemical weapons to kill its own people, adding that “there must be accountability” for what he termed a “moral obscenity.”

Read more: http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/27/20209022-military-strikes-on-syria-as-early-as-thursday-us-officials-say?lite

[GeorgeGist]

1. I'm looking forward ...

to seeing the evidence.

[warrant46]

11. USA USA USA !!!

</sarcasm>

[Vinnie From Indy]

2. Will we get another "Syrian" insider like "curveball" this time?

This is madness! Using our military to "send messages" seems like a bad idea.

[Stuart G]

4. War is often a bad idea.

If we "send a message"...it is war. Isn't it?
We attack them, then.....????

[leveymg]

3. If there is "undeniable evidence" it hasn't been made public - secret evidence is deniable.

Sometimes I think those who take Administration jobs are issued special clothes:

[pampango]

7. CBS report: Obama orders release of report justifying Syria strike

President Barack Obama called his national security team together Saturday to talk about the next move in Syria. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper led off the three-hour White House meeting with detailed analysis of the evidence about the chemical weapons attack, the disposition of victims and what the administration now believes is a near air-tight case that the Syrian regime was behind it.

Obama ordered a declassified report be prepared for public release before any military strike commences. That report, top advisers tell CBS News, is due to be released in a day or two.

Obama ordered up legal justifications for a military strike, should he order one, outside of the United Nations Security Council. That process is well underway, and particular emphasis is being placed on alleged violations of the Geneva Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57600171/obama-orders-release-of-report-justifying-syria-strike/

Sounds like a unclassified version of the report will be issued. Whether it will change any minds - one way or the other - is very doubtful.

[leveymg]

9. This is too late in the game. Should have been issued days ago, before military response was

announced.

They are not managing this in a competent way.

[Mojorabbit]

10. Yes. One you are talking military response, the rest is justification.nt

[Coyotl]

20. They CLAIM they have a "a near air-tight case" just like the one they had in Iraq, I guess.

Do you want to go to war and raise gasoline prices to new records based on "a near air-tight case"? You do if you are Big Oil!

[gussmith]

36. A Near Air Tight Case

sounds like a rationalization for action - we need to require international authorization, at the least.

[L0oniX]

30. Well let's just hope they aren't "fixing the facts". Now that's what "hope" is all about. n/t

[pampango]

39. If you equate Obama with Bush/Cheney/McCain, then I see your point.

Personally, I believe any of the latter three would have intervened in Syria months, if not 2 years ago, so I do not view Obama they same way I view them.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. How in the hell can you have 'violations of the chemical weapons convention' if Syria isn't a party

to the conventions in the first place?

How do you violate a contract you never agreed to?

[Nihil]

40. It will be interesting to see ...

> How in the hell can you have 'violations of the chemical weapons convention' if Syria isn't a party
> to the conventions in the first place?
>
> How do you violate a contract you never agreed to?

... how some of the supporters for attacks on Syria will have to twist & turn to avoid
their logic being turned against them simply by substituting "nuclear proliferation treaty"
for "chemical weapons convention" ... oh, and a different country for Syria ...

[AtheistCrusader]

41. And the Anti-Personnel Mine convention. And the Cluster munitions conventions.

Both of which WE are not party to, yet we use those weapons all the time, and both conventions have more than 100 signatory countries.

I see no logic by which Syria's use is a violation of those conventions, that would not also invite people to start bombing us for conventional weapons left and right.

[pampango]

42. Syria is one of 5 countries not to sign and ratify the Chemical Weapons Ban treaty. 189 countries

have ratified it. Syria is joined by North Korea, South Sudan, Egypt and Angola in neither signing nor ratifying it. I was surprised to see that the US has ratified this. (Must have happened before the tea party got people suspicious of UN treaties that restrict our sovereign right to do whatever we want, whenever we want, to whomever we want.)

If that gives Syria, North Korea, South Sudan, Egypt and Angola the moral right to use chemical weapons, in your opinion - then by all means, proceed.

[AtheistCrusader]

45. By itself, it gives us no standing to complain.

There are OTHER protocols Syria is a party to that might be actionable, if we can show things like the deliberate targeting of civilians.

But yes, Syria has the moral and more importantly the international law 'right' to make, keep, and use chemical weapons.

[pampango]

47. I disagree that any country has the moral right to use chemical weapons.

The 97% of the world that deems their use to be immoral has the right to hold the remaining 3% to that moral standard.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Similar numbers ban the use of land mines and submunitions.

Who do you advocate start bombing us for our continued use of both, for treaties we have not signed?

The US maintained that these weapons were humane up till about 1930, almost used them in Korea (Thank Freeman Dyson for us NOT using them) and we are still destroying our stockpile today.

You might say it's immoral on principle, but in doing so, you'd probably have to say that about war in general, and not just how the Syrians conduct it. We are just as guilty.

[snappyturtle]

5. Which senior officials? WHO IS RUNNING THINGS! nt

[L0oniX]

29. Goldman Sachs. n/t

[FirstLight]

6. so basically

they are gonna do what they want and we just get to sit back and watch...


I am so sick of this shit

[arewenotdemo]

48. So am I, FirstLight.

Obama acting as judge, jury and executor. Like Bush before him, and plenty of others before that.

He didn't get Congressional approval for bombing Libya, killing Gaddafi, and turning that nation over to jihadists.

I'll admit that I could be wrong, but I still believe his rebels are the perps here.

Various reports have them acquiring sarin and planning just such an operation.

[pipoman]

8. IOW...all eyes off TPP, we want to pass it quickly in the dark of night without

pesky oversight and public knowledge..

[freshwest]

12. NATO is a force to be reckoned with. IDK why Assad has done anything he's done for many years.

[SylviaD]

17. You have a problem with ArcticDave's post or assertions? Because I don't, not anymore. n/t

[SylviaD]

14. War with Syria? Really????!!

I can't wait for the administration apologists and lackeys to start their defense of this reprehensible course of action.

I am so disappointed in Obama, Kerry, and everyone else involved in this.

This is unbelievable, Bush-era bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[L0oniX]

28. Watch out! The DU jury pool is tainted with worshippers. n/t

[David__77]

38. It hasn't happened yet.

But it would be an impeachable offense and act of treason to commit to war against Syria. But, again, this could be media wishful thinking.

[SylviaD]

58. I agree, if I stood against Bush in this I must stand against Barack Obama as well. n/t

[davidpdx]

67. Let me get this straight

You are saying if Obama orders any military intervention he should be impeached. Is that correct?

How about Biden? Remember he has stated his unwavering support for the use of military assets against Syria. He may not be able to order the troops to action, but he is agreeing with it.

[heaven05]

16. uh oh!

here we go again.

[snooper2]

19. Can we get Israel to do it

That way the middle east can have their final full fledged holy war over mythical beings and we can be done with it?

[Victor_c3]

21. .

[IMG][/IMG]

[HardTimes99]

69. America, Fuck Yeah! - nt

[mountain grammy]

22. A military response to the "indiscriminate killing of civilians."

would result in the indiscriminate killing of civilians.

[snappyturtle]

43. Amen. nt

[cpwm17]

57. That pretty much sums it up

[Agony]

62. ...and kill their rescuers, a la double-tap. : [

we have proven ourselves capable of this with drone strikes and the killing of rescuers as documented in Collateral Murder.

even...as some here claim it is legal in war to do what we have done... like wtf?

[Alamuti Lotus]

63. Yes, but it'd be the US doing it now--it's special

There's a deal that American churches worked out with the big guy: anybody killed by American bombs goes straight to heaven. Unless they're Muslim, in which case they're still dead and basically jolly well fucked. But there might be a few small handfuls of cash handed out to the survivors, so it's still OK!

[area51]

23. No. Fucking. Wars. n/t

[Democrats_win]

24. Hey Kerry, what happened to the new apollo project?

Kerry, didn't you learn your lesson when you voted for bush's wars? America has bigger problems and shouldn't get involved in yet another Middle East war. We need to get off of big oil. Democrats, especially, should understand that big oil is the enemy of the American people and democracy.

Detroit? Education? Why not spend the billions of dollars it will cost to wage war on Syria to help America first?

Yeah, yeah, I know we need to show Assad that he can't use chemical weapons especially since he was warned before. But why not get a broad coalition to run this new Middle East war. And while you're at it, have Saudi Arabia or Dubai pay for it. You know, those extremely rich countries? Or better yet, lets call the whole thing off.

[grilled onions]

27. If We Were Total Solar...

What excuse would we have to invade other countries?

[gopiscrap]

25. Why now?

This shit has been going on for a long time? Why now? Because we were about to cut back on the military, what a convenient time to ratchet up the fucking war machine. Can't have the military industrial complex go with out now, can we?

[snappyturtle]

44. That and we have that NSA thingie going on no one wants to

talk about.

[L0oniX]

26. Will that be enough time for the media to get setup over there?

Can't wait to see the first round of explosions in hdmi. pffft Mean while ...when are we going to stop using cluster and phosphor bombs?

[BuelahWitch]

32. Ooh yeah, big ratings! Whoopee!

Too bad they didn't get it done in time for August sweeps.

[Snake Plissken]

31. This is a really dumb move

why the administration waited until after Labor Day to try to sell the American people on military action against Iraq

"From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

Andrew Card White House Chief of Staff (2001–2006) and head of President George W. Bush's White House Iraq Group

[heaven05]

33. ????

war and rumors of war.

[iamthebandfanman]

34. Did folks on DU

oppose our actions in Libya ?
I honestly wasn't coming on DU very much at the time and don't remember.

was just curious, given all the people shouting war and what not.. (which it isn't)...

[Ash_F]

49. See post #46

It was pretty divided...

...between the people that actually did their homework and the people who watched a lot of TV.

[treestar]

56. In fact, when it first started

in Libya and Egypt, there were DU posts condemning Obama for not doing anything to support the People fast enough. These people were overthrowing dictators, and Obama should have been helping them. He did not speak in support of their aims fast enough, either.

[The Stranger]

35. Channeling George W. Bush

I'm simply at a loss for words.

I thought we had sat movie before and wanted leave after the first five minutes.

[Ghost Dog]

59. ¡!

[Ash_F]

46. Victory by Monday!

Jumping into a fight without any clue of what is going on there, just like Libya.

Did you know a large portion of Libya's population is Black? Did you ever wonder why there were never any Black Libyans in those propaganda videos we kept seeing while they were trying to sell us the war?

This is why

That was the side the US government took without any kind of provisions regarding human rights

And here we have anther civil war where one side is homogeneous and the other side is multiethnic and the US is ready to jump in again without any kind of stipulation towards their behavior towards minorities.

[ZigZag11235813]

51. who did it

a collection of current vids of the rebels http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/evidence-syrian-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-not-assad/

[alp227]

55. Why are you using phoney baloney Walid Shoebat as a source?

http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2008/wndshoebat.html

[kiranon]

52. War - No. Have UN go in and secure chemicals and dispose of them.

Blame no one - just have everyone help in getting the chemicals out and disposed of. This is a "Jimmy Carter diplomacy" approach. Believe Russia and China will agree to this. Sending in bombs/missiles will be a disaster.

[Ghost Dog]

60. Oh, Yes.

But that would be just too all-round reasonable, wouldn't it.

Just like political anarchism (my preferred alternative) itself.

[ConcernedCanuk]

53. "strikes would be limited in scope" - that's comforting . . .

.
.
.

Never killed/maimed innocents in Iraq

never killed innocents in Afghanistan

I'm feeling all fuzzy warm now.

If Obama allows this,

my respect is gone.

eom.

CC

[maxsolomon]

54. Strikes in Serbia were limited in scope

and they stayed that way. Did you lose your respect for Clinton?

[Ghost Dog]

61. They took out the Chinese Embassy and three journalists, though.

... On May 7, 1999, during the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (Operation Allied Force), five US JDAM guided bombs hit the People's Republic of China embassy in the Belgrade district of New Belgrade, killing three Chinese reporters and outraging the Chinese public. According to the USA, the intention had been to bomb the nearby Yugoslav Federal Directorate for Supply and Procurement...

/... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._bombing_of_the_Chinese_embassy_in_Belgrade

Edit: I mean, certain limits may be intended; but such matters do have a tendency to get out of hand...

[maxsolomon]

64. a obvious, albeit fatal, error versus stopping a genocide with air power alone

i think clinton would make that choice again.

it is possible to limit military action. it happened in libya. it happened in serbia. obama is not bush - he's not an incautious dry drunk.

[ConcernedCanuk]

66. I really did not pay too much attention to the Clinton Administration

.
.
.

Was not overly aware, nor concerned about World affairs much before Idiot-son's invasion of Iraq.

As I get older, my priorities and interests change, as I suspect they do for many others.

I do think however, that Bill getting impeached for a BJ was a little ridiculous.

Idiot-son got away with flat out slaughter IMO.

And USA's citizens are suffering for that.

$$ could have been spent on the poor,

instead of that insatiable war-machine.

World respect for the USA declined also.

GeeDubya most certainly was,

The Worst President Ever

IMO

CC

[hug the earth]

65. Then comes the flowers and chocolates?

It will be over quick.
Now where have I heard that one before!

[Tx4obama]

68. Kick n/t